FA shouldn't go to people with 1 million dollar houses

[Anonymous]

Well, then have faith that your school is, indeed, spending the money appropriately. Unless you have access to a person's financial statement and tax returns, you have no idea how much money they have or what their expenses may be. I just find it hard to believe that a school would give aid to the Georgetown row house family, if the family couldn't prove that they legitimately needed it. So I assume that they have expenses that you don't know about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not, however, thrilled about supporting the mortgage payment for a Georgetown row house for a family that makes more than I do. Financial aid is not just sitting in a magical pot. It is funded, and people have the right to hope that these funds are targeted toward those with need, just as we have the right to hope that any aid is targeted efficiently.

Ding, ding, ding!!!

No more calls, we have a winner. This captures the point exactly, and can be expanded to cover fancy cars, expensive vacations and haute coture.

[Anonymous]

9:38 I cannot believe that you think FA does not deserve scrutiny. It kind of reminds me of Social Security: Wealthy seniors taking back more than they put in the system even though they don't need it. We live in strange times. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to, it doesn't mean it's right, it doesn't mean the status quo is optimal.

[Anonymous]

09:38 here--Let's face it. The D.C. metropolitan area is the land of smoke and mirrors. There are plenty of people pretending that they have more many than they really do. And there are a lot of people who look well-off on the outside (i.e. nice outfit or car) who are really living paycheck to paycheck--including many people posting on this board. I remember someone posting that in order to send her child to private school, she and her family only serve meat a few times per week to save money. I'll bet the family doesn't share that info at school.

So my point was that if the FA Committee gave aid to a Georgetown row house family, the family probably has a lot less money or a lot more expenses than would be obvious to the rest of us. But since the FA committees have access to their REAL financial picture, I'm willing to give the FA committee the benefit of the doubt.

[Anonymous]

The fact is that rich people are good at keeping their money. I've found that the more money someone has, the more likely they are to have "forgotten" their wallet when I'm with them at a restaurant.

So, when it comes to financial aid, I have no trouble believing that the family in this Georgetown rowhouse has structured things to avoid taxes and reduce their expenses as much as possible. Maybe the house and money is held by the grandparents, leaving the parents with, in fact, little assets on paper. There are countless possibilities.

For me, the decision is this: If I feel that the school effectively manages financial aid, I am more likely to contribute to the annual fund. It's free choice.

And, I'm paying full tuition. By choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So, when it comes to financial aid, I have no trouble believing that the family in this Georgetown rowhouse has structured things to avoid taxes and reduce their expenses as much as possible. Maybe the house and money is held by the grandparents, leaving the parents with, in fact, little assets on paper. There are countless possibilities.

Living rent-free and mortgage-free in a house held in someone else's name would have to be disclosed in the SSS application and would be a factor in the FA determination IF the applicant was honest about it. The application system does depend on the honesty of applicants. Unfortunately the system is vulnerable to cheating, yet it does do good for the people who deserve FA.

Has anyone thought up a better way to determine FA need that is not subject to cheating but is nuanced enough to take individual fianancial circumstances into account so that those who need and deserve FA can have FA? I don't think so. No, arbitrary cut-offs such as some posters have suggested (e.g., no $1-million-house-dwellers!) would not be nuanced enough to do justice in many cases.

[Anonymous]

I am not entirely sure that every school uses the same financial disclosure statement. Can it be easier to get FA than another? (I'm not talking about more FA being available, but that the cut-off...whatever that is...is easier for one than another?)

[Anonymous]

Sorry, meant to say easier to get FA at one school than another

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not entirely sure that every school uses the same financial disclosure statement. Can it be easier to get FA than another? (I'm not talking about more FA being available, but that the cut-off...whatever that is...is easier for one than another?)

Many if not all schools use the SSS application that goes though an organization in Princeton.

[Anonymous]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about financial aid here. It is not charity. It is a discount to help maximize revenues. You aren't getting charity when you buy a new outfit on sale at Saks. You're giving Saks revenue that might not earn at all.

Financial aid is a way for schools to meet a variety of strategic needs. Yes, it is a tool to help them have more economic and racial diversity. Just like they use tools like lower admission standards for very wealthy donors. If they are well managed, it is also a way for schools to strengthen their finances. Like any other organization, schools need to maximize total revenue to keep their doors open. But, it is nearly impossible for them to fill their schools with the kids they want from families paying full tuition. So whenever they can get another student paying anything over the marginal cost for that child, the better off they are financially.

A simplified way to look at it is to say a school can reliably fill 10 seats in a classroom with families paying full tuition. But, another 5 kids in the class could actually improve social and education factors, despite the larger class size. So if the school takes in those 5 students and offers their families a 50% discount on tuition, it will earn another $50,000 without having to hire another teacher or build another classroom. If it didn't offer the financial aid, it would earn $50,000 less and maybe have to cut back on a language section or art elective.

[Anonymous]

So when you contribute to financial aid, you're subsidizing discounts/sale prices your school offers to other families whose demand is more price-elastic than your own.

[Anonymous]

@17:01

Why would I send my kid to a school so unpopular that it can't fill the 15 seats?

----OR-----

Why would I send my kid to a school that fills its 10 seats, but then increases class size and overfills the school for the sake of increased revenue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when you contribute to financial aid, you're subsidizing discounts/sale prices your school offers to other families whose demand is more price-elastic than your own.

That is what it sounded like to me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about financial aid here. It is not charity. It is a discount to help maximize revenues.

I don't think I understand you here. Are you saying it's a revenue-maximizing behavior for schools to offer financial aid? Maybe I could agree if you're defining "revenue" broadly to include characteristics the school might want to obtain besides dollars (e.g., an economically diverse student body). But if you're defining "revenue" in the traditional way (i.e., cash money), I don't think I agree with you. It seems many well-regarded schools in the DC area would have little trouble filling every empty seat with students paying full-freight even if they were to eliminate financial aid entirely. Offering financial aid might provide schools with certain goodwill benefits that carry some intangible value (in much the same way I derive some goodwill benefit by dropping a dollar in the Salvation Army bucket), but I don't see how offering financial aid is truly maximizing revenues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The burbs are horrid and you need 2 cars.

And on behalf of the people in the burbs, stay in the city b/c we think YOU'RE horrid, PP.

What an ignorant statement from an idiot, no doubt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like the OP wants families who are on financial aid to panhandle on the weekends with a sign "will work for food" and eat at soup kitchens. You never know how people are REALLY living. It could all be a lie. They could be one month away from getting kicked out of their house. Who knows, but it really is none of your business. If you don't like it, don't give. If you give it is because you want to - what do you expect, that they will show up and shine your shoes and mow your lawn because you contributed to auction. Things are never how they seem...who knows people might think YOU are a nice person.....

Whatever happened to living w/in your means?

again - no sympathy . . .

Some people get what they deserve.