Virtual Classrooms, Real-World Disparities: How Online-Only Student Veterans Fare Under the Post-9/11 GI Bill

Overview

Online education has been steadily growing in popularity among college students for several years—even as the total postsecondary student population has declined.¹ Data from the U.S. Department of Education reveals that in the years since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, online enrollment appears to have reached a “new normal” that is significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels. As of fall 2023, 54% of students took at least one course online, up from 37% in fall 2019.²

Student veterans, in particular, have shown a strong interest in online learning. In fact, nearly 3 out of 4 (72%) undergraduate student veterans took at least some courses online, and more than 1 in 5 (22%) enrolled exclusively online during the 3½ years immediately preceding the pandemic. Although comparable post-pandemic data about student veterans’ enrollments is not yet available, the significantly higher “new normal” among the broader student population suggests that online learning remains a critical pathway for veterans as well.³

A long-standing policy difference, however, affects veterans who study exclusively online while using the Post-9/11 Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 2008, otherwise known as the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which provides eligible veterans with a range of education benefits, such as partial to full coverage of tuition and fees, as well as a monthly housing allowance that varies depending on whether a student takes some portion of coursework in person or fully online.⁴ Veterans who study exclusively online receive half the national average housing allowance—capped at $1,169—compared with those who take any of their coursework in person. This rule applied to nearly 1 in 5 veterans who use the Post-9/11 GI Bill (Figure 1).⁵

This distinction has financial consequences. A 2023 analysis by The Pew Charitable Trusts revealed that almost two-thirds of veterans who received the full housing allowance reported that it did not cover their housing costs. Furthermore, those who indicated that the housing stipend covered half or less of their expenses were more likely to accumulate higher amounts of student loan debt.⁶

The rules governing the housing allowance could change. A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives in mid-2025 that would allow student veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill who are taking classes exclusively online to receive the same housing allowance as their peers who take hybrid or fully in-person courses.⁷

To help inform ongoing policy discussions about this proposed legislation, Pew tapped into data collected during its 2020-21 survey of post-9/11 veterans, along with another survey of student loan borrowers conducted in mid-2021,⁸ revealing the following insights:

• Veterans who used Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits at any point between 2016 and 2020 were far less likely to enroll in exclusively online programs compared with veterans who didn’t tap into Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits during that same period.⁹
• Undergraduate student veterans with various time and geographic constraints, such as those who took on a job while enrolled or were living in a rural area, were more likely to choose fully online programs of study.¹⁰
• Several cautionary flags suggest that any expansion of housing benefits for exclusively online student veterans should proceed with careful attention to program quality:
  • Students who studied exclusively online were more likely to default on their student loans.
  • Undergraduate student veterans in fully online programs tended to have lower—and slower—graduation rates.
  • Private for-profit institutions were the most popular choice among fully online undergraduate veterans, but these schools have a record of weaker educational and workforce outcomes than public or private nonprofit schools.

Proposed legislation would alter GI Bill incentives

Lawmakers and other stakeholders cite incentives as one of the main justifications for paying a lower housing allowance to fully online student veterans. When the Post-9/11 GI Bill’s rules were revised in 2010 to allow online student veterans to receive the housing stipend, legislators sought to encourage student veterans to enroll in programs and courses that offered at least some in-person interaction. They were particularly concerned that many veterans might use their GI Bill benefits to pursue online degrees or certificates of relatively low quality and with little value in the labor market.¹¹

Pew’s analysis of its survey of post-9/11 veterans suggests that student veterans responded to the incentives built into the Post-9/11 GI Bill as intended. Veterans who used their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits at any point between 2016 and 2020 were far less likely to enroll in exclusively online programs compared with veterans who never used their benefits during that same period. Only 18% of undergraduate veterans who received Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits studied fully online, compared with 43% of their peers who did not use their benefits (Figure 2).

But proposed changes to federal legislation could alter these incentives. A bipartisan group in the House of Representatives introduced the Expanding Access for Online Veteran Students Act in June 2025. The proposed legislation would allow Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries who enroll exclusively online to receive the same housing allowance as their counterparts who take at least some of their courses in person.¹²

Some veterans’ advocacy groups support the bill, arguing that the current housing allowance rules unfairly burden student veterans who choose to study fully online.¹³ However, other stakeholders focused on veterans’ education policy issues are concerned that increasing the housing stipend for those who study fully online “would create perverse incentives for veterans to abandon high-quality, affordable public institutions in favor of potentially lower-quality online programs purely for financial reasons.”¹⁴

Which student veterans are more likely to study online?

Pew’s survey of post-9/11 veterans shows that undergraduate student veterans with time and/or geographic constraints were more likely to choose fully online education programs. For example, 71% of undergraduate student veterans held a part-time or full-time job while enrolled. And undergraduate veterans who were employed while studying were more likely to choose a fully online program. About 1 in 4 undergraduate veterans (24%) who worked while enrolled chose education/training programs that were fully online—9 percentage points higher than their peers who did not work while they were students (15%) (Figure 3).

The fact that such a large share of undergraduate veterans had at least a part-time job while enrolled suggests that earning an income while in school is a necessity for a large share of veterans. This is concerning since nearly 1 in 4 (23%) undergraduate veterans cited the difficulties of balancing work and school as one of their top reasons for not completing a degree or certificate at the first school they attended after leaving the military. Among those who had chosen fully online programs, this problem was more acute, with 35% of fully online undergraduates citing work-school overload as a reason for pausing or dropping out compared with 20% among their peers who took in-person or a mixture of learning modes.

Pew’s survey revealed that in addition to working while in school, undergraduate veterans who had dependents during all of 2016 to 2020 were significantly more likely to choose fully online education programs than their peers who did not have any dependents during those years (Figure 3).¹⁹

Furthermore, a recent Rand Corp. study focusing on veterans who were parents found that mothers were more than twice as likely to be single parents than fathers (26% and 11%, respectively).²⁰ This may help explain why more female undergraduate veterans opt for fully online programs. Pew’s survey indicates that a larger share of female undergraduate veterans chose fully online programs (28%) than their male counterparts (21%). This lines up with another recent study that found that female, degree-seeking veterans were more likely than their male peers to attend institutions offering a relatively large share of their course content online.²¹

Aside from time constraints, some student veterans contend with geographic limitations. Nearly 10% of undergraduate veterans lived in nonmetro counties during the survey period.²² As shown in Figure 3, those living in nonmetro counties were significantly more likely to choose fully online programs than their peers who lived in metro counties. Related prior research estimated that 41 million adults lacked access to a physical university or college as of 2018.²³ Therefore, some student veterans living in nonmetro counties may have determined that a fully online program was the only viable option to access education or training programs that matched their goals.

Finally, veterans with service-connected disabilities—particularly those with a VA disability rating of 70% or higher—were more likely to encounter significant constraints related to both time and location. As illustrated in Figure 3, 26% of veterans in this group chose fully online courses, compared with 17% of those with lower disability ratings.²⁴

Overall, Pew’s analysis underscores that student veterans juggle a variety of responsibilities, such as work and child care. Therefore, they have an understandable need for the flexibility of online education. Moreover, many student veterans may view online learning as their only viable route to a degree or other postsecondary credential³⁰—much like the nonveteran adult student population, which has similar online enrollment patterns.³¹

Concerns about online education

Legitimate concerns exist that policymakers should weigh when considering an expansion of benefits for online student veterans. Pew’s analysis raises three cautionary flags:

• Students who enrolled exclusively online were more likely to default on their student loans.
• Those in fully online programs tended to have lower—and slower—graduation rates.
• Private for-profit institutions were the most popular choice among fully online undergraduate veterans, but these schools have a record of weaker educational and workforce outcomes than their public or private nonprofit counterparts.

Cautionary flag 1: Students who enrolled exclusively online were more likely to default on their student loans

A 2021 Pew survey of student loan borrowers found that the default rate among those enrolled in exclusively online programs was much higher than for students who took hybrid courses or attended classes in person (Figure 4).³² Students who default on their loans are often unaware that the consequences can be severe, such as loss of federal financial aid eligibility, damage to one’s credit score, tax refund and Social Security benefit confiscation, and even wage garnishment.³³ Given these severe consequences, there is a clear need for an expansion of research about the correlation between one’s choice of learning mode and student loan default.

Cautionary flag 2: Lower—and slower—graduation rates among fully online undergraduate veterans

Fully online students were 11.4 percentage points less likely to complete a bachelor’s degree than their peers who took any portion of their courses in person, according to a 2023 analysis of Department of Education data collected between 2012 and 2017.³⁴ Pew’s survey of post-9/11 veterans points to a similar pattern: The degree/certificate attainment rate among fully online undergraduate veterans was 10 points lower than that of undergraduate veterans who took fully in-person courses or a combination of in-person, online, and hybrid courses (Figure 5).

There was also a 10 percentage point difference among those who said they were still enrolled in late 2020, with 31% of fully online undergraduate veterans still pursuing a degree or credential as of late 2020 vs. 21% of those who attended some portion of their courses in person.³⁵

Taking longer to graduate could put some student veterans at increased risk of exhausting their education benefits—including the Post-9/11 GI Bill’s monthly housing allowance—before they complete their degrees.³⁶ In fact, Pew’s survey of veterans shows that 11% of student veterans who completed a degree/certificate and used the Post-9/11 GI Bill at the first school they attended after discharge said that they had been enrolled beyond the program’s 36-month time limit.

Finally, Pew’s survey of student loan borrowers revealed a strong correlation between degree completion and student loan default: Among student borrowers who did not complete their undergraduate degree or certificate, 59% had defaulted on their student loans at least once, compared with 23% of student borrowers who graduated.³⁷

Cautionary flag 3: Private for-profit institutions are popular among fully online undergraduate veterans, despite relatively poor outcomes

Pew’s analysis of 2016-20 enrollment patterns shows that private for-profit four-year institutions were the top choice among undergraduate veterans enrolled in fully online programs; conversely, for-profit institutions were the least popular choice among undergraduate veterans who took any portion of their coursework in person. Thirty-five percent of undergraduate veterans who chose fully online programs enrolled at private for-profit four-year institutions, whereas only 4% of their peers who chose in-person or mixed-mode programs enrolled at such schools (Figure 6).

The high percentage of fully online undergraduate veterans enrolling in private for-profit institutions is a serious concern given the relatively poor outcomes associated with these schools compared with public or private nonprofit postsecondary programs:

• Lower completion rates. A 2023 study by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University found that fully online students pursuing a bachelor’s degree at a private for-profit four-year school were about 12 percentage points less likely to complete their degrees compared with students who enrolled exclusively online at public and private nonprofit four-year institutions.³⁸ Similarly, in a 2024 report about student veterans’ outcomes, veterans who had attended private for-profit four-year institutions had a completion rate that was 15 percentage points lower than that of their counterparts who went to public four-year colleges.³⁹
• Reduced employment prospects. In a 2021 report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, students who attended private for-profit four-year institutions were 11 percentage points less likely to be employed six years after first enrolling than their peers who had enrolled in four-year public colleges and universities.⁴⁰
• Lower earnings. In the Reserve Bank’s analysis, students who attended private for-profit institutions had lower earnings six years after enrolling than their peers who attended public institutions.⁴¹ A 2024 American Institutes for Research study reported that student veterans who had enrolled at private for-profit institutions while using the Post-9/11 GI Bill had lower earnings than their peers who had attended public colleges. This applied to veterans pursuing degrees as well as those enrolled in nondegree programs.⁴² A 2019 study from Veterans Education Success focused on the outcomes of students who attended trade schools. The group’s analysis showed that within 10 years after enrolling, only 38% of those who received federal student aid while attending private for-profit trade schools earned more than the average high school graduate, compared with 57% of their peers at public trade schools and 56% at nonprofits.⁴³
• Higher rates of student loan borrowing and default. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York also found that students who enrolled at private for-profit schools took on more educational debt and were more likely to default on those loans than their counterparts who had attended similarly selective public colleges or universities. The authors attributed this to the relatively poor labor market outcomes of students who attended private for-profit schools, coupled with the higher tuition rates at those schools.⁴⁴

Furthermore, higher education’s private for-profit sector has a well-documented history of engaging in deceptive and fraudulent practices that targeted federal financial aid recipients, as well as GI Bill beneficiaries, dating back to the first version of the GI Bill that was implemented following World War II.⁴⁵

Aside from the above concerns that apply to the broader student veteran population, Pew’s survey results indicate that historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups were more likely to enroll at private for-profit institutions. For example, a far greater share of Black undergraduate veterans enrolled solely at for-profit institutions (17%) than their white (11%) or Hispanic (9%) peers from 2016 to 2020. Likewise, a 2021 Student Borrower Protection Center study that focused on the Upper Midwest region found that predominately Black and Latino communities were significantly more likely to host private for-profit schools than predominately white communities.⁵⁵

Similarly, Pew’s survey shows that a disproportionate share of Black undergraduate veterans enrolled in fully online programs compared with their White and Hispanic peers (32%, 24%, and 16%, respectively). This is in line with prior research highlighting the disproportionate share of Black college students who enroll in online degree/certificate programs.⁵⁶ Other research suggests that the relatively low rate of online enrollment among Hispanic student veterans could be the result of Latino students’ relative lack of broadband internet access at home.⁵⁷

A range of factors could make the daily routines of veterans of color relatively more time-constrained than those of their peers, and so they may find the flexibility of online programs of study appealing. For instance, recent research shows that veterans of color are significantly more likely to have dependents and be single parents.⁵⁸

Conclusion

Pew’s survey findings about post-9/11 veterans demonstrate that student veterans who have time and location constraints, such as a family or a home in a rural area, have an understandable need for the flexibility offered by online programs and courses. Many student veterans who juggle responsibilities at work and home reasonably see fully online programs as the most viable path to a postsecondary degree or certificate. Furthermore, the relatively poor outcomes of fully online student veterans may have more to do with their challenging circumstances than their chosen learning mode.

However, the cautionary flags raised in this analysis and in the broader scientific literature suggest that any expansion of benefits for exclusively online student veterans should be coupled with more robust guardrails to ensure program quality.

Endnotes

1. “Distance Education in College: What Do We Know from Ipeds?,” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Feb. 17, 2021, https://nces.ed.gov/learn/blog/distance-education-college-what-do-we-know-ipeds.
2. “Fall 2023 Ipeds Data: Profile of Us Higher Ed Online Education,” Phil Hill, On Ed Tech, Jan. 8, 2025, https://onedtech.philhillaa.com/p/fall-2023-ipeds-data-profile-of-us-higher-ed-online-education. Taylor Swaak, “The Online Overhaul: Virtual Courses Used to Be the Exception. Now, They’re an Expectation,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 7, 2025, https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-online-overhaul.
3. This issue brief focuses on student veterans pursuing any postsecondary credential at the baccalaureate level and below, i.e., bachelor’s degrees, associate degrees, as well as vocational-technical certificates or other trade school credentials. For the sake of brevity, we refer to this broad group as “undergraduate veterans” throughout. For more information about student veterans pursuing graduate or professional degrees, please refer to the supplemental report “Online Education Among Student Veterans: A Comparison of Demographics and Enrollment Patterns Among Graduates and Undergraduates.” We analyze graduate student veterans separately because they have substantially different characteristics than their undergraduate counterparts. Likewise, undergraduate and graduate programs differ in cost and time-to-degree timelines, among other important factors.
4. Congressional Research Service, “The Post-9/11 Gi Bill: A Primer,” 2018, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R42755/R42755.17.pdf. “Post-9/11 Gi Bill (Chapter 33),” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Aug. 3, 2022, https://www.va.gov/education/about-gi-bill-benefits/post-9-11.
5. “Post-9/11 Gi Bill (Chapter 33) Rates,” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Aug. 1, 2025x, https://www.va.gov/education/benefit-rates/post-9-11-gi-bill-rates/.
6. “Many Student Veterans Must Borrow or Work to Cover Housing Costs,” Richa Bhattarai, Scott Brees, and Phillip Oliff, The Pew Charitable Trusts, June 20, 2023, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/06/20/many-student-veterans-must-borrow-or-work-to-cover-housing-costs.
7. 119^th Congress, Expanding Access for Online Veteran Students Act, H.R. 3753 (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3753.
8. More recent survey data about these populations’ enrollment patterns and their educational and financial outcomes is not currently unavailable.
9. Pew’s analysis of its VETS Survey data indicated that from 2016 to 2020, 40% of all post-9/11 veterans and 18% of student veterans did not use the Post-9/11 GI Bill for themselves. The top two reasons: they passed the benefits to one or more of their family members and/or they were saving the benefits for future use.
10. The phrase “time- or location-constrained students” is borrowed from Justin C. Ortagus, Rodney Hughes, and Hope Allchin, “The Role and Influence of Exclusively Online Degree Programs in Higher Education,” Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, 2023, https://doi.org/10.26300/xksc-2v33.
11. The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010 modified the Post-9/11 GI Bill to allow—for the first time—exclusively online beneficiaries to receive the monthly housing allowance. Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act, Pub. L. No. 377 (2010), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ377/html/PLAW-111publ377.htm. For more details about the monthly housing allowance’s rules and coverage of housing expenses, as well as a full discussion of the rationale behind the monthly housing allowance rules, refer to the downloadable supplement to this report,
12. 119^th Congress, Expanding Access for Online Veteran Students Act. An earlier version of this bill with the same name, introduced in 2023, was more limited in scope. It would have allowed Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries to receive a housing stipend when they enrolled in fully online summer programs shorter than 12 weeks (at that time, as well as now, these beneficiaries would not receive any monthly housing allowance payments). See 118^th Congress, Expanding Access for Online Veteran Students Act, H.R. 5702 (2023), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5702.
13. Pending Legislation, Before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 119^th Congress (June 11, 2025) (statement of Andrew T. Petrie, senior policy associate, American Legion), https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR10/20250611/118365/HHRG-119-VR10-Wstate-PetrieA-20250611.pdf. All testimony associated with this hearing is available at “Hearing of Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity (Committee on Veterans’ Affairs),” U.S. House of Representatives Committee Repository, June 11, 2025, https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118365.
14. Pending Legislation, Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 119^th Congress (June 11, 2025) (statement of Veterans Education Success, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR10/20250611/118365/HHRG-119-VR10-20250611-SD005.pdf.
15. Alyse C. Hachey et al., “Post-Secondary Online Learning in the U.S.: An Integrative Review of the Literature on Undergraduate Student Characteristics,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education 34 (2022): 708-68, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12528-022-09319-0. Justin C. Ortagus, Rodney Hughes, and Hope Allchin, “The Role and Influence of Exclusively Online Degree Programs.”
16. “Eric Notebook: Selection Bias,” Lorraine K. Alexander et al., University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 2^nd Edition, https://sph.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2015/07/nciph_ERIC13.pdf.
17. Christian Michael Smith et al., “Promising or Predatory? Online Education in Non-Profit and for-Profit Universities,” Social Forces 102, no. 3 (2024): 952-77, https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soad074.
18. Lisa Barrow, Wesley Morris, and Lauren Sartain, “The Expanding Landscape of Online Education: Who Engages and How They Fare,” Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 2023, https://doi.org/10.21033/wp-2022-52.
19. “View or Change Dependents on Your Va Disability Benefits,” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, March 25, 2025, https://www.va.gov/manage-dependents.
20. Sierra Smucker et al., “Veteran Single Parents: Surviving but Not Thriving,” 2024, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1363-6.html.
21. Alexandria Walton Radford et al., “Post-9/11 Gi Bill Benefits: How Do Veterans’ Outcomes Differ Based on the Type of Education They Received? And How Are Veterans Who Have Not Used Their Education Benefits Faring?,” American Institutes for Research, U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2024, https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/pgib-outcomes-by-use-enrollment-characteristics.pdf.
22. We borrow from the approach used by the White House Office of Management and Budget and Department of Agriculture to distinguish metropolitan counties from nonmetropolitan counties. We classify a county that has at least one urban area of 50,000 or more inhabitants as metro. We designate all other types of counties as nonmetro. “Metropolitan and Micropolitan: About,” U.S. Census Bureau, July 25, 2023, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/metro-micro/about.html#:~:text=Delineating%20Metropolitan%20and%20Micropolitan%20Statistical%20Areas&text=Each%20metropolitan%20statistical%20area%20must,but%20less%20than%2050%2C000%20population. “Rural-Urban Continuum Codes,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes.
23. “Three Million Americans Are Disconnected from Higher Education,” Victoria Rosenboom and Kristin Blagg, Urban Institute, Urban Wire, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/three-million-americans-are-disconnected-higher-education.
24. The Department of Veterans Affairs assigns disability ratings in 10 percentage point increments to determine veterans’ eligibility for monthly compensation and support services. See “About Disability Ratings,” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Nov. 5, 2024, https://www.va.gov/disability/about-disability-ratings. For veterans with multiple service-connected conditions, a Combined Ratings Table is used to calculate a total disability rating. See “Current Disability Compensation Rates,” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, March 6, 2025, https://www.va.gov/disability/compensation-rates. In Figure 3, veterans are grouped based on whether their disability rating is 70% or higher, a widely accepted threshold indicating a serious injury or illness. This threshold also aligns with eligibility criteria for several VA programs, including the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. See “Va Caregiver Support Program,” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, April 14, 2025, https://www.caregiver.va.gov/support/support_benefits.asp.
25. Wireline Competition Bureau, “Report on Promoting Broadband Internet Access Service for Veterans, Pursuant to the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018,” Federal Communications Commission, 2019, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357270A1.pdf.
26. “Va Offers Rural Veterans Options to Connect with Providers,” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Dec. 13, 2023, https://news.va.gov/126698/va-rural-veterans-options-connect-providers.
27. “Deep Dive: Navigating the Transition from Active Military Service to a Civilian Career,” Victoria Lim, WorkingNation, Nov. 1, 2024, https://www.workingnation.com/transition-from-active-military-service.
28. Federal Communications Commission, “Fcc Brings Affordable Connectivity Program to a Close,” news release, May 31, 2024, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-402930A1.pdf.
29. “Additional Acp Data: Total Enrolled Acp Subscribers by Method of Verification,” Universal Service Administrative Co., Feb. 8, 2024, https://www.usac.org/about/affordable-connectivity-program/acp-enrollment-and-claims-tracker/additional-acp-data.
30. Justin C. Ortagus, Rodney P. Hughes, and Hope Allchin, “The Problem with Exclusively Online Degree Programs,” The Century Foundation, Nov. 14, 2023, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-problem-with-exclusively-online-degree-programs. Spiros Protopsaltis and Sandy Baum, “Does Online Education Live up to Its Promise? A Look at the Evidence and Implications for Federal Policy,” 2019, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330442019_Does_Online_Education_Live_Up_to_Its_Promise_A_Look_at_the_Evidence_and_Implications_for_Federal_Policy.
31. A U.S. Department of Education analysis based on National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16) data (the latest NPSAS survey not impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic) reported online enrollment patterns among independent nonveteran students that are similar to the patterns observed among the student veterans in this analysis. “Number and Percentage of Undergraduate Students Enrolled in Distance Education or Online Classes and Degree Programs, by Selected Characteristics: Selected Academic Years, 2003-04 through 2019-20,” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, June 2023, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_311.22.asp.
32. “Borrowers with Certain Educational Experiences Appear More Likely to Default,” Ilan Levine et al., The Pew Charitable Trusts, Jan. 30, 2024, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/30/borrowers-with-certain-educational-experiences-appear-more-likely-to-default.
33. Ilan Levine, Ama Takyi-Laryea, and Phillip Oliff, “At What Cost? The Impact of Student Loan Default on Borrowers,” The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2023, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2023/02/at-what-cost-the-impact-of-student-loan-default-on-borrowers.
34. Justin C. Ortagus, Rodney Hughes, and Hope Allchin, “The Role and Influence of Exclusively Online Degree Programs.”
35. These completion statistics from the VETS Survey are generally in line with national benchmarks. According to a 2024 analysis by the American Institutes for Research, prior enlisted veterans who had used the Post-9/11 GI Bill had a six-year graduation rate of 47%—which was roughly double that of their closest nonveteran counterparts (23% of financially independent, nonveteran students completed a degree within six years). See Page 11 of Alexandria Walton Radford et al., “A First Look at Post-9/11 Gi Bill-Eligible Enlisted Veterans’ Outcomes,” American Institutes for Research, 2024, https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/First-Look-Post-9-11-GI-Bill-Outcomes-Enlisted-Veterans-February-2024.pdf. According to the National Student Clearinghouse’s online College Completion Dashboard, the national six-year completion rate for the fall 2017 cohort of all students was 62.2%: “Completing College: National and State Reports,” National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Nov. 30, 2023, https://nscresearchcenter.org/completing-college.
36. “Post-9/11 Gi Bill (Chapter 33),” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
37. “Borrowers with Certain Educational Experiences,” Ilan Levine et al., The Pew Charitable Trusts.
38. Justin C. Ortagus, Rodney Hughes, and Hope Allchin, “The Role and Influence of Exclusively Online Degree Programs.”
39. Alexandria Walton Radford et al., “Post-9/11 Gi Bill Benefits.”
40. Luis Armona, Rajashri Chakrabarti, and Michael F. Lovenheim, “Student Debt and Default: The Role of for-Profit Colleges,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2021, https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr811.pdf.
41. Luis Armona, Rajashri Chakrabarti, and Michael F. Lovenheim, “Student Debt and Default.”
42. Alexandria Walton Radford et al., “Post-9/11 Gi Bill Benefits.”
43. Walter Ochinko and Kathy Payea, “Weak Return on Investment at Trade Schools That Enroll Gi Bill Beneficiaries,” Veterans Education Success, 2019, https://vetsedsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VES_Trade_Schools-IB.pdf.
44. Luis Armona, Rajashri Chakrabarti, and Michael F. Lovenheim, “Student Debt and Default.”
45. U.S. House of Representatives, “House Select Committee to Investigate Educational, Training, and Loan Guaranty Programs under Gi Bill,” 1952, https://vetsedsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/1952-house-committee-report-gi-bill-fraud.pdf. (This report is also known as the Teague Report.) President’s Commission on Veterans’ Pensions, “Veterans’ Benefits in the United States,” 1956, https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/Bradley_Report.pdf. (This report is also known as the Bradley Commission Report.) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Education, “Toward a Federal Strategy for Protection of the Consumer of Education: Report of the Subcommittee on Educational Consumer Protection,” 1975, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED115173.pdf. U.S. General Accounting Office, “Many Proprietary Schools Do Not Comply with Department of Education’s Pell Grant Program Requirements,” 1984, https://www.gao.gov/assets/hrd-84-17.pdf. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, “Abuses in Federal Student Aid Programs,” 1991, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED332631.pdf. U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, “For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success,” 2012, https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/PartI.pdf. David Whitman, “The Cycle of Scandal at for-Profit Colleges,” The Century Foundation, 2018, https://tcf.org/content/report/profit-college-story-scandal-regulate-forget-repeat. “Law Enforcement Investigations and Actions Regarding for-Profit Colleges,” David Halperin, Republic Report, updated 2025, https://www.republicreport.org/2014/law-enforcement-for-profit-colleges. (The website is frequently updated to reflect the current status of pending lawsuits.) Erin Baldwin, Corey Meyer, and Rachel Tuchman, “Memorandum Re: Va’s Failure to Protect Veterans from Deceptive Recruiting Practices,” Yale Law School, 2016, https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/clinic/document/vlsc_ves-memo.pdf. Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “Va’s Oversight of State Approving Agency Program Monitoring for Post-9/11 Gi Bill Students,” 2018, https://ahed.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ahed.assembly.ca.gov/files/hearings/VA%20OIG%20Report.pdf. The above report found that 57% of the oversight errors at state approving agencies entailed potentially deceptive advertising by schools involving false claims about job placement rates, accreditation, and postgraduation earnings. Ninety percent of the misrepresentations identified by the Office of the Inspector General occurred at programs offered by for-profit schools. Veterans Education Success, Letter to Robert Wilkie, secretary of veterans affairs, Feb. 14, 2019, https://vetsedsuccess.org/36-veteran-and-military-organizations-ask-va-for-better-oversight-of-gi-bill-colleges.
46. “Selected Statistics for Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions That Primarily Offer Online Programs, by Control of Institution and Selected Characteristics: 2016,” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_311.33.asp.
47. “Selected Statistics for Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions That Primarily Offer Online Programs, by Control of Institution and Selected Characteristics: Fall 2022 and Academic Year 2021-22,” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_311.33.asp?current=yes.
48. “Distance Education in College,” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
49. “Selected Statistics for Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions, 2021-22,” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
50. The Institute for College Access & Success, “The Evolution of the for-Profit College Industry: New Challenges for Oversight,” 2019, https://ticas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/the-evolution-of-the-for-profit-college-industry.pdf.
51. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Education Needs to Strengthen Its Approach to Monitoring Colleges’ Arrangements with Online Program Managers,” 2022, https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/719953.pdf.
52. Purdue University, “Transaction Complete for Purdue Global,” news release, March 23, 2018, https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/archive/releases/2018/Q1/transaction-complete-for-purdue-global.html.
53. The Institute for College Access & Success, “The Evolution of the for-Profit College Industry.”
54. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Irs and Education Could Better Address Risks Associated with Some for-Profit College Conversions,” 2020, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-89.pdf.
55. Student Borrower Protection Center, “Mapping Exploitation: Examining for-Profit Colleges as Financial Predators in Communities of Color,” 2021, https://protectborrowers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SBPC-Mapping-Exploitation-Report.pdf.
56. Alexandria Walton Radford et al., “Post-9/11 Gi Bill Benefits.”. Christian Michael Smith et al., “Promising or Predatory?.”
57. Hans Johnson and Marisol Cuellar Mejia, “Online Learning and Student Outcomes in California’s Community Colleges,” Public Policy Institute of California, 2014, https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/report/R_514HJR.pdf.
58. Walter Ochinko and Kathy Payea, “Postsecondary Outcomes for Undergraduate Veterans of Color,” Veterans Education Success, 2021, https://vetsedsuccess.org/postsecondary-outcomes-for-undergraduate-veterans-of-color.
59. Spiros Protopsaltis and Sandy Baum, “Does Online Education Live up to Its Promise?”. Katherine J. Roberto and Andrew F. Johnson, “Employer Perceptions of Online Versus Face-to-Face Degree Programs,” Journal of Employment Counseling 56, no. 4 (2019): 180-89, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joec.12132.
60. “Public Perception of Online Education Improved Sharply Post-Pandemic,” Lauren Coffey, Inside Higher Ed, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/teaching-learning/2023/11/13/survey-public-perception-online-education.
61. Quality Matters, Eduventures, and Educause, “Strategy Shift: Institutions Respond to Sustained Online Demand,” 2024, https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/resource-center/articles-resources/CHLOE-9-report-2024.
62. Spiros Protopsaltis and Sandy Baum, “Does Online Education Live up to Its Promise?”