Should financial aid in private school be stricter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s very simple. Why do schools subsidize UMC families where there is a significant chunk of UMC that already pay full tuition.

The answer is also very simple. Donations fund financial aid. People give them money to do this. It is philanthropy.

[Anonymous]

Who are you people who know so many financial aid families who got to Paris and drive BMWs?

I really, really doubt these families are telling you. Perhaps you're assuming they get aid.

We are a fed and a teacher and go on nice vacations etc and I bet people assume we're an aid family but we're not. We have money from previous jobs and grandparents also contribute. But 95% of the school (especially the gossip mom brigade) knows none of this about us. They just see us as an undeserving family who must get aid but also goes to Paris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want some economic diversity but they're largely not prepared to deal with potentially bombastic class and cultural clashes that could result by bringing in truly low income kids who would have to be full ride+. It's easier to subsidize a middle class, college educated couple and their kids who couldn't afford private school but have kids who can, "blend" enough and share similar educational values. That's really it. Let's not kid ourselves, these schools are bastions of extreme privilege, but if they started giving full rides, needing to offer free lunch, subsidize field trips etc. In any way en masse people would FREAK out. So yeah, you're going to get some dual Feds with PhDs bringing in 300k. I think the schools prefer that in so many ways.

I agree. I’m the poster above with a 250k HHI and 3 kids who get significant aid in private school. Our school does prioritize income diversity which we certainly offer since most of the families probably are making over 500k. There are also families who make significantly less than us- when we initially applied we made less than 100k. What they DON’T want is to deal with high maintenance, entitled parents or alternatively parents who are not engaged in their child’s learning. They do offer full rides but will not accept a child whose needs they cannot meet (significant family instability, etc)

You actually sound really entitled. Anyone in the Bay Area who has THREE kids and expects a hand out from a private school to educate all their kids for not even the cost of one full tuition is a leach. If tuition is around 40 K and you have three children that is 120K. So 75% of that is 90k. You only pay 30K?!

What is the incentive work more to earn more if you can just get a hand out, right? Another family would have to earn 180k more than 250k - so 430k- to equal your true income because they would be paying around 50% in extra state and local taxes. So those families who you think are not in your income bracket actually are because they are having to pay $120k for their three kids. And that of course is after they pay taxes while you get your 90k of scholarship money for free.

This is why people no longer are willing to donate to financial aid. You aren't bringing anything to the table that another family wouldn't who only has one kid and makes 250k.

To my point. Financial aid should be stricter.

No, this is the point of financial aid. It is not intended for poor families which comes with a whole range of issues.

It is intended for working, financially stable families who need a little help to bring them to the finish line. Families making under $300k/year typically. These families are on the low end of the spectrum in private school. This is the target.

Ok, but what do you do with upper middle class people that pay full tuition. Wouldn’t it better just to admit those families? What’s wrong with them? Demand excess supply in private school, so I am sure you can get diverse families that pay full tuition. And financial aid to the ones that really need them.

These schools could fill their classes with full pay families. For whatever reason, they have decided financial aid is worthwhile. How they distribute it is for families who are stable, working, and close to being financially sound but need a little help.

That’s ok, but its not really financial aid. Is subsidizing educated families that schools like. The idea of financial aid. Is to provide AID to families that need it. Don’t think UMC need it. Yes, they need it for private school, but they could also need it for a BMW and vacations in Paris.

The donors who fund financial aid, and the financial aid offices who distribute it, both disagree with you.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Go whine about something else.

[Anonymous]

This is why academically bright but low income kids are going to elite private schools. He breaks it down very succinctly. Also, you have to have academic or athletic promise to even be admitted to those sorts of schools.

https://www.amherst.edu/news/magazine/issues/2017-spring/beyond-campus/the-priviledged-poor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s very simple. Why do schools subsidize UMC families where there is a significant chunk of UMC that already pay full tuition.

The answer is also very simple. Donations fund financial aid. People give them money to do this. It is philanthropy.

That’s my point. You don’t do philanthropy for UMC. Except in private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are you people who know so many financial aid families who got to Paris and drive BMWs?

I really, really doubt these families are telling you. Perhaps you're assuming they get aid.

We are a fed and a teacher and go on nice vacations etc and I bet people assume we're an aid family but we're not. We have money from previous jobs and grandparents also contribute. But 95% of the school (especially the gossip mom brigade) knows none of this about us. They just see us as an undeserving family who must get aid but also goes to Paris.

When the school spends 6 million dollars on financial aid and you don’t see low income families, that can raise some suspicions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want some economic diversity but they're largely not prepared to deal with potentially bombastic class and cultural clashes that could result by bringing in truly low income kids who would have to be full ride+. It's easier to subsidize a middle class, college educated couple and their kids who couldn't afford private school but have kids who can, "blend" enough and share similar educational values. That's really it. Let's not kid ourselves, these schools are bastions of extreme privilege, but if they started giving full rides, needing to offer free lunch, subsidize field trips etc. In any way en masse people would FREAK out. So yeah, you're going to get some dual Feds with PhDs bringing in 300k. I think the schools prefer that in so many ways.

I agree. I’m the poster above with a 250k HHI and 3 kids who get significant aid in private school. Our school does prioritize income diversity which we certainly offer since most of the families probably are making over 500k. There are also families who make significantly less than us- when we initially applied we made less than 100k. What they DON’T want is to deal with high maintenance, entitled parents or alternatively parents who are not engaged in their child’s learning. They do offer full rides but will not accept a child whose needs they cannot meet (significant family instability, etc)

You actually sound really entitled. Anyone in the Bay Area who has THREE kids and expects a hand out from a private school to educate all their kids for not even the cost of one full tuition is a leach. If tuition is around 40 K and you have three children that is 120K. So 75% of that is 90k. You only pay 30K?!

What is the incentive work more to earn more if you can just get a hand out, right? Another family would have to earn 180k more than 250k - so 430k- to equal your true income because they would be paying around 50% in extra state and local taxes. So those families who you think are not in your income bracket actually are because they are having to pay $120k for their three kids. And that of course is after they pay taxes while you get your 90k of scholarship money for free.

This is why people no longer are willing to donate to financial aid. You aren't bringing anything to the table that another family wouldn't who only has one kid and makes 250k.

To my point. Financial aid should be stricter.

No, this is the point of financial aid. It is not intended for poor families which comes with a whole range of issues.

It is intended for working, financially stable families who need a little help to bring them to the finish line. Families making under $300k/year typically. These families are on the low end of the spectrum in private school. This is the target.

Ok, but what do you do with upper middle class people that pay full tuition. Wouldn’t it better just to admit those families? What’s wrong with them? Demand excess supply in private school, so I am sure you can get diverse families that pay full tuition. And financial aid to the ones that really need them.

These schools could fill their classes with full pay families. For whatever reason, they have decided financial aid is worthwhile. How they distribute it is for families who are stable, working, and close to being financially sound but need a little help.

That’s ok, but its not really financial aid. Is subsidizing educated families that schools like. The idea of financial aid. Is to provide AID to families that need it. Don’t think UMC need it. Yes, they need it for private school, but they could also need it for a BMW and vacations in Paris.

The donors who fund financial aid, and the financial aid offices who distribute it, both disagree with you.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Go whine about something else.

I am fine the current policy, just it’s misleading. It should be called financial aid to well off families so we don’t accept poor children in our schools. Maybe that’s more accurate. What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why academically bright but low income kids are going to elite private schools. He breaks it down very succinctly. Also, you have to have academic or athletic promise to even be admitted to those sorts of schools.

https://www.amherst.edu/news/magazine/issues/2017-spring/beyond-campus/the-priviledged-poor

I am fine with that. But what I see in private schools are average kids from UMC families that receive financial aid. So why exactly we are helping out these families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want some economic diversity but they're largely not prepared to deal with potentially bombastic class and cultural clashes that could result by bringing in truly low income kids who would have to be full ride+. It's easier to subsidize a middle class, college educated couple and their kids who couldn't afford private school but have kids who can, "blend" enough and share similar educational values. That's really it. Let's not kid ourselves, these schools are bastions of extreme privilege, but if they started giving full rides, needing to offer free lunch, subsidize field trips etc. In any way en masse people would FREAK out. So yeah, you're going to get some dual Feds with PhDs bringing in 300k. I think the schools prefer that in so many ways.

I agree. I’m the poster above with a 250k HHI and 3 kids who get significant aid in private school. Our school does prioritize income diversity which we certainly offer since most of the families probably are making over 500k. There are also families who make significantly less than us- when we initially applied we made less than 100k. What they DON’T want is to deal with high maintenance, entitled parents or alternatively parents who are not engaged in their child’s learning. They do offer full rides but will not accept a child whose needs they cannot meet (significant family instability, etc)

You actually sound really entitled. Anyone in the Bay Area who has THREE kids and expects a hand out from a private school to educate all their kids for not even the cost of one full tuition is a leach. If tuition is around 40 K and you have three children that is 120K. So 75% of that is 90k. You only pay 30K?!

What is the incentive work more to earn more if you can just get a hand out, right? Another family would have to earn 180k more than 250k - so 430k- to equal your true income because they would be paying around 50% in extra state and local taxes. So those families who you think are not in your income bracket actually are because they are having to pay $120k for their three kids. And that of course is after they pay taxes while you get your 90k of scholarship money for free.

This is why people no longer are willing to donate to financial aid. You aren't bringing anything to the table that another family wouldn't who only has one kid and makes 250k.

To my point. Financial aid should be stricter.

No, this is the point of financial aid. It is not intended for poor families which comes with a whole range of issues.

It is intended for working, financially stable families who need a little help to bring them to the finish line. Families making under $300k/year typically. These families are on the low end of the spectrum in private school. This is the target.

And you are the owner of which school?

This is how financial aid offices prioritize financial aid at virtually all private day schools.

Boarding schools are willing to take lower income families that need more aid because they provide stable housing, food, supervision, transportation, etc. in addition to the financial aid. This overcomes some of the typical problems from poor families.

Agree 100%! A boarding school is also socially less awkward for a truly poor low income family who maybe balancing 2 jobs each. Their usually academically bright student gets a chance to interact with peers from all backgrounds and essentially they learn how to “play the game”.

Private Day school should be for middle class folks who are educated, because they most likely know how to navigate multilayered environments and are more stable. Plus, their kids bring diversity economically and academically (usually I find you have to be top of your class to get into the really good privates) or be a very good athlete. Parents are more equipped to navigate the social climate too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why academically bright but low income kids are going to elite private schools. He breaks it down very succinctly. Also, you have to have academic or athletic promise to even be admitted to those sorts of schools.

https://www.amherst.edu/news/magazine/issues/2017-spring/beyond-campus/the-priviledged-poor

I am fine with that. But what I see in private schools are average kids from UMC families that receive financial aid. So why exactly we are helping out these families?

What is considered UMC to you? In the DC area making under $300k which is the threshold to be considered for financial aid is middle class. Most start out in private young (if average and getting FA). The ones coming in at a later time truly are academic or athletic admits especially at the Big 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want some economic diversity but they're largely not prepared to deal with potentially bombastic class and cultural clashes that could result by bringing in truly low income kids who would have to be full ride+. It's easier to subsidize a middle class, college educated couple and their kids who couldn't afford private school but have kids who can, "blend" enough and share similar educational values. That's really it. Let's not kid ourselves, these schools are bastions of extreme privilege, but if they started giving full rides, needing to offer free lunch, subsidize field trips etc. In any way en masse people would FREAK out. So yeah, you're going to get some dual Feds with PhDs bringing in 300k. I think the schools prefer that in so many ways.

I agree. I’m the poster above with a 250k HHI and 3 kids who get significant aid in private school. Our school does prioritize income diversity which we certainly offer since most of the families probably are making over 500k. There are also families who make significantly less than us- when we initially applied we made less than 100k. What they DON’T want is to deal with high maintenance, entitled parents or alternatively parents who are not engaged in their child’s learning. They do offer full rides but will not accept a child whose needs they cannot meet (significant family instability, etc)

You actually sound really entitled. Anyone in the Bay Area who has THREE kids and expects a hand out from a private school to educate all their kids for not even the cost of one full tuition is a leach. If tuition is around 40 K and you have three children that is 120K. So 75% of that is 90k. You only pay 30K?!

What is the incentive work more to earn more if you can just get a hand out, right? Another family would have to earn 180k more than 250k - so 430k- to equal your true income because they would be paying around 50% in extra state and local taxes. So those families who you think are not in your income bracket actually are because they are having to pay $120k for their three kids. And that of course is after they pay taxes while you get your 90k of scholarship money for free.

This is why people no longer are willing to donate to financial aid. You aren't bringing anything to the table that another family wouldn't who only has one kid and makes 250k.

To my point. Financial aid should be stricter.

No, this is the point of financial aid. It is not intended for poor families which comes with a whole range of issues.

It is intended for working, financially stable families who need a little help to bring them to the finish line. Families making under $300k/year typically. These families are on the low end of the spectrum in private school. This is the target.

And you are the owner of which school?

This is how financial aid offices prioritize financial aid at virtually all private day schools.

Boarding schools are willing to take lower income families that need more aid because they provide stable housing, food, supervision, transportation, etc. in addition to the financial aid. This overcomes some of the typical problems from poor families.

Agree 100%! A boarding school is also socially less awkward for a truly poor low income family who maybe balancing 2 jobs each. Their usually academically bright student gets a chance to interact with peers from all backgrounds and essentially they learn how to “play the game”.

Private Day school should be for middle class folks who are educated, because they most likely know how to navigate multilayered environments and are more stable. Plus, their kids bring diversity economically and academically (usually I find you have to be top of your class to get into the really good privates) or be a very good athlete. Parents are more equipped to navigate the social climate too.

That’s all good but plenty of middle class folks do pay full tuition. Then the question is why do we need to subsidize some middle class and not others. It’s easier if you have a stricter requirement for financial aid for low income families. If you don’t subsidize upper middle class families I don’t see any negative effect to schools. Financial aid to UMC families is very poor value for money for schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why academically bright but low income kids are going to elite private schools. He breaks it down very succinctly. Also, you have to have academic or athletic promise to even be admitted to those sorts of schools.

https://www.amherst.edu/news/magazine/issues/2017-spring/beyond-campus/the-priviledged-poor

I am fine with that. But what I see in private schools are average kids from UMC families that receive financial aid. So why exactly we are helping out these families?

What is considered UMC to you? In the DC area making under $300k which is the threshold to be considered for financial aid is middle class. Most start out in private young (if average and getting FA). The ones coming in at a later time truly are academic or athletic admits especially at the Big 3.

My only point is that there are families under 300k that pay full tuition. I know them. Why do we need to subsidize some of these families and not low income families. There is something called solidarity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want some economic diversity but they're largely not prepared to deal with potentially bombastic class and cultural clashes that could result by bringing in truly low income kids who would have to be full ride+. It's easier to subsidize a middle class, college educated couple and their kids who couldn't afford private school but have kids who can, "blend" enough and share similar educational values. That's really it. Let's not kid ourselves, these schools are bastions of extreme privilege, but if they started giving full rides, needing to offer free lunch, subsidize field trips etc. In any way en masse people would FREAK out. So yeah, you're going to get some dual Feds with PhDs bringing in 300k. I think the schools prefer that in so many ways.

I agree. I’m the poster above with a 250k HHI and 3 kids who get significant aid in private school. Our school does prioritize income diversity which we certainly offer since most of the families probably are making over 500k. There are also families who make significantly less than us- when we initially applied we made less than 100k. What they DON’T want is to deal with high maintenance, entitled parents or alternatively parents who are not engaged in their child’s learning. They do offer full rides but will not accept a child whose needs they cannot meet (significant family instability, etc)

You actually sound really entitled. Anyone in the Bay Area who has THREE kids and expects a hand out from a private school to educate all their kids for not even the cost of one full tuition is a leach. If tuition is around 40 K and you have three children that is 120K. So 75% of that is 90k. You only pay 30K?!

What is the incentive work more to earn more if you can just get a hand out, right? Another family would have to earn 180k more than 250k - so 430k- to equal your true income because they would be paying around 50% in extra state and local taxes. So those families who you think are not in your income bracket actually are because they are having to pay $120k for their three kids. And that of course is after they pay taxes while you get your 90k of scholarship money for free.

This is why people no longer are willing to donate to financial aid. You aren't bringing anything to the table that another family wouldn't who only has one kid and makes 250k.

To my point. Financial aid should be stricter.

No, this is the point of financial aid. It is not intended for poor families which comes with a whole range of issues.

It is intended for working, financially stable families who need a little help to bring them to the finish line. Families making under $300k/year typically. These families are on the low end of the spectrum in private school. This is the target.

And you are the owner of which school?

This is how financial aid offices prioritize financial aid at virtually all private day schools.

Boarding schools are willing to take lower income families that need more aid because they provide stable housing, food, supervision, transportation, etc. in addition to the financial aid. This overcomes some of the typical problems from poor families.

Agree 100%! A boarding school is also socially less awkward for a truly poor low income family who maybe balancing 2 jobs each. Their usually academically bright student gets a chance to interact with peers from all backgrounds and essentially they learn how to “play the game”.

Private Day school should be for middle class folks who are educated, because they most likely know how to navigate multilayered environments and are more stable. Plus, their kids bring diversity economically and academically (usually I find you have to be top of your class to get into the really good privates) or be a very good athlete. Parents are more equipped to navigate the social climate too.

It's stuff like this that just shows DCUM utter ignorance of life under their own privileged incomes.
Minimum wage in DC is $17.50. Most entry level jobs with the DC government (clerks, etc) pay $25/hour.
If you were working "two jobs" at this level and had two parents, your HHI would be $156K+ with 60 hours a week (which I'm calling 2 jobs).
Putting you squarely in the "OH NO!!! NOT POOR ENOUGH--we only want the truly indigent who are slaving away at 2 jobs to get aid!!!" category of DCUM posters.

You simply can't be working "2 jobs" in DC and be poor enough for DCUM aid standards.

[Anonymous]

You work 2 jobs in DC and you immediately work yourself above the DCUM acceptable income for aid.

DCUM only wants to give aid to the elusive people who are working around the clock but not actually making any money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why academically bright but low income kids are going to elite private schools. He breaks it down very succinctly. Also, you have to have academic or athletic promise to even be admitted to those sorts of schools.

https://www.amherst.edu/news/magazine/issues/2017-spring/beyond-campus/the-priviledged-poor

I am fine with that. But what I see in private schools are average kids from UMC families that receive financial aid. So why exactly we are helping out these families?

What is considered UMC to you? In the DC area making under $300k which is the threshold to be considered for financial aid is middle class. Most start out in private young (if average and getting FA). The ones coming in at a later time truly are academic or athletic admits especially at the Big 3.

My only point is that there are families under 300k that pay full tuition. I know them. Why do we need to subsidize some of these families and not low income families. There is something called solidarity.

Sorry, I’m speaking about those who attend the schools that cost $50K or more a year. More often than not, most of the families who are making under $300K and pay full freight have only 1 child in private school or if they have their parents giving them money for tuition. So again, for those making under $300K and multiple children, need financial aid. Their kids also have to bring something substantive to the school like academic smarts or athletics.

Also, let’s not talk about the teachers and administrators who get tuition off too.