Families who can afford private but go public, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just not worth it. We are wealthy enough to be able to afford it without any significant sacrifice, but not so rich that spending $1M+ on education would be meaningless to us financially.

In my view, any marginal benefit to private just isn’t worth the tremendous cost. In my view, there are pros and cons to public and private and, although we strongly value education, I don’t believe that means we should entirely disregard the value proposition when deciding whether to do private.

Is it “tremendous”? What kind of money are we talking here, since people will drop 1.3 to live in a “good” zone but could spend half that to live in an “average” one. Is private school tuition really half a mil?

Those numbers are off. More importantly, you ignore that you get a house to live in and have an asset you can then sell. You don’t get that with private school. $1M+ v free (zero marginal cost given taxes) is a tremendous expense.

I’m saying, if the choice was a 600k house in a crappy public zone and private school, or a 1m house in a good public zone, how is the latter such a good deal? We’re talking about 4 years, maybe a few more with additional kids. I think you’re just reluctant to admit you paid at least as much for your public via real estate as you would’ve living in a cheaper, equivalent house and going private.

This is a silly argument because it ignores reality. Do you think most people who pay 20-40k+ for multiple kids to attend private live in a 600k house in a not so amazing neighborhood? Most ppl who spend that much money can easily afford to live in expensive homes, and often much more, evidenced by overwhelmingly preppy atmosphere at privates, dominated by wealth. I personally think it would be a pretty bad decision to choose to live in a just ok neighborhood with the intent of using all the money "saved" by doing so, on a private school. Even excluding real estate appreciation and selling at some later point, kids would be more isolated in both private and maybe in their own neighborhood too. I can see if a family lives in a nice urban area with all bad schools but they do not want to move elsewhere for schools. In that case private is totally sensible.

I guess we are making your “pretty bad decision.” The private experience is just on balance what we prefer, and having a McMansion is not. 2500 sq ft is the scale we wanted.

We actually inherited a McMansion in Great Falls (not outright, had mortgage still) and we lived there for a couple months but then sold it and bought our current home.

Continuing off topic but I think 3000 or so, including basement is the perfect size.

I once heard that if you are renovating in GF it's advised to not go smaller than 4,000 sq ft if you want to sell easily later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10K sqf new build in Mclean just screams noveau riche. You have no class or provenance and that's truly what counts.

If you had any sense you'd have bought in an older, respected neighborhood, been humble, and started building provenance.

You are right. Most of the people here are self made. I have no problem with being new money. I’m proud of our accomplishments and our humble immigrant beginnings. We are well educated and our kids are well adjusted nice kids in public school. We have politicians, professional athletes, techies, lawyers, doctors and business owners in our neighborhood. Most of them are all self made. Good for them and us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10K sqf new build in Mclean just screams noveau riche. You have no class or provenance and that's truly what counts.

If you had any sense you'd have bought in an older, respected neighborhood, been humble, and started building provenance.

DP, but the snottiness of some private-school parent who is quick to attack someone’s purported lack of “class” says it all.

We have no use for these people, and certainly no desire to emulate their choices, whether it comes to their old homes, crusty neighborhoods, or private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10K sqf new build in Mclean just screams noveau riche. You have no class or provenance and that's truly what counts.

If you had any sense you'd have bought in an older, respected neighborhood, been humble, and started building provenance.

You are right. Most of the people here are self made. I have no problem with being new money. I’m proud of our accomplishments and our humble immigrant beginnings. We are well educated and our kids are well adjusted nice kids in public school. We have politicians, professional athletes, techies, lawyers, doctors and business owners in our neighborhood. Most of them are all self made. Good for them and us.

Not the PP, but I'm the one who originally called you out because your story was inconsistent. I don't care if you live in a 10k size house or greater, or where you went to school, etc. But saying that you came from a humble background combined with your house feels small, just seems quite ridiculous. I don't think almost anyone (even here on dcum) could take a stand along all those lines. It's likely that at least one of things you've mentioned is not true; either you're not rich, or you did not come from humble beginnings, or if both of those things are true, you've then completely lost your sense of original self. I think you should paint a less conflicting story, that's all.

[Anonymous]

Poster talking about noveau riche is a jerk. Poster talking about her 10k sq ft house is a hypocrite. These can simultaneously be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just not worth it. We are wealthy enough to be able to afford it without any significant sacrifice, but not so rich that spending $1M+ on education would be meaningless to us financially.

In my view, any marginal benefit to private just isn’t worth the tremendous cost. In my view, there are pros and cons to public and private and, although we strongly value education, I don’t believe that means we should entirely disregard the value proposition when deciding whether to do private.

Is it “tremendous”? What kind of money are we talking here, since people will drop 1.3 to live in a “good” zone but could spend half that to live in an “average” one. Is private school tuition really half a mil?

Those numbers are off. More importantly, you ignore that you get a house to live in and have an asset you can then sell. You don’t get that with private school. $1M+ v free (zero marginal cost given taxes) is a tremendous expense.

I’m saying, if the choice was a 600k house in a crappy public zone and private school, or a 1m house in a good public zone, how is the latter such a good deal? We’re talking about 4 years, maybe a few more with additional kids. I think you’re just reluctant to admit you paid at least as much for your public via real estate as you would’ve living in a cheaper, equivalent house and going private.

This is a silly argument because it ignores reality. Do you think most people who pay 20-40k+ for multiple kids to attend private live in a 600k house in a not so amazing neighborhood? Most ppl who spend that much money can easily afford to live in expensive homes, and often much more, evidenced by overwhelmingly preppy atmosphere at privates, dominated by wealth. I personally think it would be a pretty bad decision to choose to live in a just ok neighborhood with the intent of using all the money "saved" by doing so, on a private school. Even excluding real estate appreciation and selling at some later point, kids would be more isolated in both private and maybe in their own neighborhood too. I can see if a family lives in a nice urban area with all bad schools but they do not want to move elsewhere for schools. In that case private is totally sensible.

I guess we are making your “pretty bad decision.” The private experience is just on balance what we prefer, and having a McMansion is not. 2500 sq ft is the scale we wanted.

We actually inherited a McMansion in Great Falls (not outright, had mortgage still) and we lived there for a couple months but then sold it and bought our current home.

Continuing off topic but I think 3000 or so, including basement is the perfect size.

I once heard that if you are renovating in GF it's advised to not go smaller than 4,000 sq ft if you want to sell easily later.

When we lived in the McMansion I was just sorta freaked out by the space. I could do several laps around the house before I finally found where DH had fallen asleep napping. There was a sitting room in the masters which creeped me out at night. Whole rooms I didn’t enter for weeks at a time. My in laws bought it because they liked to host people for long periods of time while still having their privacy, but all the solitude didn’t suit me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10K sqf new build in Mclean just screams noveau riche. You have no class or provenance and that's truly what counts.

If you had any sense you'd have bought in an older, respected neighborhood, been humble, and started building provenance.

You are right. Most of the people here are self made. I have no problem with being new money. I’m proud of our accomplishments and our humble immigrant beginnings. We are well educated and our kids are well adjusted nice kids in public school. We have politicians, professional athletes, techies, lawyers, doctors and business owners in our neighborhood. Most of them are all self made. Good for them and us.

Not the PP, but I'm the one who originally called you out because your story was inconsistent. I don't care if you live in a 10k size house or greater, or where you went to school, etc. But saying that you came from a humble background combined with your house feels small, just seems quite ridiculous. I don't think almost anyone (even here on dcum) could take a stand along all those lines. It's likely that at least one of things you've mentioned is not true; either you're not rich, or you did not come from humble beginnings, or if both of those things are true, you've then completely lost your sense of original self. I think you should paint a less conflicting story, that's all.

The only reason I even mentioned the size of our house is because a different poster said that her kid’s BFFs lived in these 10,000 sf houses. I said we also lived in one of these homes and many of our neighbors sent their kids to private school. I said I didn’t want our kids to only attend school with rich kids. Our public school has kids in townhouses and many middle class people who prioritize education and live in a top public district. We are happy with our decision and our kids are thriving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10K sqf new build in Mclean just screams noveau riche. You have no class or provenance and that's truly what counts.

If you had any sense you'd have bought in an older, respected neighborhood, been humble, and started building provenance.

You are right. Most of the people here are self made. I have no problem with being new money. I’m proud of our accomplishments and our humble immigrant beginnings. We are well educated and our kids are well adjusted nice kids in public school. We have politicians, professional athletes, techies, lawyers, doctors and business owners in our neighborhood. Most of them are all self made. Good for them and us.

Not the PP, but I'm the one who originally called you out because your story was inconsistent. I don't care if you live in a 10k size house or greater, or where you went to school, etc. But saying that you came from a humble background combined with your house feels small, just seems quite ridiculous. I don't think almost anyone (even here on dcum) could take a stand along all those lines. It's likely that at least one of things you've mentioned is not true; either you're not rich, or you did not come from humble beginnings, or if both of those things are true, you've then completely lost your sense of original self. I think you should paint a less conflicting story, that's all.

And I didn’t say our house was small. I said it didn’t feel that big. We just have extra rooms and space for family when they visit.

[Anonymous]

Private schools have much lower standards for teachers. And they pay far less than public schools. If you are good at your profession, why get paid a third or more less????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private schools have much lower standards for teachers. And they pay far less than public schools. If you are good at your profession, why get paid a third or more less????

This is completely true.

+!

[milliekl13]

The experiences in private school really depend on the specific school, but after much consideration and tours before elementary, middle, and again high school, DD ultimately decided to stick with public. She is an "above-average" student, in level four AAP, and Algebra 1 HN as a seventh grader. She felt that the private schools we toured (we did not consider BASIS) didn't surround her with the same amount of classmates her year in the same classes. (She didn't want to take A2 HN with all juniors) and she got a healthy mix of freshman and sophomores in public. Additionally, she's a student-athlete so a lot of schools didn't offer stable programs in field hockey and softball, like public schools did. We looked at Christian schools and secular schools, but decided that a lot of the religious schools didn't provide as rigorous an education as public. However, that doesn't say that small, private schools aforementioned don't yield bad results. We know others that have graduated form those types of schools to be accepted into UVA, Westpoint, Georgetown, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private schools have much lower standards for teachers. And they pay far less than public schools. If you are good at your profession, why get paid a third or more less????

That's what always confuses me when people claim teachers in private are better. This contradicts all economic theory about sorting in the labor market. My private school teachers always complained about how they weren't paid as much as the public school counterparts (and this was in a city that did NOT pay its public school teachers particularly well). Why would a teacher whose skills and abilities are marketable choose a private school when they could almost certainly gain employment in a good public school with far better wage and benefits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools have much lower standards for teachers. And they pay far less than public schools. If you are good at your profession, why get paid a third or more less????

That's what always confuses me when people claim teachers in private are better. This contradicts all economic theory about sorting in the labor market. My private school teachers always complained about how they weren't paid as much as the public school counterparts (and this was in a city that did NOT pay its public school teachers particularly well). Why would a teacher whose skills and abilities are marketable choose a private school when they could almost certainly gain employment in a good public school with far better wage and benefits?

Parents at private schools are willing to sacrifice teacher quality for (1) sending their kids to schools with other rich kids to burnish their own social connections; and (2) buying access to SLACs that still favor private school applicants and put a lot of weight on customized recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools have much lower standards for teachers. And they pay far less than public schools. If you are good at your profession, why get paid a third or more less????

That's what always confuses me when people claim teachers in private are better. This contradicts all economic theory about sorting in the labor market. My private school teachers always complained about how they weren't paid as much as the public school counterparts (and this was in a city that did NOT pay its public school teachers particularly well). Why would a teacher whose skills and abilities are marketable choose a private school when they could almost certainly gain employment in a good public school with far better wage and benefits?

I have kids in private and public, and I am a supporter of both. I realize this whole thread is full of people making silly and sweeping black and white conclusions, but I think this point about teacher quality is one of the silliest.

Look, it's a balance. Teachers at private get paid less but can be easily fired. Teachers at public get paid more (how much depends on the school) but essentially can't be fired (the bar for firing has to be largely criminal in nature and even then it's hard). There are benefits for teachers at private that teachers at public don't get and vice versa. The teaching environment differs between schools and people gravitate to their needs.

The idea that private teachers are worse because they make less flat salary is just ignorant of the profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private schools have much lower standards for teachers. And they pay far less than public schools. If you are good at your profession, why get paid a third or more less????

Wow, you’re not a teacher and you don’t know anyone who is.

Teachers at private schools get paid less because their job is much easier. They are dealing with smaller classes, children who were able to pass entrance exams, and children without significant behavioral issues. That’s it. A lot of teachers are willing to trade the less stressful job for less money. The inner-city schools here pay a lot more, because they have to, because it’s a shit show of a job.

I will say that there are a significant number of teachers in private schools whose job is a “hobby” profession — There’s a significant other source of income somewhere. Some of those teachers are absolutely wonderful so I can’t really complain!