










































Publication Draft – SSCH – 2004


The Army Specialized Training Program and ‘Fast Track’ Professional Preparation 
Jared R. Stallones 

California State Polytechnic University 
 

Abstract:  The early years of World War II saw an 
unprecedented collaboration between the armed forces 
of the United States and institutions of higher 
education.  Shortages of manpower critical to the war 
effort and declining wartime enrollments in the 
colleges and universities led military-academic 
partnerships for the rapid preparation of physicians, 
engineers, and other professionals.  One of these 
partnerships, the Army Specialized Training Program, 
yields lessons for modern advocates of accelerated 
professional preparation programs to meet the forecast 
teacher shortage. 
 
 
Introduction 

Many states are experiencing teacher 
shortages in such critical areas as mathematics, the 
sciences, and special education and the shortages are 
expected to become more acute in the future.  Nearly a 
third of all U.S. teachers are aged fifty-five or older, 
threatening a flood of impending retirements 
(American Association for Employment in Education 
2005, 2).  In addition, fully forty percent of current 
public school teachers, and fifty percent of high 
school teachers, plan to leave the classroom by 2010 
(National Center for Education Information 2005, 5).  
At the same time, concerns about teacher quality have 
led states to stiffen teacher credentialing requirements 
and increasing numbers of English language learners 
and ‘mainstreamed’ students have made the profession 
more demanding than ever.  This perfect storm of 
impending retirements, increased demands on 
classroom teachers, and more rigorous teacher 
preparation programs threatens to upset the delicate 
balance of supply and demand for classroom teachers.  
Traditional professional preparation programs may be 
overwhelmed by these shortages. 

In times of national crisis, government-academic 
partnerships have sometimes formed to meet such 
essential manpower needs.  For instance, California’s 
chronic teacher shortage has pressured the state and its 
universities to develop various “fast track” programs 
to place teachers in the classrooms, often with 
minimal preparation.  In some cases, individuals may 
“test out” of the entire coursework sequence for 
teacher preparation.  Many states have adopted similar 
programs. 

A similar manpower crisis occurred in the early 
years of World War II.  As the scope of the war 
unfolded, it became clear that traditional academic 
programs could not supply the physicians, engineers, 
dentists, veterinarians, linguists, and area specialists 
needed by the military.  The result was the 
development of the Army Specialized Training 
Program (ASTP) to hasten professional preparation in 
these fields.  The story of the ASTP holds lessons for 

those who advocate accelerated preparation programs 
of teacher preparation. 
 
Origin of the ASTP 

As the war in Europe expanded in 1939, 
many in the U.S. assumed that traditional modes of 
professional education would produce sufficient 
numbers of professionally trained men to meet the 
needs of the military for physicians, dentists, 
veterinarians, engineers, linguists, and area specialists.  
However, Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on 
December 7, 1941 changed the nature of American 
involvement in the conflict.  Patriotic fervor caused 
men to enlist in the armed forces, diminishing 
enrollments in professional programs on university 
campuses.  In addition, faculty enlistments diminished 
the capacity of universities to provide such programs.  
Passage of the Selective Training and Service Act on 
September 6, 1940, making men twenty-one to thirty 
years of age eligible for the military draft, exacerbated 
the problem (see Table 1). 
 
Table 1:  Attendance in Colleges and Universities 

1939-1944 
 
Academic Year   Enrollments  
     Total    Male  
 
1939-40 (actual)  1,493,203 892,250 
1940-41 (estimated) 1,518,970 907,000 
1941-42 (actual)  1,403,990 818,559 
1942-43 (estimated) 1,209,150 688,350 
1943-44 (estimated)    833,275 278,000 
 
Source: Zook, George F.  “How the Colleges Went to 

War.”  Annals of the American Academy of 
Political and Social Science, 231 (January 1944). 

 
The American Council on Education (ACE) 

convened two meetings in 1942 to discuss the 
problem.  The college and university presidents in 
attendance issued official statements reminding the 
nation that the ACE was created during WWI to 
address a similar crisis and volunteering the resources 
of their institutions to support the war effort.  
Specifically, they offered to develop accelerated 
degree programs and adopt year-round academic 
calendars.  The Council went on to criticize the War 
Department’s existing training plans because they 
relied on traditional means of professional education, 
restricting the participation of talented minorities, the 
poor, and women.  Finally, the ACE volunteered to 
serve as the coordinating agency for wartime 
professional training efforts and requested federal 
funds to do so (American Council on Education 
1943). 



 

 28 

At the same time, the true nature of the war 
made clear to military authorities that, even under 
optimal conditions, conventional means would never 
meet the military demand for trained professionals.  
On November 13, 1942, the draft age was lowered to 
eighteen years, which only underscored the manpower 
crisis for both the colleges and the military.  The 
following month a joint statement issued by the 
Secretaries of War and the Navy acknowledged the 
ACE’s contributions and adopted many of its 
recommendations by establishing the Army 
Specialized Training Division (ASTD) with Colonel 
Herman Beukema as its Director.  Col. Beukema spent 
the early part of 1943 meeting with university 
presidents and others to implement the Secretaries’ 
directives through the Army Specialized Training 
Program.  Clearly, a partnership between higher 
education and the military to provide accelerated 
professional training programs would assure needed 
revenue to the colleges and universities and meet the 
vital manpower needs of the armed forces. 
 
The Students 
 Among the first decisions to be made was 
how participants would be selected for the program.  
The requirements established included possession of a 
high school diploma for participants less than twenty-
two years of age.  Those over twenty-two must have 
completed one year of college with coursework in a 
foreign language, mathematics, physics, or biology.  
In addition, the men must score at least 110(later 
raised to 115) on the Army General Classification Test 
(AGCT) (Keefer 1988, 50).  The mean score for the 
nine million recruits who took the test between 
January 1940 and April 1945 was 104, putting those 
with 115 or higher in the top quartile (Chadderdon 
1972, 33).  Exceptions to these criteria were made for 
those already enrolled in certain other military training 
programs, those holding appointments to the United 
States Military Academy, and those over twenty-two 
years of age with substantial university work in a 
technical field. 

Despite the ACE’s criticism, the program 
was restricted to men.  The Surgeon General 
recommended that women be considered for ASTP, 
but the War Department rejected the idea on the 
grounds that admitting women would reduce the 
available spots for men and that women did not need 
the financial aid the ASTP afforded men.  Women 
were ultimately commissioned in the Medical Corps, 
but never through the auspices of ASTP.  African-
American men were eligible for the program, but 
never numbered more than three-fourths of one 
percent of the participants (ibid., 32). 

During basic training recruits with requisite 
AGCT scores completed an ASTP Personal Data and 
Interview Form as a screening tool.  Even so, nearly 
1.3 million men qualified for a program targeted at 
150,000.  To further screen candidates, Specialized 

Training and Reassignment (STAR) units were 
established on participating campuses in which panels 
of professors tested and interviewed candidates.  One 
recruit described being “sent to Texas A&M, where 
we lounged around for two weeks taking more tests” 
(Keefer 1988, 56).  Another recalled, “We stayed 
there [Georgia State Teachers College in Statesboro, 
GA] two or three weeks, were given orientation, and 
then tested by officers who looked like they were 
drawn from the bottom of the Army’s talent bank” 
(ibid., 57). 

The expanded screening process steered 
recruits to engineering, language, pre-medical, pre-
dental, or pre-veterinary programs, but it did not 
always assign men appropriately.  One recruit 
complained, “I was not prepared for college, but my 
AGCT test score of 160 got the army interested.  I had 
no algebra or languages in high school.  My ASTP 
professors could not figure out why the Army placed 
me, with no college courses in high school, in ASTP 
(ibid, 70). 

Ultimately, about two-thirds of recruits came 
from existing Army units-recruits who had completed 
basic training and volunteered for the ASTP, and one 
–third from newly inducted recruits.  At its peak in 
December 1943, ASTP enrolled just over 140,000 
young men.  The greatest number studied engineering, 
followed by medicine, languages, dentistry, and 
veterinary science (ibid.) 
 
The Coursework 

By spring 1943 eligibility rules were 
finalized, participating colleges and universities 
chosen, curriculum designed, and instructional 
methods in place.  Still, implementation of the ASTP 
was slow.  The goal was to begin classes in mid-
March 1943, but it was not until the following fall that 
most were underway. 

STAR units assigned most inductees initially 
to the Basic Engineering Curriculum (BE-1), which 
was divided into two six-week terms.  The first term 
consisted of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, 
English, History, and Geography.  The curriculum 
called for a total of twenty-four contact hours per 
week with three of them being lab work.  Term two 
(BE-2) continued those subjects and increased the lab 
time to seven hours (see Table 2).  During term two, 
trainees chose which preprofessional training they 
preferred and tested further to ensure aptitude for that 
area. 

The content of the courses was strictly 
prescribed by the ASTD to guarantee some level of 
consistency across the program.  Expert panels had 
designed programs of study for maximum efficiency.  
They eliminated duplication, minimized the liberal 
arts and did away with the elective courses that 
enriched typical undergraduate degree programs, but 
sometimes the standardized programs proved a poor 
fit for recruits.  One soldier recalled, “I was selected



 

 29

 
 

Table 2:  Army Specialized Training Program 
Basic Phase 

Curriculum BE-1 and BE-2 
 
Distribution 
Course    Contact Hrs. per Week*  Class  Lab 
 
Term 1: 
Mathematics AST-406  6   6  0 
Physics  AST-304  7   4  3** 
Chemistry AST-205  3   3  0 
English  AST-111  3   3  0 
History  AST-133  3   3  0 
Geography AST-163  2   2  0
     24   21  3 
 
Term 2: 
Mathematics AST-407  5   5  0 
Physics  AST-305  7   4  3** 
Chemistry AST-206  6   2  4 
English  AST-111  2   2  0 
History  AST-133  2   2  0 
Geography AST-163  2   2  0
     24   17  7 
 
* Required by contract 
** One hour for writing reports 
 
Source: National Archives, Washington, D.C., Modern Military Branch.  Military Archives Division.  File: Director 

of Military Training.  History Branch.  ASTP.  Curriculum File.  Records of the ASF. 
 
 
for first term basic engineering.  This proved a big 
waste of my academic time as I had already taken 
every single course in the program except the math-
but, of course, you took the program in a block, there 
weren’t any electives” (Keefer 1988, 57).  Another 
reported that, “Although I had completed first-year 
engineering at Mississippi State College, my freshman 
courses had not included physics.  Since ASTP 
required physics, I had to start over” (ibid., 102-03). 

The modular approach to curriculum design 
also presented problems.  Trainees typically 
completed BE-1 and BE-2 at one institution, took their 
pre-professional training at another, and completed 
their professional preparation at a third.  The frequent 
moving about allowed little opportunity for teacher-
student bonds to form. 

A typical day for an ASTP candidate in the 
Basic Curriculum phase of training began with 
reveille at 6:30am and ended with taps at 10:30pm, 
with the hours in between tightly scheduled. The 
Army estimated the overall workload at fifty-nine 
hours per week in supervised activities: twenty-four 
hours of classroom and lab work, twenty-four hours of 
prescribed study, five hours of military instruction, 
and six hours of physical education.  One ASTPer at 

Rutgers calculated the total somewhat differently in 
the following poem: 

We are the boys of the A.S.T.P. 
Ours is a rugged lot. 
You may think our work is easy. 
We assure you that it’s not. 
 
The Army thought we all could stand 
A touch of higher knowledge; 
And so they made life miserable 
By sending us to college. 
 
Our actual hours are 35, 
They say if we would pass, 
We must spend two hours study 
For every hour of class. 
 
Thus 35 plus 70 
Comes to 105 
Plus 21 a week to eat 
So we can stay alive. 
 
That totals to 126; 
Formations, six hours more; 
Washing up and room police 



 

 30 

Takes another four. 
 

That huge sum is 136 
And leaves just 32 

For sleep at night and bunk fatigue 
And things we want to do. 
 
Now sleep’s a foolish habit, 
As anyone can see, 
In just one week, if we skip sleep, 
There’s 32 hours free (Masin 1943, 13). 

 
Some participants had trouble with the stiff 

academic pace, despite the careful screening process.  
One recruit recalled, “Toward the end of the first 
term-about mid-summer 1943 - I concluded that either 
I would not be able to maintain their standards or the 
program would be terminated.  Even people with 
college degrees were having trouble keeping up” 
(Keefer 1988, 102). 

Despite the combined rigors of accelerated 
academic programs and Army discipline, campus life 
afforded ASTP participants diversions of which other 
soldiers could only dream.  One recruit who already 
held a bachelor’s degree in music education with little 
math background found himself assigned to Basic 
Engineering training at Ohio State University.  He 
reported that, 
 

Life at Ohio State was just one step short of 
Paradise-food served on stainless steel trays, 
with as much cold milk as you could drink, 
and clean bedding in the dorm; Isally’s ice 
cream store nearby; the Indianola 
Presbyterian Church just across the street, 
and church choir rehearsals Wednesday  
evenings, with a pipe organ, and a good 
organist to play it; every Friday night free 
and liberty in Columbus until 1:00 Monday 
morning.  Boy!  Was that ‘real’ Army life? 
(ibid., 92-3). 
 

At several universities, the bulk of the male 
civilian student body had already enlisted or been 
drafted into the service, making the ASTP candidates 
the only males on campus.  One ASTPer assigned to 
the University of Nebraska recalled, “The University’s 
male population was at a very low ebb when we 
arrived, and the ASTP kids moved in to help fill the 
void.  Sororities had tea dances where boys and girls 
could meet, and many of us ended up with steady girl 
friends” (ibid., 92).  Some communities even printed 
guides to local sites and organized social events and 
entertainments for their ASTP guests. 

Preprofessional studies were truly an 
accelerated course sequence.  Candidates were 
considered fit for the fast pace due to their high 
academic qualifications.  The result was that the 
premedical curriculum, for instance, was reduced from 
the normal course of several years to just nine months.  
The tightly focused curriculum consisted of 

Qualitative Analysis, Physics, Biology, [technical] 
English, History, Organic Chemistry, Psychology, 
Comparative Anatomy, and Embryology spread across 
three terms (see Table 3).  Like the Basic Curriculum, 
these courses were narrowly prescribed according to 
outlines developed by panels of experts at the outset 
of the ASTP. 

By late 1943, the Army’s manpower policies 
had yielded an oversupply of officers.  Officer 
Candidate Schools (OCS) had produced 240,000 
officers since September 1941, so those programs 
were severely reduced.  At the same time, 
occupational draft deferments and other selective 
service policies had left the armed forces short of their 
recruiting goals by 200,000 men.  Since ASTP 
programs included basic training, the candidates 
formed a readily available pool of recruits already in 
uniform-a tempting target for the armed forces to draw 
from.  Ironically, many had resigned from ROTC 
programs in order to enter the ASTP, thereby 
forfeiting the opportunity to enter the regular Army as 
officers.  Despite written assurances in ASTP 
recruitment literature that “no student now in the 
ASTP and doing satisfactory work will be let out,” in 
February 1944, 110,000 trainees, nearly eighty percent 
of the total, were cut from the program. 

Most of the initial cuts came in engineering.  
Some of these trainees were reassigned to medical 
school, but most were assigned to line units.  In the 
words of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, “The 
Army of early 1944 was forced to cannibalize itself 
and the soldiers of the ASTP were among the first 
victims” (Stimson and Bundy 1948, 356).  Often these 
new soldiers bore the brunt of the resentment their 
comrades had developed due to the ASTP’s reputation 
as a soft billet for ‘quiz kids’ and college boys.  One 
displaced recruit recounted, “If at all, it [participation 
in ASTP] made things tough on me later.  I spent 
sixteen weeks on Officers’ K.P. at Camp Maxey 
because the ASTP business left me alone, in a strange 
outfit, with a cadre anxious to show me the ‘real’ 
army” (Keefer 1988, 57). 

Although the curtailment of the ASTP had 
devastating effects on individual soldiers, it did not 
seriously impact participating colleges and 
universities.  First, despite the high profile of the 
military-academic partnership, most colleges and 
universities in the United States never participated in 
the program.  Second, even those that had military 
students tended to adjust rapidly to wartime 
conditions.  As drastic a change as the wartime 
reduction in student enrollments seemed at the time, it 
was dwarfed by the rapid, enormous expansion in 
demand for higher education brought on by the 
postwar G.I Bill.  The ASTP officially lasted until 
early 1947, but the program never recovered from the 
massive curtailment in February 1943. 



 

 31

Table 3: Army Specialized Training Program 
Basic Phase Term 3 

Advanced Phase Terms 4&5 
Curriculum P-1 

 
                Distribution 
Course     Contact Hrs. per Week*  Class  Lab 

 
Term 3: 
Qualitative Analysis AST-211  9   3  6 
Physics   AST-306  7   4  3** 
Biology   AST-951  7   3  4 
English   AST-111  2   2  0 
History   AST-133  2   2  0 
Geography  AST-163  2   2  0
      29   16  13 

 
Term 4: 
Organic Chemistry AST-261  9   3  6 
Biology   AST-952  7   3  4 
English   AST-112  2   2  0 
Psychology  AST-904  4   4  0 
Selected Courses***    6   6  0

        28   18  10 
 

Term 5: 
Organic Chemistry AST-262  9   3  6 
Comparative Anatomy AST-953 
or 
Embryology  AST-954  7   3  4 
English   AST-113  2   2  0 
Psychology  AST-905  4   4  0 
Selected Courses***    6   6  0

        28   18  10 
 

* Required by contract 
** One hour for writing reports 
***  
1. French, German, or Spanish for those who had studied one of these in High School or College.  Must continue 
in Term 5. 
2. Economics.  Must continue on Term 5. 
3. Quantitative Analysis 
4. Public Administration 
5. Physical Chemistry 

 
Source:  National Archives, Washington, D.C., Modern Military Branch.  Military Archives Division.  File: Director 

of Military Training.  History Branch.  ASTP.  Curriculum File.  Records of the ASF. 
 
 

Once preprofessional studies were 
completed, ASTP candidates entered regular programs 
of professional study that proceeded at a more 
traditional pace. Advancement from preprofessional to 
professional study required an overall “C” average, so 
ASTP participants were motivated to do well in their 
coursework.  In some ASTP units, trainees were 
ranked according to grade point averages, and trainees 
enjoyed the same academic recognition as other 
students.  Failure in any course resulted in separation 

from ASTP and reassignment to a regular Army unit, 
often an infantry unit headed overseas (Chadderdon 
1972, 58). 
 
Demise of the ASTP 

By late 1943, the Army’s manpower policies 
had yielded an oversupply of officers.  Officer 
Candidate Schools (OCS) had produced 240,000 
officers since September 1941, so those programs 
were severely reduced.  At the same time, 



 

 32 

occupational draft deferments and other selective 
service policies had left the armed forces short of their 
recruiting goals by 200,000 men.  Since ASTP 
programs included basic training, the candidates 
formed a readily available pool of recruits already in 
uniform-a tempting target for the armed forces to draw 
from.  Ironically, many had resigned from ROTC 
programs in order to enter the ASTP, thereby 
forfeiting the opportunity to enter the regular Army as 
officers.  Despite written assurances in ASTP 
recruitment literature that “no student now in the 
ASTP and doing satisfactory work will be let out,” in 
February 1944, 110,000 trainees, nearly eighty percent 
of the total, were cut from the program. 

Most of the initial cuts came in engineering.  
Some of these trainees were reassigned to medical 
school, but most were assigned to line units.  In the 
words of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, “The 
Army of early 1944 was forced to cannibalize itself 
and the soldiers of the ASTP were among the first 
victims” (Stimson and Bundy 1948, 356).  Often these 
new soldiers bore the brunt of the resentment their 
comrades had developed due to the ASTP’s reputation 
as a soft billet for ‘quiz kids’ and college boys.  One 
displaced recruit recounted, “If at all, it [participation 
in ASTP] made things tough on me later.  I spent 
sixteen weeks on Officers’ K.P. at Camp Maxey 
because the ASTP business left me alone, in a strange 
outfit, with a cadre anxious to show me the ‘real’ 
army” (Keefer 1988, 57). 

Although the curtailment of the ASTP had 
devastating effects on individual soldiers, it did not 
seriously impact participating colleges and 
universities.  First, despite the high profile of the 
military-academic partnership, most colleges and 
universities in the United States never participated in 
the program.  Second, even those that had military 
students tended to adjust rapidly to wartime 
conditions.  As drastic a change as the wartime 
reduction in student enrollments seemed at the time, it 
was dwarfed by the rapid, enormous expansion in 
demand for higher education brought on by the 
postwar G.I Bill.  The ASTP officially lasted until 
early 1947, but the program never recovered from the 
massive curtailment in February 1943. 
 
The Results 

In the short run, the ASTP did contribute to 
the manpower needs of the armed forces, both 
intentionally by providing thousands of professionally 
trained officers (although many of these did not enter 
active service until the post-war era), and 
unintentionally by meeting much of the Army’s need 
for combat soldiers in early 1944.  The program also 
helped the colleges and universities that participated 
by providing needed support as large numbers of 
students left school for the military, although this 
benefit should not be overstated as only one-third of 

U.S. institutions of higher education ever hosted 
ASTP students. 

In the longer run, the ASTP helped colleges 
and universities eliminate redundancy in their degree 
programs, which became especially important as the 
postwar increases in enrollment pressured the 
institutions to be as efficient as possible.  In addition, 
the new courses and modes of instruction developed 
for the ASTP influenced subsequent curriculum 
development, particularly in language instruction.  In 
an effort to standardize curriculum across the 227 
campuses that ultimately hosted ASTPers, audio-
visual aids were used extensively, ushering university 
teaching into the technological age. 

The ASTP also influenced colleges and 
universities to adopt more democratic practices in 
recruiting and admitting students.  The program 
provided educational opportunities to thousands of 
academically talented young men without regard to 
socio-economic status.  In fact, without the ASTP this 
author’s father would have not been able to afford 
higher education and likely would have never pursued 
a medical career.  Other participants such as Henry 
Kissinger and Edward Koch may have followed very 
different career paths without the ASTP.  Eighty 
percent of ASTP participants surveyed for one 
postwar study pursued more higher education after 
their initial ASTP experience.  Forty percent 
completed Bachelor’s degrees, seventeen percent 
Master’s degrees, and eleven percent doctoral degrees.  
Twelve percent became physicians, dentists, and 
lawyers (ibid., 281). 

The ASTP also opened the door for more 
women to enter professional schools.  With their sons 
in the service, more families sent their daughters to 
college.  The ASTP’s demonstrated success with those 
traditionally considered unfit for advanced training 
caused professional schools to be more willing to 
admit women (Chadderdon 1972, 69). 

Finally, the ASTP helped point up the gross 
discrepancies in the quality of high school education 
across the country.  Young men from every type of 
high school were thrown together and moved from 
institution to institution throughout the country.  The 
strong and weak high school programs became readily 
apparent.  Postwar federal spending on education 
aimed, in part, to improve high school instruction, 
especially in math, science, and foreign languages, the 
fields most prominent in the ASTP. 
 
Lessons Learned 

Although the ASTP was in effect for only a 
few years it provides some lasting lessons for any type 
of ‘fast-track’ education program.  First, the 
conditions under which the ASTP began represent a 
unique confluence of needs.  The customer, the US 
Army, needed large numbers of well-trained 
professionals in a short amount of time.  The 
providers, the colleges and universities, needed large 



 

 33

numbers of students to replace those lost to the war 
effort.  The colleges and universities found themselves 
with excess capacity precisely when the Army needed 
highly educated soldiers.  In the current and 
impending teacher shortage, schools may need more 
teachers, but the colleges and universities that prepare 
them do not necessarily need additional students.  
Without mutual acute need, it is unlikely that the 
tremendous effort required to redevelop course 
programs and calendars will be expended. 

Second, ASTP participants and providers 
often complained that the accelerated coursework was 
too much too fast.  Students exhausted themselves 
trying to keep up with the demands of academic work 
and military training, especially those who entered the 
program with knowledge deficits.  Most learners 
require some time to truly internalize and incorporate 
information.  Any ‘fast-track’ professional education 
program must carefully consider reasonable pacing to 
maximize learning.  Likewise, faculty complained that 
the pace of instruction was exhausting for the 
teachers, as well.  Yale University reported, “The 
strains upon our facilities, and particularly upon our 
Faculty, began to be apparent, and illnesses, nervous 
collapses, and even deaths seemed to come thick and 
fast upon us” (Annual Report 1944, 15).  Third, the 
ASTP shifted much of the focus at participating 
institutions from knowledge creation to knowledge 
transmission.  Faculty found that their scholarly 
pursuits suffered under the demands of fast-paced 
instruction.  Some institutions and faculties were more 
accustomed to this emphasis than others.  Any ‘fast-
track’ program must ensure that its goals do not 
conflict with how faculties conceive of their work or 
with the reward structures in place in academic 
institutions. 

Fourth, ASTP students, particularly the 
engineers, suffered from the Army’s overestimation of 
the need for trained professionals and its 
underestimate of the need for foot soldiers.  
Institutional promises were broken and participants’ 
plans derailed.  Any ‘fast-track’ program must not rely 
too heavily on projections of future manpower needs.  
In addition, ‘fast-tracks’ should include alternate 
routes for students to pursue if societal needs change.  
These alternate routes should make good use of the 
coursework they’ve already taken in order to 
minimize wasted time. 

Finally, the ASTP siphoned off many of the 
best and the brightest Army recruits, diminishing the 
overall quality of the manpower available to other 
units (Keefer 1988, 269)  Any ‘fast-track’ program 
must consider the opportunity cost of implementation-
what good things may be given up if the ‘fast-track’ 
attracts large numbers of participants.  Any program 
intended to benefit the needs of society must consider 
its larger impact. 
 
 

Conclusion 
 

Wisdom dictates approaching present 
problems with a sense of history in mind.  While the 
past does not repeat itself, some conditions do recur 
and past events can inform present solutions.  The 
Army Specialized Training Program was a unique 
program devised during a unique time.  It encouraged 
structural changes in American education and 
provided unprecedented educational opportunity to 
thousands of talented young men.  In addition, it may 
provide both useful lessons for curriculum designers 
and policy-makers, as well as cautionary tales to be 
considered by those developing accelerated 
educational programs to meet the current teacher 
shortage. 
 
 

References 
 
American Association for Employment in Education.  

Educator Supply and Demand in the United 
States: 2005 Executive Summary (Columbus, OH: 
AAEE, 2005). 

American Council on Education.  Higher Education 
and National Defense, Bulletin No. 31 
(Washington, D.C.: ACE, 1943). 

Chadderdon, Elizabeth Ann Mason, A Review of 
Accelerated Premedical Education as Effected 
Under the Army Specialized Training Program, 
December 1942 to April 1944 (Unpublished 
M.P.H. Thesis, University of Texas School of 
Public Health at Houston, 1972). 

Keefer, Louis E.  Scholars in Foxholes: The Story of 
the Army Specialized Training Program in World 
War II (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 1988). 

National Center for Education Information.  Profile of 
Teachers in the United States 2005 (Washington, 
D.C.: NCEI, 2005). 

Masin, Herbert L.  “A Day with the A.S.T.P.”  Senior 
Scholastic, Oct. 4-9, 1943. 

Stimson, Henry L., and McGeorge Bundy.  On Active 
Service in Peace and War. (New York: Harper 
and Brothers, 1948). 

Yale University,  Annual Report 1944 (New Haven: 
Yale Univ., 1944). 


