When will Private Schools' bubble burst ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the 990's posted are 5 years old. They don't inform anyone of what is going on today. Tuition has nearly doubled since the period those old 990's reflect.

... if not as [i]Brobdingnagian[/i] as she/he claims, are not sustainable in the long haul.

cool. I learned a new word. Kinda hard to pronounce though; and I wonder how many people would understand what it means.

Pretty much anyone who ever read Jonathan Swift.

Double lol. This is my favorite thread right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the 990's posted are 5 years old. They don't inform anyone of what is going on today. Tuition has nearly doubled since the period those old 990's reflect.

Someone keeps posting this. Which of these schools charged only $16,000 five years ago?

In 2006-2007 the St. Albans tuition was $26,000. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040201369.html This upcoming year, 7 years later, it will be $37,000, for an increase of $11,000 over a seven-year period.

Tuition in 2008 at Sidwell Friends was $29,400 for the Upper School. This year it was $34,400, for an increase of $5000 over four years.

Under Ad Hominem Hover McRant's argument, tuition at St. Albans should be over $52,000 next year, and tuition at Sidwell something like $50,000.

I don't know why he/she does not use the revolutionary tool called "Google" before making statements so clearly provably false. It undercuts her/his main point (which many agree with), which is that the rates of increase, if not as Brobdingnagian as she/he claims, are not sustainable in the long haul.

Good analysis, thanks for taking the time to include the links. I do think that schools are somewhat overstaffed, but can see why this happens when, say, having an in school psychologist becomes the norm, or there's pressure to add a new foreign language like Chinese. Both are good things in terms of the life of the school and resources for students, but all of these good things taken together drive up costs. And schools are one of the few areas in which technology has sharply driven up costs, not lowered them through increased efficiencies. Our school has a lot of great technology and many people on staff to manage everything from the LAN network to debugging all the faculty laptops of spyware/viruses to wrangling the latest and greatest classroom technology. Class sizes are still small, though (which of course is one of the main draws for private school) -- it's not like giving the teachers computers means they teach 200 kids each instead of 60.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the answer, but I hope you're right. We're a $350k HHI family with 2 kids in private and feel like it's a struggle to pay tuition every year. If it goes much higher, we won't be able to do it anymore.

We make about $300K and won't send our 2 kids to private for this reason, although it would be much better for them if we could (for different reasons for each one). You've validated my feeling that we can't really afford it. Thanks!

We make 150000 a year and send dc to private school because it benefits him. It's not easy but we do it. Tuition is 30k for first grade. It's a matter of priority.

It's probably also a matter of how good the public option is. And how well you feel you can supplement in areas like music or arts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the answer, but I hope you're right. We're a $350k HHI family with 2 kids in private and feel like it's a struggle to pay tuition every year. If it goes much higher, we won't be able to do it anymore.

We make about $300K and won't send our 2 kids to private for this reason, although it would be much better for them if we could (for different reasons for each one). You've validated my feeling that we can't really afford it. Thanks!

We make 150000 a year and send dc to private school because it benefits him. It's not easy but we do it. Tuition is 30k for first grade. It's a matter of priority.

It's probably also a matter of how good the public option is. And how well you feel you can supplement in areas like music or arts.

To the poster with HHI of $150,000 a year, are you saving anything for college or retirement? These should be priorities, too. If your public is good, and/or you could use that $35K to save for college and also supplement with music lessons and travel, then you might want to consider if your priorities are misplaced.

[Anonymous]

Someone keeps posting this. Which of these schools charged only $16,000 five years ago?

Again your deliberately posting the lowest tuition you can find ( half of 32K) to try to minimize the impact tuitions for 2013-2014 of $ 39,750 are having on families ( not just leaving schools their kids love, but impacting the quality of their family life as UMC parents work more and more to be able to foot such an outrageous bill ( 120K for 3 kids in elementary school).

Read the thread, several NCS alums contributed as just one example. Yes, tuition has nearly doubled in last 6 years, at many schools. repeating it hasn't and comparing the lowest tuition you can find on line ( last year's number to boot) doesn't change that.

Of course, every parent who has had a kid in private school for at leats 10 years knows this is true. Your denying it over and over does not make it untrue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Does no one else out there find it odd that every school in town has claimed that it needs to nearly double it's tuition over past 6 years? If any company doubled its operating expenses while mostly keeping its product unchanged, wouldn't a good business person ask what ALL that increased revenue was going towards?

Yes... I went to NCS in the 90's when it was $14k a year. I was astounded to learn how much it is now; there is no way I could afford to send my daughter there. I find it quite disgusting, actually.

Just did an inflation calculator, $14,000 in 1992 was the equivalent of $23,000 in 2012. Tuition has increased faster than inflation, but maybe not as much as you think.

Now there's a rationalization if there ever was one. Question: has the price of that Mercedes also nearly doubled in the last 6 years ? Do iPhones cost $1,000 now ? If they did would you rationalize buying one by saying, well, heck one grand today is like $500 20 years ago so, after all, I am really getting a bargain. Yeah right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the 990's posted are 5 years old. They don't inform anyone of what is going on today. Tuition has nearly doubled since the period those old 990's reflect.

Someone keeps posting this. Which of these schools charged only $16,000 five years ago?

In 2006-2007 the St. Albans tuition was $26,000. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040201369.html This upcoming year, 7 years later, it will be $37,000, for an increase of $11,000 over a seven-year period.

Tuition in 2008 at Sidwell Friends was $29,400 for the Upper School. This year it was $34,400, for an increase of $5000 over four years.

Under Ad Hominem Hover McRant's argument, tuition at St. Albans should be over $52,000 next year, and tuition at Sidwell something like $50,000.

I don't know why he/she does not use the revolutionary tool called "Google" before making statements so clearly provably false. It undercuts her/his main point (which many agree with), which is that the rates of increase, if not as Brobdingnagian as she/he claims, are not sustainable in the long haul.

Because the tuition/fees which google can gather are already out of date. You see, tuition goes up 4-6% EVERY year, which you would know if you had a child in Private school. Why are you dogging this thread when you clearly don't have a child enrolled in any of these schools ? You are repeatedly minimizing a fact that is very difficult for parents who DO HAVE kids in Private school.

Here's a challenge: since you cannot refer to next years' tuition in your DC's contract, find a SINGLE YEAR in the past 10 years, where tuition DID NOT increase. Find one.

[Anonymous]

This from another thread pretty much says it all:


03/27/2013 23:41 Subject: Very sad, but...
Anonymous

May have to leave current Big 3 (elementary grades) after next year for financial reasons. Children very happy and thriving, but tuition is killing us! Considering moving to new neighborhood with good public option or going for less expensive catholic option. To others who have dealt with this - what did you do, how did you explain it to your children, how did your children adjust to leaving all their friends and everything familiar to them? We are very sad and know this will be a difficult time for us, especially the kids. Thank you in advance for any helpful suggestions or guidance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the 990's posted are 5 years old. They don't inform anyone of what is going on today. Tuition has nearly doubled since the period those old 990's reflect.

Someone keeps posting this. Which of these schools charged only $16,000 five years ago?

In 2006-2007 the St. Albans tuition was $26,000. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040201369.html This upcoming year, 7 years later, it will be $37,000, for an increase of $11,000 over a seven-year period.

Tuition in 2008 at Sidwell Friends was $29,400 for the Upper School. This year it was $34,400, for an increase of $5000 over four years.

Under Ad Hominem Hover McRant's argument, tuition at St. Albans should be over $52,000 next year, and tuition at Sidwell something like $50,000.

I don't know why he/she does not use the revolutionary tool called "Google" before making statements so clearly provably false. It undercuts her/his main point (which many agree with), which is that the rates of increase, if not as Brobdingnagian as she/he claims, are not sustainable in the long haul.

Because the tuition/fees which google can gather are already out of date. You see, tuition goes up 4-6% EVERY year, which you would know if you had a child in Private school. Why are you dogging this thread when you clearly don't have a child enrolled in any of these schools ? You are repeatedly minimizing a fact that is very difficult for parents who DO HAVE kids in Private school.

Here's a challenge: since you cannot refer to next years' tuition in your DC's contract, find a SINGLE YEAR in the past 10 years, where tuition DID NOT increase. Find one.

You are interesting -- whenever someone calls you out on one of your exaggerations you just change the subject and make a new assertion.

You said you wanted more details about expenses, including some specific salary information. When you were directed towards 990 filings, you said the posted 990s were 6 years old -- they are 2 and 3 years old.

You said all the schools have $40 million in annual revenue and could not substantiate that for even the largest schools.

You said tuition had doubled since those 990s. Okay, you didn't look carefully at them (because you said they were 4-6 years old), but the above post that you yourself quote shows that tuition did not increase anywhere close to 100% (which is what doubling is, FYI since you appear to be numerically illiterate) at two of the more expensive schools in the 4-6 year period you appear to be referencing.

You said all the schools have enrollments over 1000, but ignored the lengthy list of schools (St. Andrews, Georgetown Prep, Georgetown Visitation, St. Albans, NCS, Maret, Landon, Holton Arms, Bullis, just to name a few) with far lower enrollments.

You made up your own gross revenue figure by multiplying enrollments at Sidwell and GDS (two of the three biggest schools in the area) by the listed tuition, and ignored financial aid altogether in this "calculation."

You assert that all schools can and do raise $10 million per year in capital campaigns, when many prominent schools in this area (Bullis and Landon, to name two) have endowments under $10 million total.

[list] You assert that anyone who disagrees with you must not know anything about private schools, yet you don't seem to know anything about annual giving or development in general.[/i]


So now you finally just assert that tuition has been going up 4-6% each year at private schools. [/i]Allelujah![i] You finally posted something accurate. Why did you not just start there and avoid getting derailed by the other side arguments?

I guess because you don't really want to think about why tuition is going up, and have meaningful discussions about comparable costs in the public sector (the excellent series of posts looking at per pupil costs with and without state aid) or where private schools could make cuts to preserve their sustainability -- you ignore or derail every post that gets into detail -- you just want to complain.

Got it, complaint registered. No thanks for taking a pretty interesting and intellectually balanced discussion off the rails, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Someone keeps posting this. Which of these schools charged only $16,000 five years ago?

Again your deliberately posting the lowest tuition you can find ( half of 32K) to try to minimize the impact tuitions for 2013-2014 of $ 39,750 are having on families ( not just leaving schools their kids love, but impacting the quality of their family life as UMC parents work more and more to be able to foot such an outrageous bill ( 120K for 3 kids in elementary school).

Read the thread, several NCS alums contributed as just one example. Yes, tuition has nearly doubled in last 6 years, at many schools. repeating it hasn't and comparing the lowest tuition you can find on line ( last year's number to boot) doesn't change that.

Of course, every parent who has had a kid in private school for at leats 10 years knows this is true. Your denying it over and over does not make it untrue.

You've been given numerous examples that show your "tuition nearly doubling in last 6 years" statement is just off. "Nearly doubling" would be an increase of close to 100%. Obviously that is not the case, as the posted Sidwell and St. Albans examples demonstrate. (I don't think you actually read the posts that contradict yours -- it is the only explanation.)

Now, is it possible that you are trying to say that in the last six years "tuition has nearly increased by 50%"? That's different from "doubling," but I could sort of see your confusion if that's what you were thinking. You'd still be a little off on your timeline, but if St. Albans was $26,000 in 2006, a 50% increase is $39,000 which is close to what the 2013-2014 tuition will be (I've heard it is a 3.5% increase for next year but it might be 4%). So that would be an increase by "nearly 50%" in seven years, which IS DEFINITELY A LOT! (But it's not "doubling.")

[Anonymous]

This is directed at the 20:03 post, to be clear. I am reposting because I think maybe the difference between the concept of "doubling" and an "increase of 50%" explains some of your posts:

You've been given numerous examples that show your "tuition nearly doubling in last 6 years" statement is just off. "Nearly doubling" would be an increase of close to 100%. Obviously that is not the case, as the posted Sidwell and St. Albans examples demonstrate. (I don't think you actually read the posts that contradict yours -- it is the only explanation.)

Now, is it possible that you are trying to say that in the last six years "tuition has nearly increased by 50%"? That's different from "doubling," but I could sort of see your confusion if that's what you were thinking. You'd still be a little off on your timeline, but if St. Albans was $26,000 in 2006, a 50% increase is $39,000 which is close to what the 2013-2014 tuition will be (I've heard it is a 3.5% increase for next year but it might be 4%). So that would be an increase by "nearly 50%" in seven years, which IS DEFINITELY A LOT! (But it's not "doubling.")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is directed at the 20:03 post, to be clear. I am reposting because I think maybe the difference between the concept of "doubling" and an "increase of 50%" explains some of your posts:

You've been given numerous examples that show your "tuition nearly doubling in last 6 years" statement is just off. "Nearly doubling" would be an increase of close to 100%. Obviously that is not the case, as the posted Sidwell and St. Albans examples demonstrate. (I don't think you actually read the posts that contradict yours -- it is the only explanation.)

Now, is it possible that you are trying to say that in the last six years "tuition has nearly increased by 50%"? That's different from "doubling," but I could sort of see your confusion if that's what you were thinking. You'd still be a little off on your timeline, but if St. Albans was $26,000 in 2006, a 50% increase is $39,000 which is close to what the 2013-2014 tuition will be (I've heard it is a 3.5% increase for next year but it might be 4%). So that would be an increase by "nearly 50%" in seven years, which IS DEFINITELY A LOT! (But it's not "doubling.")

Maybe that poster is thinking of the phrase "increased by half again" (which I think is used in the UK more than here), meaning 50%, but is saying "doubling" instead.

[Anonymous]

03/30/2013 00:35,
I admire you! +1!

[Anonymous]

There have been some very good posts on this thread -- I found the posts talking about MoCo and DC costs thought-provoking.

I do think that, for some of the best known schools, they can probably keep hiking tuitions and their reputations will be enough to fill the seats with the children of the very affluent and about 25% receiving financial aid. However, this is not sustainable for every school. I know a lot of DC lawyer types, even at big firms, who just never got on the private school train -- and the private schools need those lawyers' kids.

I recall reading that one small college (maybe Sewanee?) cut it's tuition by 10% -- I'd like to see a school try something like that (but realize its probably unrealistic). Thoughts for savings (and some are controversial, and maybe some remove the advantages of private schools!), interested in hearing others viewpoints:

--Increase enrollment (tough bc of facility constraints);
--Decrease the size of the faculty (through attrition followed by elimination of the position) by increasing class section size modestly and/or having teachers teach 5 class sections instead of 4 (which is, I think, the norm) (but a teaching load of 80 students may mean, in the humanities for example, a drop in writing assignments which would be a costly side effect);
--Eliminate more of the non-teaching admin jobs (deans and assistant headmasters and division heads should also teach some classes);
--Cap out teaching salaries like the Government GS scale; once you hit a certain level you are limited to COLA increases and not substantive raises each year (this old increase faculty turnover);
--Grandfather out automatic tuition remission for faculty children;
--Eliminate full time positions for things like international programs, environmental, or diversity coordinators, and offer existing faculty a fair stipend to pick up the responsibility
--Moratorium on facility additions/upgrades and do a capital drive to endow more of the financial aid

All of these things pretty clearly would have costs/byproducts. Are there better options out there? Where do people see the real waste or, to be less negative, the non-essential elements that could be cut? Is it just the new facilities?

[Anonymous]

FWIW, Sidwell's tuition for 2013-14 is $35,228. That's an increase of $960 (2.8%) from this year's tuition of $34,268. Still a lot of money, but not even close to the 4-6% increase someone keeps claiming here.