How did student deferments for college students affect draft numbers during the Vietnam War era?
Executive summary
College student deferments (1‑S status) substantially reduced the pool of draft‑eligible young men during much of the Vietnam era: contemporary counts and historians say millions of men received deferments—reports cite roughly 15 million total deferments across categories and that more than half of eligible men were deferred, exempted, or disqualified [1] [2]. Economic and academic research concludes that the availability of student deferments raised male college attendance and was a major channel of draft avoidance [3] [4].
1. How the policy worked: a legal shelter for students
For most of the war, Selective Service law let full‑time college and graduate students claim a student deferment (1‑S) that postponed induction until graduation or the end of an academic term; local boards issued classifications and could remove deferments if a student dropped out or failed to make “normal progress” [5] [6]. The practical result was that men who stayed enrolled could remain off the induction rolls for years, which made college attendance itself a direct mechanism of postponement from military service [5] [7].
2. Scale: millions shelved from the draft
Sources report large numbers: the National Archives figure cited in reporting says about 27 million men were eligible 1964–1973, roughly 2.2 million were ultimately drafted, and “around 15 million” were granted deferments, mostly for education or medical reasons [1]. Academic summaries and encyclopedic accounts add that “more than half” of the 27 million eligible men were deferred, exempted, or disqualified—showing student and other deferments were a dominant feature of manpower flows during the era [2] [8].
3. Behavioral response: college as draft avoidance
Economists and labor historians who study enrollment patterns conclude college deferments caused a measurable rise in male college attendance during the Vietnam years: contemporaries believed, and later research finds, that draft avoidance was the main causal mechanism driving increased enrollment for draft‑aged men rather than post‑service returns to school [3] [4]. In short, the deferment policy created a strong incentive for young men at risk of induction to enroll and remain enrolled.
4. Distributional effects: who bore the burden
Multiple sources note the draft and deferment system was socioeconomically skewed: students—disproportionately middle‑class and those with access to higher education—could gain legal protection, while poorer and working‑class men, less able to attend college, made up a larger share of draftees and combat deployments [1] [8]. Reporting and historians emphasize that legal deferments plus medical and occupational exemptions produced inequities that fueled public protests and political backlash [9] [8].
5. Political and institutional fallout
Public perception that student deferments favored the privileged contributed to major reforms: the 1970–71 policy changes, the 1970 lottery and later Selective Service reforms, and ultimately the movement toward an all‑volunteer force were motivated in part by criticisms of fairness and the concentration of deferments [10] [5]. The Selective Service today frames its post‑Vietnam rules—shorter, semester‑based postponements and a lottery system—as corrective measures designed to reduce the long deferments available in the earlier era [10] [7].
6. Magnitude vs. nuance: what the numbers mean
Counting deferments (15 million) alongside draftees (about 2.2 million) shows student and other postponements greatly exceeded actual inductions—yet available sources caution about overlapping categories and changing annual flows; different datasets give somewhat different totals for drafted men (1.86M vs. ~2.2M appear in different accounts) and reporting aggregates “deferments” across causes [11] [1] [2]. Therefore the headline claim—that student deferments materially shrank the immediate draft pool—is robust; precise magnitudes depend on how one counts categories and years [3] [4].
7. Competing interpretations and limitations
One interpretation stresses that deferments created perverse incentives and unfair burdens on non‑students (echoed by public protest and reform advocates) [9] [8]. Another emphasizes that many draftees were volunteers and that deferment policy reflected broader manpower and educational expansion dynamics of the era—researchers note complexities in causal attribution and measurement [4] [3]. Available sources do not mention every statistical breakdown (for example, detailed yearly counts by deferment type and socioeconomic status are not provided here), so deeper archival or microdata work would be needed to settle fine‑grained debates [3] [4].
8. Bottom line
Student deferments were a major, verifiable channel that removed millions of men from immediate draft exposure during the Vietnam era and incentivized increased male college attendance; that policy significantly influenced who was drafted and who was not, and it became a central fairness grievance that helped drive reform toward a lottery and, later, an all‑volunteer force [1] [3] [10].