Where is the fat in private schools?

[Anonymous]

Maintenance costs for buildings and grounds are much lower in public than private - due to economies of scale.

[Anonymous]

The very expensive schools don’t need to be so expensive. But they are because they can. Plenty of people could and would pay $100k/yr and not bat an eye.

Of course there’s fat. But there is also no incentive to cut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Why do you think admin and families at the schools with exorbitant tuition have any interest in cutting the fat?

[Anonymous]

Sports. Sports are super expensive.

[Anonymous]

I also am shocked at this.

Our kids were accepted at a MoCo early elementary private whose tuition is in the mid-$30ks for a small, unrenovated facility. No gym, no art studio, no beautiful playground or large grounds.

Two teachers per class, yes, but the teachers generally make less than $70k per year.

I don’t know where the extra money goes. Only appx 10% of the student body receives financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The very expensive schools don’t need to be so expensive. But they are because they can. Plenty of people could and would pay $100k/yr and not bat an eye.

Of course there’s fat. But there is also no incentive to cut it.

I agree with this statement. Maybe there is lack of competition.

[Anonymous]

The fat is a feature. If a school is visibly overspending, it projects an image of luxury, or at least that brand of luxury where you don't have to worry about what things cost. If you want to see how gross this gets, look at what business schools spend on "student life".

[Anonymous]

Class sizes are much smaller than publics so there are more teachers per students. Benefits for employees are also very expensive - health insurance goes up more than inflation each year. Schools with large grounds or old buildings have to pay a lot to maintain them.

I don't think they can make it on cheaper tuition unless they make cuts that full pay parents would not be happy with. SSFS is cheaper than a lot of DC privates and they have serious money problems. Additionally, I agree with OP somewhat on FA - at schools with large endowments, FA comes from other funds, but at schools with small endowments, full pay families are absolutely subsidizing FA students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fat is a feature. If a school is visibly overspending, it projects an image of luxury, or at least that brand of luxury where you don't have to worry about what things cost. If you want to see how gross this gets, look at what business schools spend on "student life".

Truth! When people talk about student loan debt, I'm like most colleges are a luxury... if you can get lobster on the meal plan (mine did) it's a luxury. Community college a cheaper schools are the alternative that people turn their noses up at, but like it's a solid education, if you go to a name brand school (even if it is a "state school") you are buying a luxury product...

[Anonymous]

All of the information is publicly available. Look it up.

Tuition doesn’t cover expenses. The gap is covered by interest from the endowment.

[Anonymous]

If you compare to Catholic schools that charge and actually operate on ~15K/student, you realize that the fat is in the facilities and admin pay. Catholics school buildings are usually owned by the parish, so that is “free” to them. They’re not otherwise subsidized to the extent people think they are. For the most part they make do with less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you compare to Catholic schools that charge and actually operate on ~15K/student, you realize that the fat is in the facilities and admin pay. Catholics school buildings are usually owned by the parish, so that is “free” to them. They’re not otherwise subsidized to the extent people think they are. For the most part they make do with less.

Private schools own their building so that is “free” for thems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you compare to Catholic schools that charge and actually operate on ~15K/student, you realize that the fat is in the facilities and admin pay. Catholics school buildings are usually owned by the parish, so that is “free” to them. They’re not otherwise subsidized to the extent people think they are. For the most part they make do with less.

Private schools own their building so that is “free” for thems.

Some do. Some do not. Our small non-profit private has a big mortgage to pay off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the information is publicly available. Look it up.

Tuition doesn’t cover expenses. The gap is covered by interest from the endowment.

It often isn't, because of churches! I think it's crazy but yeah, religious schools have minimal reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you compare to Catholic schools that charge and actually operate on ~15K/student, you realize that the fat is in the facilities and admin pay. Catholics school buildings are usually owned by the parish, so that is “free” to them. They’re not otherwise subsidized to the extent people think they are. For the most part they make do with less.

It's not easy to tell how the funding works for Catholic schools because churches get a lot of privacy, but for sure you can't just compare tuition rates and pretend that's spending.