While many books have been written about sports including college sports, there are a few that I found interesting for their background about the origins of the modern college sports “game” and its current state of commercialization.   John Thelin’s  A History of American Higher Education is a fairly comprehensive book about the origins and development of America’s colleges and universities.  In a chapter entitled “Alma Mater,” Thelin outlines major developments during the 1890’s to 1920, a time period that he calls the “age of university building” and the “golden age of the college.”  During this period, going to college became “fashionable and prestigious” and the national media covered the daily life of a college student in the same manner that the lives of the rich and famous are covered today.  During that period, university colors and mascots were conceived and adopted and the role of alumni associations and fundraising became very important.

Originally, intercollegiate sports were run by the students.  The coaches were unpaid seniors or graduate students and the athletic association funded the cost of team sports through the assessment of student fees or donations.    During this critical period of 1890 to 1920, the focus shifted from student-run to professionally run under the auspices of an athletic director and professional coaches.  Thelin provides a glimpse of how corporations and/or alumni contributed to the funding of the programs and how the professors were left out of the circle of power regulating the activities of athletics.

Carlisle vs. Army, written by Lars Anderson, covers the same time period in college athletics as Thelin.  Anderson, a writer for Sports Illustrated, chose to focus his book on college football, more specifically a game in 1912 between the Carlisle Indian School and West Point.   Anderson’s narrative focuses on the development of Jim Thorpe and Dwight Eisenhower as students and football players and the professionalism of Pop Warner, Carlisle’s coach, who was one of the innovators and pioneers of modern football.  The book is a very interesting read for anyone familiar with the story of Jim Thorpe and his athletic successes including winning the Pentathalon and Decathalon at the 1912 Stockholm Olympics.  The book is also successful at outlining some of the major events that changed college sports and why (Theodore Roosevelt’s summoning of the major college presidents to Washington to discuss the deaths and injuries of student athletes, the creation of the NCAA in 1906, etc.).

Derek Bok, former President of Harvard, addresses the commercialization of college sports in his book, Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education.  Bok states that college athletics are the “oldest form of commercialization in American higher education.”  He also provides some interesting insights into the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the NCAA as well as the difficulty college presidents have in controlling the spiraling costs of athletics as well as the constant pressure on coaches and athletic directors to win.  Bok also cites the dismal academic performance of recruited student athletes, the relaxed admissions standards for athletes at public and private universities, and their graduation rate that is lower than that for non-athletes.  Bok portrays the costs of all but the most successful programs as an example of commercialization attempts by colleges and universities that do not provide the payback originally intended.

I enjoy watching college sports and have purchased season basketball tickets to Maryland and Duke men’s basketball games.  Watching is entertaining.  When I think about the complexity of the underlying athletic enterprise including facilities, fund raising, recruiting, etc., I am grateful, however, that “our athletes don’t play games” at AMU and APU.

In America, we are transitioning the leadership of our government which we have done every four or eight years since 1792.  This year, the voters wanted change.  The Obama administration has promised change while facing the formidable challenges associated with stepping into the leadership role of the world’s largest economic engine during a global and domestic economic crisis which is unprecedented since the Great Depression.  By all accounts, the situation has not reached its bottom and it will be years before we climb out of a trough created by our own hands.   Even worse is the knowledge that many of the “solutions” may be politically inspired and not the “best” solutions for the situation.

Higher education has not escaped the challenges created by the recent economic downturn.  Public universities, funded primarily by states and municipalities, are impacted by the declining sales and property tax revenues which put pressure on funding to the public institutions.  Already, some states have announced large tuition increases for next year while cutting or holding flat the level of funding.  Private institutions, particularly those not able to claim medallion or elite status, are bracing for a possible downturn in admissions while experiencing a downturn in endowment earnings.  These economic issues have surfaced after the Spellings Commission issued its report stressing a need for higher education to improve access, affordability, accountability, and quality.

We are fortunate at the American Public University System.  Jim Etter, our founder, passionately believed in the need to provide an affordable education to members of the military and public service communities.  He also believed that we should be accessible to anyone who graduated from high school or who had a G.E.D.  In order to provide an affordable education while offering access to all, we chose to deliver our classes online.  Our online platform has provided us with the capability to expand our program offerings without having to build physical infrastructure such as classroom buildings, dormitories, dining halls, and athletic facilities.  It has also allowed us to maintain our undergraduate tuition at the same reasonable level for approximately eight years.

We strive for continuous improvement of our institution.  In 2007, we participated in the National Survey for Student Engagement, the Transparency by Design initiative, and The Higher Learning Commission’s Academy for Assessment of Student Learning.  Internally, we conduct reviews of a third of our undergraduate and graduate programs every year.  Annually the numbers of graduates of our programs increase over those from the year before, a statistic that we are proud to publish.

Colleges and universities have complexities based on the rules of accreditation and regulations of the states in which they operate.  Changes in both are inevitable as are changes in the marketplace.  Managing through change is easier when you have a sound mission to follow.  Our mission, “to educate the nation’s military and public service communities by providing respected, relevant, affordable and student-focused online programs…” keeps us focused on access, affordability, and quality.  We look forward to serving our students, current and future, in 2009 and beyond.

This proposal correctly cites the number of Americans studying in higher education programs. However, the figure of 18 million includes a significant number of part-time, working adults (36% of all undergraduates and 61% of students at two year institutions), and historically, the part-time working adult cohort has been excluded or overlooked by many higher education lobbying efforts. Regrettably, this letter, although widely endorsed by a great number of reputable associations, is no exception.

Part I relating to student aid is a request to increase the maximum Pell Grant award by 15 percent.  This is a laudable request, particularly since part-time students enrolled at least on a half-time basis are eligible for the Pell Grant program. The suggestion to increase the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (SEOG) also appears to be both reasonable and appropriate.  I suggest that Congress consider an alternative to extend Pell Grants to less than half time students.  Recent IPEDS data suggests that only half of America’s college students graduate in six years. Half-time rules are designed for the six year degree completer, but if we are not meeting the needs of half of the population, we should evaluate changing the system design.

The second part of the letter relating to Infrastructure Grants seeks to establish a Higher Education Infrastructure Block Grant (HEIBG), the proceeds of which would be used to rebuild infrastructure at non-profit higher education institutions. These allocations would be based on full-time students residing within the state in which the institution receiving the grant is located.  I have two issues with this request, the first of which is that the allocation of money is based on full-time students.  The clear implication is that the substantial number of part-time students and the many institutions that serve them do not do not warrant consideration, much less inclusion, even though their numbers are included in the 18 million figure used to justify the six percent request. Unless a way is found to include institutions that serve part-time students, this aspect of the proposal is fundamentally flawed. 

The second issue is that the request is limited to infrastructure initiatives at non-profit institutions only.  This is a unfortunate oversight that fails to account for the fact that for-profit institutions are engaged in providing comparable educational opportunities to learners as do their not-for-profit counterparts, and they provide those opportunities “on the ground” as well as online.  Moreover, for-profit institutions pay income taxes, property taxes, and a myriad of other taxes and fees, with the not-for-profit institutions often being the beneficiaries of those taxes, as well as from tax deductible donations from their alumni.  It would seem that a strong case could be made in support of the proposition that if the government funds the reconstruction of buildings on non-profit campuses, those building should go back into the property tax pool so that taxpayers can be repaid.  Furthermore, given the fact that accredited, for-profit institutions pay property and income taxes, why should they be excluded from participating in this grant program, particularly since the government will quite likely receive a meaningful return on its investment in the form of additional revenue resulting from higher property taxes and/or income taxes? 

Part II is also troubling in that it indicates that money for these grants should be allocated to the states based on full-time enrollment, while suggesting that the governor of each state should allocate the money according to full-time equivalent (FTE).  The latter metric makes much better sense than does the former, but regardless, the proposal should have avoided the inconsistency between these two accounting methods.  I also endorse the suggestion that priority should be given to sustainability and green building projects. In summarizing my position regarding this section, I would reiterate  my original recommendation, which is to avoid excluding those sectors of the higher education community that were an inherent component of the algorithm used to justify the proposal.

Part III of the letter is entitled “Additional Student-Centered Recommendations,” and it deals primarily with student loan issues.  While I agree that some of the suggestions may provide a measure of student loan relief, I am concerned that this section is not, in fact, student-centered.  We do not have a student-friendly higher education environment when the FSA regulations and the actions of institutions themselves have increased the rate of tuition at more than twice the rate that the average family income has increased during the past ten to fifteen years.  Higher education should be affordable, but for many families at the lower end of the economic ladder, it is not. I would propose that funding benefits be granted to students who attend institutions whose tuition and fees are less than the federal loan limits.  This approach would increase the support to this population while limiting or reducing the loan obligations that are both a deterrent to pursuing higher education and a burden if pursued. Admittedly, this recommendation carries with it the implication that colleges and universities will need to do a much better job of  managing their costs in order for their students to maintain their eligibility for such grants While loans are necessary, non-subsidized loans are a disadvantage to all, and the less indebtedness   that a student must bear upon  graduation from college, the more likely he or she  will be financially able to spend their earnings on a house and other economy-stimulating goods and services.

One of the merits of our higher education system is that there are options for everyone.  If the fifteen association signatories to this letter would presume to speak for the broad, inclusive spectrum of higher education, they would do well to reconsider some of the fundamental elements of this proposal. Failing that, they should candidly acknowledge  that while their proposal accounts for a substantial sector of the 18 million higher ed students, it does not come close to accounting for the entire cohort. Having clarified that point, the authors need to choose between making their proposal all-inclusive, or reducing their funding recommendation by a factor of one third.

Chuck Resor of Jackson Hole, Wyoming invented FlashMaster after becoming frustrated with other educational technologies.   The short biography provided on the FlashMaster website states that Chuck’s most relevant qualification for inventing the product is that he is a parent himself who also struggled with how to most effectively supplement the math training his own children received.  He hired an engineering firm to craft his concept and a Chinese manufacturing firm to build it.  The gadget is a little bigger than a Nintendo DS and probably not as much fun.  However, for those of you who think that today’s elementary school programs do not teach the basic fundamentals of math (math facts) and whose children do not respond well to flash cards, this is the tool for you.

FlashMaster comes with an instruction booklet; but it is written for teachers and parents.  On the front page, the guide recommends that the device be handed to children to learn as much as they can about how it works without reading the directions.  There are nine levels each of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.  You can set the level of difficulty for each as well as the time that you want to answer all thirty questions at each level.  The problem is displayed on a screen and you type in the keys corresponding to the numeric answer.  If you get an answer wrong, a little beep is registered and the question is automatically stored for a review at the end.  You can also change the format of your question from straightforward (1+2 = ?) to (? + 2 = 3) or (1 + ? = 3).  At the highest level and the shortest time, you really have to know your math facts to answer thirty multiplication and division questions correctly.  There’s even a memory function that allows the student or the student’s teacher or parents to review which questions the student missed while using Flashmaster. 

Our girls enjoy using the device and challenge each other with how many questions they could answer correctly in a sixty second, 150 second, or 180 second time period.   I am confident that they will improve their math facts while playing with the Flashmaster.  I am not related to Chuck, do not know Chuck, and do not have a financial relationship with Chuck.  Chuck, many thanks for inventing this device.  I wish that I had.  I think it is one of the best tools for improving basic math skills and I think we need millions of them in America, particularly in elementary classrooms.

Silverstein and Fiske believe that the trading up phenomenon is positive and is driven by middle class consumers who are aware of the price/value ratio of what they are purchasing.  Furthermore, they state that so many middle class consumers are able to afford premium goods that the conventional wisdom of “higher price, lower volume” does not follow the trading up phenomenon.  Instead, the middle class consumers have a stronger emotional attachment with their luxury purchases than with other goods.  That emotional attachment is why they choose to ignore the mid-price product.  Silverstein and Fiske believe that the consumers have no desire to purchase a product that offers “neither a price advantage nor a functional or emotional benefit.”

I have revisited Silverstein and Fiske’s book in reviewing the current economic situation as it relates to higher education.  It is my belief that their theory of consumer behavior can be applied to higher education.  For the most part, the elite schools in America are the luxury item.  They can charge what they want and despite leading the country in pricing, their applications increase year after year while their enrollment is generally maintained at a steady level with little increment.  Demand clearly exceeds supply, but for the most part, these schools have slowly increased enrollment, obviously much less than demand and less than how a traditional business in a competitive marketplace would respond to market demand.  Fewer than 8 percent of all college students attended the 99 highest priced colleges in 2007-2008 (source: http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas/index.asp where I queried the database for a list of colleges and their Fall 2007 enrollments with tuitions equal to or greater than $33,000 in 2007-2008.  NCES is a database maintained by the Department of Education.  Searching it can be frustrating to a beginner.)  A lesser percentage of students attended the 30 or so schools referred to as the “medallion” schools.

On the other hand, according to the College Board’s 2008 report, Trends in College Pricing, over 56 percent of all college students in 2007-2008 attended an institution whose tuition was under $9,000.  These colleges are generally not selective.  Most of these schools are public institutions, but a few are private and a few are even for-profit.  For the most part, their mission is to provide an affordable education to all.  A recent article in the New York Times explores the potential impact of decades of rising college costs.  The article cites the biennial report of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education stating, “…published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, adjusted for inflation, while median family income rose 147 percent.”  Even more astounding is the net cost of college (tuition, room and board and fees less scholarships or grants) as a percentage of median family income.  Last year, a four year public university was 28 percent of the median and a four year private university was 76 percent of the median.  Sadly, the cost of a community college education as compared to the median family income of the lowest 20 percent rose from 40 percent in 1999-2000 to 49 percent last year.  That’s not surprising when you look at the aggregate tuition increase versus the average family income.
 
Families and students have been borrowing money to finance these increases in tuition that have outstripped their wages and income and the current economic situation will certainly cause some of them to review those decisions, most likely impacting the fall of 2009 enrollments.  Early this week, an article in the Greentree Gazette cited CNN as stating that the average graduate of a four year school leaves with $21,000 in debt after completing college.  That looks like a large number given the current economic outlook.  Given the “trading up” versus “trading down” phenomena, I am guessing that even more will “trade down” or possibly defer a college education if it is perceived as too expensive for the benefit.

The current economic pressures will impact most of higher education with a few exceptions.   Because of a continued demand for the “best” education, the medallion schools will continue to see high levels of applications.  My prediction is that the combination of tougher borrowing standards, lower home equity values, and higher unemployment will influence the decisions of college consumers to “trade down.”  I don’t think that the schools whose tuitions range between $9,000 and $33,000 will be favorably impacted unless it is at the lower end of the tuition scale.  I believe that many consumers who conclude that their ability to be admitted to a medallion school is slim to none will sharply analyze the benefit of paying higher tuition versus lower tuition and will “trade down.”   The unknown part of the equation will be the impact of the economy on state budgets and the states’ contributions to higher education.  Some states may choose to reduce funding which will force the state colleges and universities to either increase tuitions at rates that may make them unattractive or may choose to restrict admissions as the Florida system did in the fall of 2008.  If the number of lower priced institutions is reduced, that could push some students out of the college attendance decision, at least temporarily.

If you have any thoughts about this, I would enjoy hearing from you.

I believe that my grandmother viewed holidays as the opportunity to bring her family back together.  It did not matter that she had to coordinate the logistics of preparing food for over fifty people at a time; it was a labor of love.  Her daughters and daughters-in-law would bring dishes or specialties; and the grandchildren/cousins would sample them.  One year, I remember gathering a healthy helping of what I presumed to be mashed potatoes only to find out that it was mashed turnips after taking my first bite.  I always asked after that.  After dinner, some or all of the forty plus cousins would gather for a football game or kick-the-can.  We could usually count on a younger uncle or two to join us.  Philosophically, I would not say that those were “the best years,” but those years have a fond place in my heart and in my memories.

Fast forward thirty years and I am married with twin daughters, Grace and Sarah.  My wife, Sharon, is one of six children.  Since her father retired and moved south twelve years ago, we (okay, I should not take the joint credit as Sharon does most of the work) have hosted her family at our house for Thanksgiving.  Depending on college schedules, marriages, births, etc., the attendance ranges from thirty-five to forty-five people.  While we do not live on a farm and there’s usually not a traditional football game, the cousins seem to value their times together as an extended family.  As an adult, I find that one of my more interesting observations every year is how much my nieces and nephews have grown physically and matured since the previous gathering.  I generally avoid thinking that the same is true about the adults; at least the aging part.  I still learn, laugh, and share good times with my in-laws and nieces and nephews; just sometimes from a different perspective than many years ago.

Enjoy the holiday season and if you are able to find the time to visit, call, or write your family, enjoy that time as well.

Chip Heath is a professor of organizational behavior at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.  Dan Heath is a consultant at Duke Corporate Education and is a co-founder of Thinkwell, an enterprise dedicated to figuring out how to build a textbook without text but with using videos and other technologies.  Chip’s research led him to wonder why urban legends and conspiracy theories had a way of spreading around socially, “sticking” so to speak.  Dan’s research at Thinkwell led him to conclude that the best professors and lecturers had a similar way of conveying the point to their students and classes.  Being brothers with a keen interest in education, the two decided to write and publish this book.

The Heaths have developed six principles for sticky ideas.  The principles are:  Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness, Credibility, Emotions, and Stories.  They even created an acronym for remembering the six which is a Simple Unexpected Concrete Credentialed Emotional Story (and that spells SUCCESs).  The book is organized around the six principles through six chapters plus an epilogue.  They even have a theory that proposes that too much knowledge can ruin the stickiness of an idea.  That theory is called the Curse of Knowledge and is highlighted in the six chapters.  An example they give of a SUCCESs concept is President John F. Kennedy’s goal to “put a man on the moon and return him safely by the end of the decade.”  The idea was simple, concrete, and an emotional story.  It also didn’t allow the clutter of knowledge to distract from the goal.  As we know, Kennedy’s goal was accomplished in July of 1969.

Dan and Chip provide great practical examples of how enterprises of all kinds manage to invoke some of these principles.  One of my favorites is the example of the Army’s planning process called Commander’s Intent (CI).  It’s a short statement that appears at the top of every order and is designed to make sure that everyone knows the basic intent of the mission.  That concept is stated another way in their book, “no plan survives contact with the enemy.”  I liked Made to Stick when I bought the first edition and I haven’t had a chance to read the latest which is available at Amazon.  If you’re short on time, I recommend reading the introduction and the first chapter which is about the Simple principle.  That’s about 60 pages of reading, but the foundation for keeping a valuable principle in mind for planning in any enterprise.  When I find the time, I’ll read the new version and provide a short update on the additional chapter.

There are some interesting trends described in this year’s report that show positive government support of higher education.  For example, over the past decade, there has been a 78% increase in the use of federal Pell Grants to fund higher education.  Since Pell Grants do not require repayment, they offer an obviously ideal opportunity for students.  Unfortunately, many students do not qualify for Pell Grants and have to use federal and private loans to pay for their education.  The percentage of students at elite institutions who qualify for Pell Grants is often 10% or less.  A much higher percentage of community college students qualify for Pell Grants than at other institutions.  The report also calculates the benefits received from education tax credits.  These credits have increased 86%, from $3,791 per student during the 1998-1999 academic year (the program did not exist prior to 98-99) to $7,040 during the 2007-2008 academic year.

Despite increased utilization of grant aid for students rising over the past decade, some 60% of bachelor’s degree students receiving financial aid borrowed money between the 2000-2001 and 2006-2007 academic years.  The average debt per borrower increased 18% over that time period, rising from $19,300 to $22,700.  For those borrowing money to attend a public four-year college, their average debt increased approximately 8%; those attending private four-year colleges over the same period experienced an 18% increase in average debt upon graduating.

Some of the information in Trends in Student Aid is only informative when you have read Trends in College Pricing and understand the tuition trends over time.  Subsidized Stafford Loans are available to students with “documented financial need” and constituted 52% of the total aid money used during the 1997-1998 academic year.  Ten years later, the percentage of these loans used to fund higher education dropped to 34%.  At the same time, nonfederal student loans increased dramatically from 7% of all educational loans during the 1997-1998 academic year to a whopping 23% for the 2007-2008 academic year.  With adjustable interest rates that can and likely will fluctuate based on a variety of larger economic circumstances, nonfederal loans often leave students with years of interest payments before they come even close to paying off the loan in full.  The reason that the nonfederal loans increased so dramatically was that tuitions increased at a faster rate than the federal loan ceilings and the difference in funding was covered by the nonfederal loans.

State governments continued their dedication to providing affordable access to students.  According to the report “state grant aid to undergraduate students increased by 75% in inflation-adjusted dollars over the decade from 1996-97 to 2006-07.”  There is a very thorough graph on page 15 of the report that shows the increase in state grant aid to students, including the upward trends in grant aid for non-need-based student aid.  An example of state merit aid is the Georgia Hope Scholarship program which provides a fixed amount of tuition funding per year for all Georgia high school graduates who attend public colleges and universities in Georgia.  Critics of this program believe that it provides financial aid to many families who do not need it.  For those weighing the benefits of colleges in different states, the report provides a glimpse into which states provide the most grant aid per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student and which provide the least.  The national average was $613 per FTE in 2006-2007.  Students in South Carolina enjoyed an average of $1,788 per FTE during that year while students in Wyoming received only an average of $7 per FTE.

Against the backdrop of today’s turbulent financial situation, many students and their families are wondering how they will manage to afford a college education.  There is no doubt that the cost of attending college is rising and that Americans have always been notorious “non-savers.”  I would encourage students to explore all grant opportunities and pursue any for which you may be qualified.  Also consider the transfer credit policies of the school you’re considering attending.  You may save considerable money if the school is willing to transfer credits previously earned at another institution.  Lastly, the Trends in College Pricing report indicates that 57% percent of all Americans attended colleges and universities whose tuition and fees were less than $9,000 in 2008-2009.  Only 7.9% attended colleges whose tuition and fees exceeded $33,000.  Affordability expands access, so keep in mind all of the options that are available.

11 Nov 2008
           
It is a private matter who you or I voted for to be the President of the United States one week ago.  It is a public responsibility, however, no matter how we voted, to now offer our support and best wishes for the new President’s success in keeping this nation strong, ensuring the liberties we have fought and died for, and making the country better every single generation for the generation that follows.
 
I take great pride in having served under 7 Presidents while in uniformed service.  (I missed Lyndon Johnson by 2 months, but served under Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, James Earl Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William Clinton, and George W. Bush.)  Though those 7 men were the Commander in Chief, as a member of the United States Army and the United States Air Force, I worked not for them as men, but for the American people.  My duty, my allegiance, and my sworn oath were to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  I will do so until I draw my final breath, in uniform or not.    

Some Presidents enjoyed my respect for the steadfastness of their character and the quality of their leadership.  Some whose ethics or moral fiber I did not respect still received my loyalty.  They were, after all, the elected leader of the American people, and that’s who those of us who wear or have worn the uniform work for.  I kept my own counsel – it didn’t matter if I respected them as leaders or merely served because they held the highest office the citizens of this nation can bestow upon a fellow American.  Male or female.  White or black.  Just an American elected by other Americans.  That’s reason enough for me.
           
These reflections of fealty and respect come to me now because the recent election, like the two that preceded it, was as momentarily divisive and vicious as – well, as every other American election.  Only our very first President was unopposed and received 100% of the Electoral College votes.  

The second US election, between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, was characterized by brutal campaigning, vicious lies, yellow journalism, and much enmity all the way around.  Adams won by 3 electoral votes, only to lose to Jefferson 4 years later by 8 votes.  The two despised each other.  But, as Americans are (uniquely?) able to do, they also respected each other’s intellect and contributions to the cause of liberty.  They began, after their terms as President, a lifelong correspondence that did not concluded until the death of both men on the same day, July 4, 1826.  The 50th anniversary of the day both signed the Declaration of Independence.  With Adams’ last words allegedly being, “At least Jefferson lives.”

Every election since has been the same.  We begin with vehement disagreement and, optimistically, we end by closing ranks and giving our support to the new President (all the while looking forward to the next election, of course.)  This time will be no different.  The entertainers who promised to leave the country 4 years ago if George W. Bush was re-elected disappointed us mightily by not having the courage to actually leave.  This time around, those who are claiming they’ll take their guns and canned goods to a mountain redoubt will likely prove equally disappointing. 

Our nation has endured the Presidencies of Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and – well, if they’re still living, they’ve endured enough, so let’s leave it at that.  No matter what happens, we’ve seen worse.  Some of us served under worse than we could possibly imagine going forward.  Through it all, the common sense of the American people gets us through the worst of times and is there to reap the reward of their faith in the best of times,

I believe those who have defended the right to vote however we damn well choose, who have defended our right to disagree, who have defended our right to be wrong from time to time, and who have defended the Constitution itself, too often with their life’s blood, are among those who return to the citizenry at large most knowledgeable about just how unique and extraordinary our constitutional form of government is. 

Our Veterans are the guardians of the Constitution, for they are able to compare other forms of government they have seen, fought alongside, or fought against.  And they know firsthand the inexplicable elation of being able to repeat the following words, words that bring a catch in the throat of those taking it and those administering it.  This oath is for military officers; NCOs and enlisted personnel swear a very similar oath:

“I, ((Full Name)),  having been appointed an officer in the ((Branch of Service)) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of ((Rank)) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” 
           
As of this date, 11 November 2008, there is 1 veteran of World War I still alive (note:  Frank Buckles, age 107, is a resident of Charles Town where APUS is headquartered).  The best estimates are that there are 2,306,000 living service-members who served during World War II; 2,307,000 men and women who served during the Korean War; 7,125,000 Americans of every color, ethnic background, and political philosophy who were in uniformed service during the Vietnam War; 2,269,000 who served in Desert Storm and another 3,000,000 who have served or are still serving in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.  It shouldn’t be too difficult to find one to say “Thank you.”  Don’t worry or be embarrassed if it’s the day after Veteran’s day or a day 6 months hence.  Still thank them.  No matter when they served, no matter where, no matter for how long or in what capacity – they are the guardians of our Constitution.  Many have the scars, and some only a lonely marker where they now lie forever still, to prove it.
           
Thank you, Veterans.  To every one who has ever served, who does so today, or will in the future, I salute you.

Respectfully,
Joseph L. Shaefer
B Gen, USAF, Ret.

Over the next several decades, Armistice Day was celebrated as a day to honor those who served in World War I.  Upon its conclusion, many referred to World War I as “The Great War,” believing that as horrific as it was, there was no chance that the world would see such a monumental conflict again.  As the United States found itself in the throes of World War II, it became evident that “The Great War” was soon to be undermined by the shocking events and total devastation of World War II.  Americans began to understand the importance of honoring all veterans, not just those who served in World War I.

Al King, an Emporia, Kansas shoe store owner became the champion of changing Armistice Day to Veterans Day and after garnering much local support, Mr. King presented his idea to then Kansas Representative Ed Rees.  On May 26, 1954, President Eisenhower signed a bill officially changing Armistice Day to “All Veterans Day.”  Congress amended the act in November to simplify the name to Veterans Day. 

Since the conclusion of World War II, America has found itself in the midst of conflict with several nations.  From Korea to Vietnam to today’s War on Terror, American servicemen and women have served our country valiantly and honorably.  Without their heroism the American way of life that we cherish would not be possible.  Many organizations devote their resources to helping veterans.  The Military Order of the Purple Heart is one of the most well-known of these groups.  By accepting donations of household goods, including vehicles, the organization is able to raise funds to promote the physical and mental rehabilitation of combat-wounded soldiers.  Project Healing Waters is an organization that has approached their mission of assisting in the rehabilitation of wounded veterans in a creative way; the organization “serves military personnel who have been wounded, injured or disabled…by introducing or rebuilding the skills of fly fishing and fly tying and by using and enjoying these skills on fishing outings and as lifelong recreation.”  These are just two of many organizations dedicated to provide a service in gratitude to the heroes of our nation.

At APUS, where the majority of our students are affiliated with the military, we recognize and honor the tremendous commitment and sacrifice made by our nation’s military.  Today, veterans, we honor you and your commitment and sacrifice to our country.  Thank you for all you’ve done.