What is it like to be a family at an elite NWDC Private who can just barely afford it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jealousy? Those full pay parents chose to "scrap by" to increase admission chances for the educational opportunities they value for their kids. I don't think you're very realistic. Anyone can apply but it's not a lottery. You should have bothered to read the thread. May be the fancy degrees and the critical thinking they should have instilled would have clicked in.

Unrealistic about what exactly? Of course I know FA is not a lottery system, it is based on need. The school or degree someone has does not determine need. Need is based on actual income and expenses. For anyone to assume that the type of degree or school one went to determines your need only suggests they have not been paying attention to the financial market. There are many people with fancy degrees from fancy schools that are struggling to get by. I do not begrudge anyone who is scrapping by to pay for their child's tuition, but perhaps they too should be applying for FA instead of viewing it as a government handout they are ashamed to accept. Seems to me that is what is driving most of these comments. Those scrapping by don't want the wealthy full pays to look down on them, yet they freight at night over whether they really fit in or their kid is going to feel their middle class lifestyle is actually akin to poverty.

What's most disturbing about this thread is most of what I have read seems to go completely against the ideal of most IS we have toured. The have tons of donors who are don't have children currently enrolled in the school who donate millions of dollars so the school can offer FA to attract people from all walks of life (what do you think would be a better use of the donors money since THAT IS THE EXACT REASON THEY DONATE IT...I mean where should the million plus dollars slated for FA be redirected?) They all speak of equality for all, social justice for all, equal access to education for ALL regardless of income level (not degree or school attended), yet they seem to admit a significant amount of people who don't hold those core values. Or maybe you all are the exception to the rule and just have the loudest voice because those who are committed to the values don't spend their time looking for posts to unleash their misplaced anger on. Maybe you should move your kids to schools that do not offer FA (some exist) and then you won't have to worry about it.

Here I thought IS where mostly progressive liberal minded people...clearly not.

Our family is part of a private school and I am bemused that people think that there are tons of donors throwing millions of dollars at schools. I would say ideals are upheld to best ability but there's just not that much money between FA and the faculty and capital improvements that make those schools attractive to you. Local private schools don't have the endowments that colleges like the IVY's have. And what endowments exist have been impacted by the economy just as people's finances have been. Personally I have no issues with FA for kids the school determines they want regardless of the parent's jobs or degrees. Full pay parents are saying that the tuition increases have become close to unaffordable for them. Those are the same people that also were contributing to FA so the well is shallower now. In this economy there is a very real conflict between FA and a lid on tuition costs for everyone. It doesn't mean they don't hold the core values. Don't you think they are smart enough to apply for financial aid for themselves if they thought it would do any good? Our yearly tuition has more than doubled since joining the school. Where is all this FA money going to come from when the parents you suggest move to public, have to do so? That million + you refer to comes from a lot of donors giving what they can not just the very wealthy.

I don't disagree with controlling the cost of tuition. Certainly if they did then the cost would be affordable to more people. As for how a school raises 1+ million dollars for FA I can only speak to what the administration has told us at open houses and tours. My understanding is that the cost per child is more than they charge for tuition as is, so perhaps this idea that full pay are subsidizing others is not true. I don't know any one particular schools financials, my point is really this idea of how do we decide who is deserving of FA and who isn't and that it seems ridiculous to say it should be based on the degree someone has or the college they went to.

The "millions of dollars" that may have been quoted are probably annual fund numbers. Annual funds cover a wide swath of expenses incurred by the school, probably including the salary of the development officer who helped raise the money. FA is probably the combination of some percentage annual fund, endowed fund interest and specifically ear-marked scholarships by individual donors. IS do get money from philanthropic funds and family foundations, but probably not government or state agencies. Money raised in annual funds and other campaigns covers the expenses not covered by tuition. But the fact is, a family paying full tuition contributes more financially to the school than a family on FA. In order to function, the school must have a certain number of families paying full-tuition. Even if the school has a multimillion dollar endowment, they need those tuition dollars to stay functional.

How each individual school funds FA is different, but yes....full paying families, in some part, fund the FA recipients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of these comments are written from the perspective of the "haves." I'll give the perspective of the "have nots."

I grew up lower middle class, but my parents sacrificed and sent me to the most elite private in the city. Even as a second grader, I remember not wanting to have kids over to my house for a birthday party. There was less place to play, less toys and my backyard backed up to a highway.

It only gets worse as you get older. I got to do enrichment activities at the local public library over break or go camping while my friends went to their beach houses, on skiing trips or exotic vacations. Even though we wore uniforms, my shoes were always the "wrong" brand. In high school, all those kids got new cars. I would be embarrassed when boys picked me up for dates. I had to do work-study and get my scholarships renewed to continue to attend the school.

That said, I still had a lot of friends and did fine socially. But don't think for a second that this stuff doesn't matter because it does. Or that kids don't compare, even at a young age.

My parents fought and debated frequently whether to put me in public school. Most of this happened after they thought I was asleep at night, but I heard anyways.

I'm immensely grateful for my education and I do not fault my parents for trying to give me the best. And yes, I realized all the way through that my family had more than 85 percent of the world. My parents made me volunteer at soup kitchens and in Appalachia to provide perspective.

We are considering private for our daughter. It's top on my list that whatever we choose, the school will be economically and racially diverse, with a high percentage of FA students.

You should go to a parochial school then. Very diverse along those lines, and 100% students get FA via lower-than-other-privates tuition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many double faced people regarding FA.

Hey, there's this great invention called the public school.

You may want to try one.

Why don't you go to private that doesn't offer aid if that your belief system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were one of those families. When my kid was younger, it wasn't a big deal but as they got older and all the kids would be talking about the trips they went on, summer programs, cars etc, it did become more difficult.

Sort felt like we were on the outside of the glass always looking in.

I agree with this. The lifestyle differences seem to get bigger as kids get older.

Yes, that's where we are now. It is tough and as parents we also feel the pressure for our kid and for ourselves. Also, we have had to give up a lot for our child to attend - vacations, home improvement (heck even home decorating!), nicer clothes, car repairs. It kind of sucks at times.

The extra curricular and summer camps are another issue. We have to stick with the local, cheaper options and quite frankly they really do pale in comparison to the better ones. We are now at the point that kids are going for weeks at a time to sleep away camp. Impossible for us to afford that. Also, the vacations - we don't go and it is hard for our kid to sit and hear about everyone's travels and a lot of time these are not exotic but just the sheer volume. Kids are going to Disney twice a year during breaks and then going away to Europe for the summer. Look at the school calendars - they are often set up to accommodate travel during the breaks because a majority of families will travel.

I think as a child gets older, you have to gauge how much of an effect the social pressure is having on them. For some kids, yes, it will role off their backs but not all kids. If it really does effect your child, then it's worth moving to a different school.

+1 At our school some of the FA families dropped out for this reason. It was too hard socially. The DCs were not feeling great abut it. It can be a rough ride. Everyone knows who does not have money and who does. Kids do not think past "shpwy" to "hidden wealth"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Endowment.

Even schools with multimillion dollar endowments still use tuition as an income stream. If endowment covered all costs, Harvard would be free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment.

Even schools with multimillion dollar endowments still use tuition as an income stream. If endowment covered all costs, Harvard would be free.

It is for many students.

[Anonymous]

So tired about the constant back and forth about money. What we need to do is to forget about any type of meritocracy and turn the clock back to the past when the rich stupid kids ruled the world. Whatever. Private schools were for the stupid and public was for the rich with a conscience and those other people. Also, stop your complaining about vacation spots. Anyone can go to Hawaii and you can go down to the Opportunity Shop and pick-up a Louis purse. So suck it up and play the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the argument here is that families that are of the "noble" poor variety (i.e. great opportunities and great degrees, but chose low paying professions) are under the impression that they are good FA candidates. I disagree. I have always been under the impression that FA is designed more to offer opportunity to those who may otherwise not have it. Kids who need a helping hand to get out of poverty, or kids who are really talented, but were born into not so great situations. Of course, it really comes down to how the individual school decides how they want to divvy up the FA money, not me. But if I had scholarships to hand out, I would give it to kids in the later category. The kids of the noble poor are getting a leg up just by being born to two parents with good educations and steady jobs. IF the school wants to hand out merit based FA to parents who are civil servants, that's there prerogative, but it's very different than actual need based FA.

The school doesn't just want kids who are disadvantaged, though. They want the children of professors and research scientists to keep up their SAT/AP averages. This is also one motivation for the middle class financial aid packages that Harvard and Princeton are giving out these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment.

Even schools with multimillion dollar endowments still use tuition as an income stream. If endowment covered all costs, Harvard would be free.

Harvard could easily be free if they so chose. They'd have to stop building random "science campuses", though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment.

Even schools with multimillion dollar endowments still use tuition as an income stream. If endowment covered all costs, Harvard would be free.

It is for 20% of students...

[Anonymous]

Thanks for this thread. It's given me a lot to think about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So tired about the constant back and forth about money. What we need to do is to forget about any type of meritocracy and turn the clock back to the past when the rich stupid kids ruled the world. Whatever. Private schools were for the stupid and public was for the rich with a conscience and those other people. Also, stop your complaining about vacation spots. Anyone can go to Hawaii and you can go down to the Opportunity Shop and pick-up a Louis purse. So suck it up and play the game.

+1 My kids where Uggs and I've never paid full price for a pair between consignment stores and outlet malls. Lol

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think the argument here is that families that are of the "noble" poor variety (i.e. great opportunities and great degrees, but chose low paying professions) are under the impression that they are good FA candidates. I disagree. I have always been under the impression that FA is designed more to offer opportunity to those who may otherwise not have it. Kids who need a helping hand to get out of poverty, or kids who are really talented, but were born into not so great situations. Of course, it really comes down to how the individual school decides how they want to divvy up the FA money, not me. But if I had scholarships to hand out, I would give it to kids in the later category. The kids of the noble poor are getting a leg up just by being born to two parents with good educations and steady jobs. IF the school wants to hand out merit based FA to parents who are civil servants, that's there prerogative, but it's very different than actual need based FA. [/quote]

The school doesn't just want kids who are disadvantaged, though. They want the children of professors and research scientists to keep up their SAT/AP averages. This is also one motivation for the middle class financial aid packages that Harvard and Princeton are giving out these days. [/quote]

Exactly. At the end of the day the school still wants children who have a certain support systems and belief systems at home. That not to suggest an inner city kid does not, but those kids also have other challenges to overcome that being in a wealthy private school won't fix...and I say that as having been one of those kids. Children of the Nobel poor will come to the table with similar value systems about education, social justice,
Community service etc. They typically won't require additional services that children living in poverty might. Those parents also have something to offer their parent community. If you look at children who test high enough to even be admitted into IS statistically it's going to be kids of professionals not kids born into poverty.

The fact that a few lawyers at Big Law no less have commented they receive some for of aid is proof that schools don't delineate between noble poor and disadvantaged poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired about the constant back and forth about money. What we need to do is to forget about any type of meritocracy and turn the clock back to the past when the rich stupid kids ruled the world. Whatever. Private schools were for the stupid and public was for the rich with a conscience and those other people. Also, stop your complaining about vacation spots. Anyone can go to Hawaii and you can go down to the Opportunity Shop and pick-up a Louis purse. So suck it up and play the game.

+1 My kids where Uggs and I've never paid full price for a pair between consignment stores and outlet malls. Lol

*wear

[Anonymous]

Op, we were one of those families. Started my DS in Kindergarten and he stayed in the school until 5th grade. Most of the other families were very wealthy, but many others had modest incomes and/or financial aid. I never felt it was an issue. What killed us was the constant fund raising and the steep increase in tuition which strained us financially. We didn't take that into consideration when he started.