Clearly, you don't understand that the money in the GI Bill has no government strings attached to it dictating which school a discharged Marine may attend and choose to use his post-employment contractual benefit. You do realize that folks who join the Marines sign contracts for an agreed time in service and attendant post-employment benefits, which include continuing education, don't you? (no, I guess not.)
The government cannot prescribe a curriculum for a GI Bill outlay nor can it dictate a thing to the school about to what curriculum it may apply. It is no different than any employee severance benefit one might receive from any private place of employ.
Please feel free to send your son anywhere you want.
He is sending himself. The USMC employed him and the USMC will pay his benefit as contractually obligated to do so for honorably discharged Marines.
Can you back up your allegations and inuendos about Hillsdale?
I let you go to Hilldale's site yourself and do the educational comparison shopping. Since the evidence is right there for you or anyone to read, one may easily determine for themselves that there is little difference in costs charged by Hillsdale than are charged by other schools.
I didn't say the education at Hilldale wasn't good. In fact my son would have gone there if he could have used his post-employment contracted benefit to do so. But he can't so he'll continue the studies he's already started at UCONN.
For how ever good the school may be, what I haven't heard is Hillsdale being able to say on behalf of itself that its historic post-academic job placement success of its graduates is any better than it is at any of its competitors.
Conservatism delivers more for the buck. It's up to Hillsdale to be an example of that by practicing what it preaches, and demonstrating that the value of education obtained there has a dollar value on the outside far and away better than its competitors.
Do the math. If a state school charged $30K and Hillsdale charged $10K, and the placement rate of the State school is 50% and Hillsdale by comaprison was 90%, who would win the academic and philosophical argument about whether throwing money at education delivers a better outcome? I suspect Hillsdale would be enrolling more students and selling more "product" than its competitors, would be bursting with applicants, would have more locations nationwide than does University of Phoenix, and the tide of the whole debate would change overnight.
They are not at this time prepared to lead by example and are at present content to charge what they do presumably without direct government support, but they charge as much as any other government supported institution does, so they are at this point just living off the cream of the built-in education system $ inflation.
No philosophical or moral high ground is being secured there, and the debate about the value of higher education only continues.
FReegards!
