I was reading some comments and ran across a statement that "The GI Bill paid for itself many times over".

At first, this seemed rather stupid. The GI Bill brought in no money at all. It was a wealth transfer from the tax payers to the universities and nothing more. There is no way it could have conceivably paid for itself, as it was never meant to be a money earning venture.

Of course the poster had nothing of the sort in his mind. Instead he was engaging in a standard liberal tactic of distorting a normal word, using a fuzzy definition to make it seem one thing happened when another did. He meant something along the lines of this: "By allowing so many to go to college, the GI Bill raised earnings in the US, making all of us wealthier and thus "paid" for itself many times over." Ignoring for the moment that this use of "paid" is quite different form the one used by everyone else on earth, the question remains whether or not the rest of his claim is true. Did the GI Bill (and other college-favoring schemes, such as student loans) make us wealthier? Are they even a good idea?

First, let us just get past the obvious complaints with student loans, GI Bill and other financial aid schemes. It has been said over and over, and seems to be well known among most who follow such news, that whenever student loan caps increase, tuition increases by a similar amount. The same applies to a lesser degree to targeted aid, such as the GI Bill. In other words, when the government provides money for tuition, the colleges absorb that money and still charge the students what they would have before. So, in reality, aid does not help offset the costs of college, but represents nothing more than a transfer of wealth from tax payers to the universities.

However, let us ignore that for a moment, and postulate that university subsidies do work as advertised. Do they do any good? Did the GI Bill make the US wealthier and our population better educated?

Well, let us look at something completely different for an answer. At the moment, Rolls Royce produces a fine car, well crafted and outrageously expensive. But let us assume the state decides to fund a "Rolls Royce for Vets" program. They pay 99% of the purchase of a Rolls Royce for every veteran who wants one. What would happen?

Well, Rolls Royce cannot supply that kind of demand at the moment. Used to a demand of maybe 10,000 per year, they now get 1,000,000. So, how do they cope? They lower standards, cut corners, and start turning out a car comparable to a Honda or Ford, rather than a Rolls Royce. Oh, standards may rise a little as they get used to the demand, but not much. And why should they? If the buyers paid the full cost, they would demand high quality. As they are paying only 1%, there is no reason for them to complain. They are still getting much more for their money than they should.

And that is what happened with the universities. For, while they pretend to be "above material concerns" universities are businesses like any other. When all that GI Bill money became available, the universities lined up to receive it. Where, before, the high costs meant they could be very selective, the new funding meant they had a larger pool, but also that they needed to lower admissions standards. And if they wanted to get all 4 years worth of money, they also had to retain those students, so they lowered the grading standards as well.

Now, I am not saying vets were dumber than the general public, just that if you admit 10,000 you have to be less selective than when you admit 100. And, with the huge volume of GIs, each carrying a check from Uncle Sam, the universities were eager to let in every last one. So, inevitably, standards declined, and declined rapidly.

The results are all around us. Where, in the 1930's a bachelor's degree was relatively unusual, and qualified one for management, today a bachelor's is almost what a high school diploma once was, and qualifies one for only the lowest of entry level positions. By diluting standards in pursuit of money, the colleges have reduced the worth of the diploma. And, as a corollary, we have entered an age where we expect everyone to attend college, making a bachelor's degree not a certificate of accomplishment, but a bare minimum for employment.

In short, by throwing money at education, the government did not make everyone wealthier and better educated. Instead they diluted the worth of the college diploma, and only managed to make education a longer and more costly process, with four years of college providing less education than high school once did. Which should have been obvious to anyone who thought about it for some time. But, sadly, when it comes to "good deeds", such as giving people "access to college", thought is a rare commodity, and good feelings win out.

If ever we manage to destroy this nation it will probably not be due to war or dictatorship or revolution, more likely it will be due to one too many governmental good deeds.