ok, don't crucify me.. question about financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about families that the mom doesn't work even though kids are in school all day and every time you see her she's in her tennis whites coming from the country club? Do you think that is fair for them to receive aid?

I can only speak for my DCs school. In a family in that situation applies for FA, the school will provide an average income based on the SAHM parents prior profession or education if the SAHM has never worked. If the calculation says they still qualify for aid, then I do not have a problem with it. I can think of one person who fits this model and supposedly her rich father pays for all of their family to have memberships but aside from that she lives a fairly middle class lifestyle. If they are cheating the system that sucks. However, my view is that it's the school's responsibility to make sound financial decisions. I assume they are doing so and are judicious in making good decisions about who gets FA and how much.

I think regardless of a family's circumstances, FA should not be given to a family that belongs to a club that costs $80,000 plus $9,000 a year in dues and also unless both parents work. It looks terrible to have a family hanging out at their club constantly and spending money there receive any aid when many others have both parents working full time just to pay their full tuition. It sends a very bad message.

I agree it looks bad. However, if it's not a financial obligation or debt of the parent applying I'm not sure how can deny an award based on just having a membership. I have never belonged to a club, but is membership viewed as an asset? If not, at one point in the application is it given membership if the applicant doesn't actually pay the fees? I suppose the school could say the grandparent need to pay for the tuition instead of the membership, but I just don't see how that would work.

Well if the parent is playing tennis three times a week instead of working and are collecting financial aid while others are busting their butts working two jobs to pay full tuition that could look strange. They should be required to work.

But the school stipulates an income for their parent. Is that not really the same thing? And trust me I am not advocating for the tennis club mother, just trying to understand what else a school can do beyond saying "well you would be earning approximately XX if you were employed, so that's the figure we will use to calculate what you can afford what you can afford to pay."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the pool of applicants applying to private schools is more than likely not the people anyone would agree are "deserving" of FA. Over the years, I have participated in numerous school fairs representing my DC school and I have given admission tours. If the applicant pool is representative of those I have spoken to when doing either I can tell you the poor and middle class are not applying in high numbers. There a few programs out there whose mission is so increase the number of lower income families applying but again, I don't think the impact they are having is so overwhelming such that they are being denied FA because a school is choosing to give more to the middle class. If I had to guess I would bet that the lower range of income at an elite private school (excluding teachers who teach for the school and send their kids there) is probably $150k-$250k. The overwhelming majority of parents at these elite private schools are law firm senior associates, partners, corporate business owners, corporate lobbyist, doctors, etc. The next range are high level government employees, nurses, federal law enforcement etc. these people are in the $150k-$250k depending on whether both spouses earn about the same. I think a combined HHI of less than $100K is an anomaly at these elite private schools, -!: typically will be single parents when they are present. I can't speak to why that it is, but I can only assume it might be a lack of interest, unawareness that FA exist, no desire, etc. I'm having a hard time believing it's because they did not get FA though.

I've applied at both the kindergarten level and middle school level for FA and while my child was accepted, they said I needed too much FA. I fall into the single parent category you mentioned making less than $100K per year. I'll try again in HS. One of the problems was that the estimated parent contribution report says I can only afford something ridiculously low like $1000/year. If they are going by that amount, no wonder they don't give me FA. Last year, I called one of the schools and said that I am currently paying appr. $9000/year in tuition at my DD's Catholic school and I put this on the application where it asks how much you can afford to pay. She said that the application gave them the $1000/year amount. Hello? I am telling you right now that I can afford $10K. I even told them they could verify this with my DD's current school. Very frustrating that these formulas are so random.

Wow, that sucks and is crazy! I have heard that it is hard getting substantial FA at the Kindergarten level for a school that is K-12, because they prefer to allocate the money to the high school years. Have you considered looking into A Better Chance (assuming you a minority)? Sounds like you and your child would be a perfect candidate for their program. In addition to admissions assistance they also negotiate financial assistance. They work with kids at the 4th grade level for applying to 6th and 7th grade applying to 9th.

[Anonymous]

Thanks PP. If there an income cutoff? My DD is Hispanic (her dad is Hispanic and I am white). I looked on their website but don't see that info. I've looked into a few other programs but I am over their income cutoff (now I am at about $63K per year).

[Anonymous]

Well if the parent is playing tennis three times a week instead of working and are collecting financial aid while others are busting their butts working two jobs to pay full tuition that could look strange. They should be required to work.

But the school stipulates an income for their parent. Is that not really the same thing? And trust me I am not advocating for the tennis club mother, just trying to understand what else a school can do beyond saying "well you would be earning approximately XX if you were employed, so that's the figure we will use to calculate what you can afford what you can afford to pay."

DP -- You're right, I guess. I have a hard time explaining my thoughts, so please bear with me.

It still strikes me as rather entitled. That family can "afford" to pay less than full tuition because of the choices they have made (mom not working, going to the club, etc). They have the right to make those choices, of course. But I don't quite understand why they expect to be able to send their kids to expensive private schools and that other families are supposed to help pay for it. I guess another way to say it is that the solution to that family's "problem" of not being able to "afford" tuition shouldn't be to have other working parents pay for it. I'm not sure I agree that they should be required to work, but I understand the thinking.

[Anonymous]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/09/pf/private-school-financial-aid/

"And while household income, net worth and disposable income still play a role in determining aid eligibility, schools are increasingly looking at a family's ability to pay a portion of the cost themselves.
"The more you can pay, the better your chances are of being funded," Long said. "We're still looking for socio-economic diversity but our budget can absorb far fewer of those families that can only pay $500 to $1,000 a year. Those making between $150,000 and $350,000 a year who can pay at least 50% of the bill have become ideal candidates for aid."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/09/pf/private-school-financial-aid/

"And while household income, net worth and disposable income still play a role in determining aid eligibility, schools are increasingly looking at a family's ability to pay a portion of the cost themselves.
"The more you can pay, the better your chances are of being funded," Long said. "We're still looking for socio-economic diversity but our budget can absorb far fewer of those families that can only pay $500 to $1,000 a year. Those making between $150,000 and $350,000 a year who can pay at least 50% of the bill have become ideal candidates for aid."

We are n that bracket and would never get aid because of the equity we have in our business which we can't access which isn't that much but it's probably too much to get aid. If what this says is true that I'm not contributing any more to the annual fund because I'm not going to subsidize what I deem to be a very luxurious lifestyle (belonging to a $90,000 club plus not working) while I'm busting my butt to pay full tuition. You can defend it all you want but it is very very wrong and not fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks PP. If there an income cutoff? My DD is Hispanic (her dad is Hispanic and I am white). I looked on their website but don't see that info. I've looked into a few other programs but I am over their income cutoff (now I am at about $63K per year).

My understanding is that there is not an income cutoff. As far as I know, your daughter should qualify as a minority for the program since she is mixed race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well if the parent is playing tennis three times a week instead of working and are collecting financial aid while others are busting their butts working two jobs to pay full tuition that could look strange. They should be required to work.

But the school stipulates an income for their parent. Is that not really the same thing? And trust me I am not advocating for the tennis club mother, just trying to understand what else a school can do beyond saying "well you would be earning approximately XX if you were employed, so that's the figure we will use to calculate what you can afford what you can afford to pay."

DP -- You're right, I guess. I have a hard time explaining my thoughts, so please bear with me.

It still strikes me as rather entitled. That family can "afford" to pay less than full tuition because of the choices they have made (mom not working, going to the club, etc). They have the right to make those choices, of course. But I don't quite understand why they expect to be able to send their kids to expensive private schools and that other families are supposed to help pay for it. I guess another way to say it is that the solution to that family's "problem" of not being able to "afford" tuition shouldn't be to have other working parents pay for it. I'm not sure I agree that they should be required to work, but I understand the thinking.


I agree with your sentiments on the issue. Unfortunately, it seems like a loophole a few are able to take advantage of. I would hope that parent would have enough class to not announce to the world they are getting FA as she heads off to the country club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/09/pf/private-school-financial-aid/

"And while household income, net worth and disposable income still play a role in determining aid eligibility, schools are increasingly looking at a family's ability to pay a portion of the cost themselves.
"The more you can pay, the better your chances are of being funded," Long said. "We're still looking for socio-economic diversity but our budget can absorb far fewer of those families that can only pay $500 to $1,000 a year. Those making between $150,000 and $350,000 a year who can pay at least 50% of the bill have become ideal candidates for aid."

We are n that bracket and would never get aid because of the equity we have in our business which we can't access which isn't that much but it's probably too much to get aid. If what this says is true that I'm not contributing any more to the annual fund because I'm not going to subsidize what I deem to be a very luxurious lifestyle (belonging to a $90,000 club plus not working) while I'm busting my butt to pay full tuition. You can defend it all you want but it is very very wrong and not fair.

Realistically, those who fall in that country club and getting FA groups are going to be a very very small percentage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/09/pf/private-school-financial-aid/

"And while household income, net worth and disposable income still play a role in determining aid eligibility, schools are increasingly looking at a family's ability to pay a portion of the cost themselves.
"The more you can pay, the better your chances are of being funded," Long said. "We're still looking for socio-economic diversity but our budget can absorb far fewer of those families that can only pay $500 to $1,000 a year. Those making between $150,000 and $350,000 a year who can pay at least 50% of the bill have become ideal candidates for aid."

We are n that bracket and would never get aid because of the equity we have in our business which we can't access which isn't that much but it's probably too much to get aid. If what this says is true that I'm not contributing any more to the annual fund because I'm not going to subsidize what I deem to be a very luxurious lifestyle (belonging to a $90,000 club plus not working) while I'm busting my butt to pay full tuition. You can defend it all you want but it is very very wrong and not fair.

Realistically, those who fall in that country club and getting FA groups are going to be a very very small percentage.

This. I'm not convinced they exist at all. DC's school tacks on "income you could be earning" to income you actually earned for purposes of the FA assessment if both parents don't work full-time, so it would be hard to see many people qualifying in a scenario where they also had enough discretionary income to be paying for a country club membership with only one parent working.

The exception might be family money (i.e., they're not the ones paying for the country club). And our school waives the work requirement for families with a child under school age, so possibly a family that, say, had one $100K income and one parent staying home with a baby might qualify and still be able to swing club dues if there's child care there (or local family to care for the baby while mom plays tennis). Maybe they bought the membership pre-kids back when mom was in Big Law or whatever, and now the cost to maintain it is relatively low.

But really, we're talking about a ridiculously small minority of FA applicant families who might have the specific confluence of circumstances to make this possible. It's really not worthy of an entire thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks PP. If there an income cutoff? My DD is Hispanic (her dad is Hispanic and I am white). I looked on their website but don't see that info. I've looked into a few other programs but I am over their income cutoff (now I am at about $63K per year).

My understanding is that there is not an income cutoff. As far as I know, your daughter should qualify as a minority for the program since she is mixed race.

There is not as far as I understand also. Actual some have a similar argument with respect to that program as many middle class and above families send their kids to private using ABC's services. Beyond negotiating tuition, several of the services relating to preparing for and navigating private school are found to be valuable even if not lower income.

[Anonymous]

Add me to the list of people who suspect that the FA-receiving country-club tennis-playing SAHM is a myth. If by some chance it actually is true, then there is some circumstance that isn't being explained here or that the poster isn't aware of. Financial aid offices aren't stupid, and they don't love giving money to families who don't actually need it.

[Anonymous]

Didn't a SAHM say herself that her lawyer husband deferred his salary for 10 years or longer or in some kind of IRA account (to reduce tax) and her kids are getting 25% to 50% FA? And they live in a very good NW DC public school area too.

This is not a myth.

And the school give her kids FA in hope that they will donate in the future? Or that they have some cloud and some benefits for the school to have her kids there.

The schools of cause are not stupid.

[Anonymous]

Sorry for all the typos - I learned from our great role model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't a SAHM say herself that her lawyer husband deferred his salary for 10 years or longer or in some kind of IRA account (to reduce tax) and her kids are getting 25% to 50% FA? And they live in a very good NW DC public school area too.

This is not a myth.

And the school give her kids FA in hope that they will donate in the future? Or that they have some cloud and some benefits for the school to have her kids there.

The schools of cause are not stupid.

This is different than what has been discussed (i.e., a SAHM who plays tennis at her expensive country club three times a week). The poster who said she was a SAHM with a hubby who deferred his salary never mentioned owning an expensive country club membership or playing tennis three times a week. Is it is that hard to believe she might have actually been at home raising her kids? For what is worth, living in a very good NW DC public school area does not necessarily mean its the right school or environment for every child that lives in that area. Many of us choose private schools for reasons that have nothing to do with whether the public school is good (i.e., small class size, no state testing, religious affiliation, etc.)