I don't understand why parents waste so much money on private schools in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

Well, we are considering private for our kid. The reason is not goal-related, though I know plenty of people who are. Our kid is a bit of an orchid. He's doing okay in public, but he does much better with more one-on-one attention, smaller groups, more hand holding. It's not to get a more amped job, it's to make sure he's growing and enjoying learning. When you are talking about high SES kids, you might think of private education as a fancy car--the kids get to the same place, but some kids will have more fun on the bus, some kids will enjoy a nice car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

If all my children learn is to be a better writer than you, it will have been worth it.

Aww, someone hit close to home? Better be a 'bad writer' than walk around with the facial expression of someone who didnt properly wipe their ass after taking a dump, as is the case with many of you when your kid(s) end up exactly where public schools kids end up . Except, inmmahu of your cases , you're in debt up till your eyelids .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

most people sending their kids to private school aren't looking at it as an ROI. it's more analogous to a high-end car. first, there are plenty that make lots of $$$ so the money isn't that much to them or the grandparents are paying. second, you are assuming it's about doing better in college admissions - for most, it's not that - but about the school experience.

Exactly this. It is not necessarily about the college admission, test scores but the well rounded experience.

Yes, I am not a proponent of private schools. (They should not be taxpayer supported in any way.) But for those who can afford the true cost of it, even I can see that it is not about a tangible ROI but about the experience. I wouldn't call it truly "well-rounded" because it takes kids and puts them in exclusive enclaves, but it certainly is a well-rounded academic experience (most private schools have excellent language arts curricula and some privates have incredibly challenging math and science curricula). So, while some parents' motives are to network with the right type of people as their ROI, there is definitely a more well-rounded academic experience in a majority of top-tier private schools.

That said, parents can certainly provide well-rounded experiences for kids in public schools. It just takes more in-home supplementation and more extra-curricular legwork. But in the end, I believe the public school kids have a more realistic picture of the world than some private school kids. That is an invaluable ROI for future leaders who want to be problem solvers rather than just opportunity hoarders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a public school in the 90s, it was one of the top public high schools in California. When I went to university, I noticed very little difference between those who went to public vs private schools. The SAT scores in DC private schools are basically comparable to the top publics. I don't get it, i mean if you got millions to burn, so be it. I rather give my kids a house.

School has changed. I’ve taught in both FCPS and a private. Those private kids are getting a much better writing curriculum.

And those public kids are getting much better math and Science curriculums.

I’m the pp you’re responding to. I’ve taught using six different math curriculums. My private ended up choosing Math in Focus, which is fabulous, so no.

That is just Singapore Math and can be just be supplemented at home. NBD.

DP. I thought you said that publics had much better math and science curriculums. Why the need to teach a whole other curriculum at home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

most people sending their kids to private school aren't looking at it as an ROI. it's more analogous to a high-end car. first, there are plenty that make lots of $$$ so the money isn't that much to them or the grandparents are paying. second, you are assuming it's about doing better in college admissions - for most, it's not that - but about the school experience.

Exactly this. It is not necessarily about the college admission, test scores but the well rounded experience.

Yes, I am not a proponent of private schools. (They should not be taxpayer supported in any way.) But for those who can afford the true cost of it, even I can see that it is not about a tangible ROI but about the experience. I wouldn't call it truly "well-rounded" because it takes kids and puts them in exclusive enclaves, but it certainly is a well-rounded academic experience (most private schools have excellent language arts curricula and some privates have incredibly challenging math and science curricula). So, while some parents' motives are to network with the right type of people as their ROI, there is definitely a more well-rounded academic experience in a majority of top-tier private schools.

That said, parents can certainly provide well-rounded experiences for kids in public schools. It just takes more in-home supplementation and more extra-curricular legwork. But in the end, I believe the public school kids have a more realistic picture of the world than some private school kids. That is an invaluable ROI for future leaders who want to be problem solvers rather than just opportunity hoarders.

Is this satire? Do you understand how current public schools even work? You genuinely believe that in this world of "good school districts" and housing-based education outcomes, you can write the that nonsense with a straight face?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a public school in the 90s, it was one of the top public high schools in California. When I went to university, I noticed very little difference between those who went to public vs private schools. The SAT scores in DC private schools are basically comparable to the top publics. I don't get it, i mean if you got millions to burn, so be it. I rather give my kids a house.

School has changed. I’ve taught in both FCPS and a private. Those private kids are getting a much better writing curriculum.

And those public kids are getting much better math and Science curriculums.

I’m the pp you’re responding to. I’ve taught using six different math curriculums. My private ended up choosing Math in Focus, which is fabulous, so no.

That is just Singapore Math and can be just be supplemented at home. NBD.

DP. I thought you said that publics had much better math and science curriculums. Why the need to teach a whole other curriculum at home?

I'm not PP, but seriously $45K for Singapore Math? No big deal if you want to spend that coin on things parents can easily supplement at home. You do you. But I do see plenty of kids from Sidwell, STA, and NCS at AoPS and RSM supplementing their school Singapore Math curriculum. So, next we'll need to supplement the supplement to the supplement!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

most people sending their kids to private school aren't looking at it as an ROI. it's more analogous to a high-end car. first, there are plenty that make lots of $$$ so the money isn't that much to them or the grandparents are paying. second, you are assuming it's about doing better in college admissions - for most, it's not that - but about the school experience.

Exactly this. It is not necessarily about the college admission, test scores but the well rounded experience.

Yes, I am not a proponent of private schools. (They should not be taxpayer supported in any way.) But for those who can afford the true cost of it, even I can see that it is not about a tangible ROI but about the experience. I wouldn't call it truly "well-rounded" because it takes kids and puts them in exclusive enclaves, but it certainly is a well-rounded academic experience (most private schools have excellent language arts curricula and some privates have incredibly challenging math and science curricula). So, while some parents' motives are to network with the right type of people as their ROI, there is definitely a more well-rounded academic experience in a majority of top-tier private schools.

That said, parents can certainly provide well-rounded experiences for kids in public schools. It just takes more in-home supplementation and more extra-curricular legwork. But in the end, I believe the public school kids have a more realistic picture of the world than some private school kids. That is an invaluable ROI for future leaders who want to be problem solvers rather than just opportunity hoarders.

Is this satire? Do you understand how current public schools even work? You genuinely believe that in this world of "good school districts" and housing-based education outcomes, you can write the that nonsense with a straight face?

Totally understand that our public schools are silos based on housing, but not as much as private schools. Surely, you can't argue that privates are more diverse than publics! That would be the height of disingenuous creativity!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

most people sending their kids to private school aren't looking at it as an ROI. it's more analogous to a high-end car. first, there are plenty that make lots of $$$ so the money isn't that much to them or the grandparents are paying. second, you are assuming it's about doing better in college admissions - for most, it's not that - but about the school experience.

Exactly this. It is not necessarily about the college admission, test scores but the well rounded experience.

Yes, I am not a proponent of private schools. (They should not be taxpayer supported in any way.) But for those who can afford the true cost of it, even I can see that it is not about a tangible ROI but about the experience. I wouldn't call it truly "well-rounded" because it takes kids and puts them in exclusive enclaves, but it certainly is a well-rounded academic experience (most private schools have excellent language arts curricula and some privates have incredibly challenging math and science curricula). So, while some parents' motives are to network with the right type of people as their ROI, there is definitely a more well-rounded academic experience in a majority of top-tier private schools.

That said, parents can certainly provide well-rounded experiences for kids in public schools. It just takes more in-home supplementation and more extra-curricular legwork. But in the end, I believe the public school kids have a more realistic picture of the world than some private school kids. That is an invaluable ROI for future leaders who want to be problem solvers rather than just opportunity hoarders.

Is this satire? Do you understand how current public schools even work? You genuinely believe that in this world of "good school districts" and housing-based education outcomes, you can write the that nonsense with a straight face?

That depends on the school district. I grew up in a medium sized town. The population wasn’t large enough for the schools to have significant socio - economic or racial segregation. The kids of millionaire business owners went to the same school as the kids of doctors, plumbers and long term unemployed. Looking back, that was a valuable experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools should be abolished. Or at least the tax payer subsidy should be abolished. Not only do public school parents pay for our schools, but we also pay for your privates? No thanks!

It’s the other way around. I pay for public schools that we don’t use. We don’t get a tax payer subsidy for private.

Private school is a choice. You don't have to, but you choose to; that is totally fine. But, private schools benefit from the non-profit tax exemptions. If that is taken away, the true cost of private will apply. The tax payer is subsidizing private schools when they play no role for the public good, unlike other non-profits. And now, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, individuals get a taxpayer subsidy via 529s. So, yeah, that's a publicly funded subsidy.

You’re really stupid.

If I get could no longer claim nonprofit status they still would pay very little tax since only “profits” are taxed and schools spend their income on expenses.

Then you don't know how nonprofits work. To qualify as one, you have to pass a public benefits test. I do know that the income they make is not "profit," according to the revenue code, which is the most egregious part of private, nonprofit secondary schools. Whether or not you understand that is the divide. Likely, you are too happy to live on this subsidy under the code. Enjoy!

Seems like YOU don't understand how corporate taxes work. If schools were forced under the tax treatment of corporations they would only be taxed on their "profit" not their revenue. So, almost nothing. Or literally nothing in most cases. Because they spend their revenues on their expenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools should be abolished. Or at least the tax payer subsidy should be abolished. Not only do public school parents pay for our schools, but we also pay for your privates? No thanks!

It’s the other way around. I pay for public schools that we don’t use. We don’t get a tax payer subsidy for private.

Private school is a choice. You don't have to, but you choose to; that is totally fine. But, private schools benefit from the non-profit tax exemptions. If that is taken away, the true cost of private will apply. The tax payer is subsidizing private schools when they play no role for the public good, unlike other non-profits. And now, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, individuals get a taxpayer subsidy via 529s. So, yeah, that's a publicly funded subsidy.

You’re really stupid.

If I get could no longer claim nonprofit status they still would pay very little tax since only “profits” are taxed and schools spend their income on expenses.

Then you don't know how nonprofits work. To qualify as one, you have to pass a public benefits test. I do know that the income they make is not "profit," according to the revenue code, which is the most egregious part of private, nonprofit secondary schools. Whether or not you understand that is the divide. Likely, you are too happy to live on this subsidy under the code. Enjoy!

Which is why they have foundations that they endow, tax free! Yay, corporate welfare!

Seems like YOU don't understand how corporate taxes work. If schools were forced under the tax treatment of corporations they would only be taxed on their "profit" not their revenue. So, almost nothing. Or literally nothing in most cases. Because they spend their revenues on their expenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools should be abolished. Or at least the tax payer subsidy should be abolished. Not only do public school parents pay for our schools, but we also pay for your privates? No thanks!

It’s the other way around. I pay for public schools that we don’t use. We don’t get a tax payer subsidy for private.

Private school is a choice. You don't have to, but you choose to; that is totally fine. But, private schools benefit from the non-profit tax exemptions. If that is taken away, the true cost of private will apply. The tax payer is subsidizing private schools when they play no role for the public good, unlike other non-profits. And now, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, individuals get a taxpayer subsidy via 529s. So, yeah, that's a publicly funded subsidy.

You’re really stupid.

If I get could no longer claim nonprofit status they still would pay very little tax since only “profits” are taxed and schools spend their income on expenses.

Then you don't know how nonprofits work. To qualify as one, you have to pass a public benefits test. I do know that the income they make is not "profit," according to the revenue code, which is the most egregious part of private, nonprofit secondary schools. Whether or not you understand that is the divide. Likely, you are too happy to live on this subsidy under the code. Enjoy!

Seems like YOU don't understand how corporate taxes work. If schools were forced under the tax treatment of corporations they would only be taxed on their "profit" not their revenue. So, almost nothing. Or literally nothing in most cases. Because they spend their revenues on their expenses.

Which is why they have foundations that they endow, tax free! Yay, corporate welfare!

Your extreme bitterness is noted. K-12s are almost never like top flight colleges, sitting on massive endowments. Almost always, it's money in and money out. Closing this loophole would raise no revenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

most people sending their kids to private school aren't looking at it as an ROI. it's more analogous to a high-end car. first, there are plenty that make lots of $$$ so the money isn't that much to them or the grandparents are paying. second, you are assuming it's about doing better in college admissions - for most, it's not that - but about the school experience.

Exactly this. It is not necessarily about the college admission, test scores but the well rounded experience.

Yes, I am not a proponent of private schools. (They should not be taxpayer supported in any way.) But for those who can afford the true cost of it, even I can see that it is not about a tangible ROI but about the experience. I wouldn't call it truly "well-rounded" because it takes kids and puts them in exclusive enclaves, but it certainly is a well-rounded academic experience (most private schools have excellent language arts curricula and some privates have incredibly challenging math and science curricula). So, while some parents' motives are to network with the right type of people as their ROI, there is definitely a more well-rounded academic experience in a majority of top-tier private schools.

That said, parents can certainly provide well-rounded experiences for kids in public schools. It just takes more in-home supplementation and more extra-curricular legwork. But in the end, I believe the public school kids have a more realistic picture of the world than some private school kids. That is an invaluable ROI for future leaders who want to be problem solvers rather than just opportunity hoarders.

Is this satire? Do you understand how current public schools even work? You genuinely believe that in this world of "good school districts" and housing-based education outcomes, you can write the that nonsense with a straight face?

Totally understand that our public schools are silos based on housing, but not as much as private schools. Surely, you can't argue that privates are more diverse than publics! That would be the height of disingenuous creativity!

As a rule, no, private schools are not as diverse as public schools. But when you are comparing a top private school with a top public school, it isn't always so clear-cut. I think it is truly hard to argue that public school kids from the "good school districts" aren't similar opportunity hoarders (and possibly maybe more, because of the housing-based aspect -- look at the horror show that is any boundary debate).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools should be abolished. Or at least the tax payer subsidy should be abolished. Not only do public school parents pay for our schools, but we also pay for your privates? No thanks!

It’s the other way around. I pay for public schools that we don’t use. We don’t get a tax payer subsidy for private.

Private school is a choice. You don't have to, but you choose to; that is totally fine. But, private schools benefit from the non-profit tax exemptions. If that is taken away, the true cost of private will apply. The tax payer is subsidizing private schools when they play no role for the public good, unlike other non-profits. And now, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, individuals get a taxpayer subsidy via 529s. So, yeah, that's a publicly funded subsidy.

You’re really stupid.

If I get could no longer claim nonprofit status they still would pay very little tax since only “profits” are taxed and schools spend their income on expenses.

Then you don't know how nonprofits work. To qualify as one, you have to pass a public benefits test. I do know that the income they make is not "profit," according to the revenue code, which is the most egregious part of private, nonprofit secondary schools. Whether or not you understand that is the divide. Likely, you are too happy to live on this subsidy under the code. Enjoy!

Seems like YOU don't understand how corporate taxes work. If schools were forced under the tax treatment of corporations they would only be taxed on their "profit" not their revenue. So, almost nothing. Or literally nothing in most cases. Because they spend their revenues on their expenses.

Which is why they have foundations that they endow, tax free! Yay, corporate welfare!

Your extreme bitterness is noted. K-12s are almost never like top flight colleges, sitting on massive endowments. Almost always, it's money in and money out. Closing this loophole would raise no revenue.

You can call me bitter, but the bitter truth is that some (successful) private secondary schools are sitting on huge cash piles that they raise for charitable purposes. And what is that charity: private school enclaves for wealthy, UMC, strivers, poseurs, etc? All under the veil of a nonprofit. Again, I have no problem with private schools. Just not partly funded by federal (and state) freebies. I don't blame parents for taking advantage of it. We have a deeply unjust tax code in some respects. Even though it is one of the most progressive tax codes in the OECD,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools should be abolished. Or at least the tax payer subsidy should be abolished. Not only do public school parents pay for our schools, but we also pay for your privates? No thanks!

It’s the other way around. I pay for public schools that we don’t use. We don’t get a tax payer subsidy for private.

Private school is a choice. You don't have to, but you choose to; that is totally fine. But, private schools benefit from the non-profit tax exemptions. If that is taken away, the true cost of private will apply. The tax payer is subsidizing private schools when they play no role for the public good, unlike other non-profits. And now, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, individuals get a taxpayer subsidy via 529s. So, yeah, that's a publicly funded subsidy.

After tax dollars saved in 529 plan don’t amount to a taxpayer subsidy - whether that money is used for college or k-12 makes not difference - the money is not coming the government. Perhaps you are not clear on the meaning of subsidy?

Either you are willfully lying or you do not understand your finances. Dollars going into a 529 are indeed after-tax; but dollars going out -- including gains -- are NOT TAXED AT ALL if they're used for the plan's purposes. So, yes that is a subsidy you receive under the IR code.

This is where I will go snarky and say, I hope your private school kids are not so financially illiterate as this post make you out to be. God help those little "masters of the universe" to be!
I have no problem with private schools (I went to boarding school), but I do have a problem with obfuscation. Just admit your privilege and move on.[/

Thanks - I know exactly how a 529 works. Are you this bitter about ROTH gains that are withdrawals after 5 years for education? Bitter about perhaps your failure? You are the perfect example of private schools not guaranteeing life success. Noted.

[Anonymous]

Finally, at least we can agree that your private school is partly funded by the tax code!