Private school is a terrible ROI for middle class people

[Anonymous]

If private school tuition is 30k a year and you instead invest this money at 7% returns from age 5 through 18, you'll have over 600k by college age. If this 600k was invested another 12 years until 30 it would become almost $1.5M.

I know some people are rich enough to do both but if you can only choose one, what would it be? I think at the very least private school tuition should be cut and you give this money to your kid in young adulthood to help them with buying a house or something. I see so many people who aren't even rich sending kids to private and I just wonder why they do this when it would be way more impactful to their children's future to just invest the money to gift to them as adults.

[Anonymous]

And many private schools in this area aren’t 30k-they’re closer to 60k per year

[Anonymous]

Sometimes public school isn’t working?

[Anonymous]

It's part of the never-ending quest for social mobility. Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes not.

[Anonymous]

Smart middle class kids get merit aid. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

The idea that the value of an education can be measured solely in financial terms is completely cloddish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the value of an education can be measured solely in financial terms is completely cloddish.

+100 thank. Came here to say this. Some of y'all are not that bright are you.

[Anonymous]

This is exactly why many higher-income families prefer to stay in public, OP.

Now we did move to an expensive neighborhood to get into the most reputable publics. But that was also a safeguard against a possible future issue with property values, since real estate is most stable around good neighborhoods with good schools. I looked on the map at locations such that if boundaries changed, we would either not be impacted (because too close to the school), or be switched to another excellent school cluster.

We're very happy with our decision. Oldest is in college and youngest is in MCPS high school. Our net worth has grown *significantly* in the stock market compared to 20 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is exactly why many higher-income families prefer to stay in public, OP.

Now we did move to an expensive neighborhood to get into the most reputable publics. But that was also a safeguard against a possible future issue with property values, since real estate is most stable around good neighborhoods with good schools. I looked on the map at locations such that if boundaries changed, we would either not be impacted (because too close to the school), or be switched to another excellent school cluster.

We're very happy with our decision. Oldest is in college and youngest is in MCPS high school. Our net worth has grown *significantly* in the stock market compared to 20 years ago.

Me again. Our oldest had ADHD/autism and an IEP in MCPS. He was better served there than he would have been in an SN private, because he also needed academic acceleration. Just wanted to add that for all the posters who think that special needs = private.

[Anonymous]

In no way did I decide to spend $25k/year because I thought it was a sound financial investment. I pay $25k a year because my child is able to enjoy school when I do, vs. struggling emotionally and socially to scary levels at our free option.

As soon as I feel like he can handle public school again, I'll send him back.

[Anonymous]

I contemplated this a few years ago. Buying in a cheaper area and paying for private, or buying the best we could afford and going to a well regarded public.

In the end, I determined paying up for good public schools *should be a better ROI as the house value is somewhat tied to it. When you are ready to sell, you will sell to someone else willing to pay up for good public schools. Whereas with paying for private- that money doesn't come back.

*Assumes the public schools do not deteriorate over time, example- Herndon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the value of an education can be measured solely in financial terms is completely cloddish.

Not quite.

I believe a majority of people in the middle class do not know how to invest and how to think long-term about money. So perhaps for them, even if their kids stayed in public, they would fritter away their extra dollars on useless things and not actually take the opportunity to build wealth. In those circumstances, why not pay for private instead, since investment is going to go to waste anyway?

But for those who do understand compounding and strategic money placements... public is a good idea. Usually those are also the people who make sure their kids learn something in public. They make the most of what they've got.

[Anonymous]

We live in a small house we bought for $175,000 20 years ago. We had the choice of selling and buying an equally tiny house in a good school system for 3 times as much, or paying for private. We opted for private.

Was it a good financial decision? Don’t know, don’t really care. We are financially secure and the kid is off in a college he likes and we can afford. All good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Smart middle class kids get merit aid. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.

This and the connections that can be made are priceless.

[Anonymous]

Class anxiety is a powerful drug.