Private school is a terrible ROI for middle class people

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, OP. And we really did put away just about that much money per year. Both kids’ college funds are huge and we will retire by 55.

I do not begrudge special needs parents though. It worked for our neurotypical kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is important that my children grow up around the right kind of people. Private school provides that environment.

I don't dispute that, but it's only a good idea if you can truly afford it. Otherwise, don't kid yourself, they know you're not one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, OP. And we really did put away just about that much money per year. Both kids’ college funds are huge and we will retire by 55.

I do not begrudge special needs parents though. It worked for our neurotypical kids.

MCPS is a much better fit for the majority of learning disabilities and special needs than privates. BTDT.

[Anonymous]

It probably oy makes sense to account for the higher property taxes you pay if you opt instead of private school to live in an expesnsive town with the better public schools. Like, if private costs $30k, and instead you move to Super Fancy Suburb for the good public schools, you probably buy a more expensive house and pay more property taxes than you would pay if you lived somewhere cheaper and sent kids to private. I know I moved to Super Fancy Suburb for this reason and my property taxes are about higher than they would be if I lived in the next town over literally three miles away.

[Anonymous]

Depends on the public school they’d be at otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the value of an education can be measured solely in financial terms is completely cloddish.

Not quite.

I believe a majority of people in the middle class do not know how to invest and how to think long-term about money. So perhaps for them, even if their kids stayed in public, they would fritter away their extra dollars on useless things and not actually take the opportunity to build wealth. In those circumstances, why not pay for private instead, since investment is going to go to waste anyway?

But for those who do understand compounding and strategic money placements... public is a good idea. Usually those are also the people who make sure their kids learn something in public. They make the most of what they've got.

We are well above middle class, but not a 7 figure HHI. Kids are in public. We’ve worked very hard to set it up so that they don’t have to live the same “successful” lives we have had to. I hope they will choose to do something meaningful and not income-based, since they won’t need much money.

Your point?
We chose the meaningful careers that don't pay much and still ended up with 25M because of lucky (or intelligent) stock market investing.
You can have both.
Most people believe the myth that salaries build wealth. That is not true.

My point is not pissing away 50k per year, per kid on K-12 education when I can grow that money exponentially, rather than try to create another MBB automaton or PE vulture. Let’s be real. That’s the primary reason many DCUM posters choose private schools, unless they are particularly religious. I don’t buy their fanatical claims about classical education or nurturing environments.

The bolded is a you problem. There are many ways to love your kid: you want them to have a nest egg and I want them to enjoy daily life in school.

[Anonymous]

People spend the money either way it’s just tuition or a house in an affluent public school district. I know they can get the money back if the house appreciates but I don’t think most people are selling the house when it’s time for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the value of an education can be measured solely in financial terms is completely cloddish.

It can also be measured in being able to expel problem kids. Know how many times my kids have had to evacuate their classrooms because some little shit was throwing chairs? Zero times!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It probably oy makes sense to account for the higher property taxes you pay if you opt instead of private school to live in an expesnsive town with the better public schools. Like, if private costs $30k, and instead you move to Super Fancy Suburb for the good public schools, you probably buy a more expensive house and pay more property taxes than you would pay if you lived somewhere cheaper and sent kids to private. I know I moved to Super Fancy Suburb for this reason and my property taxes are about higher than they would be if I lived in the next town over literally three miles away.

The higher property tax does not come close to what you would pay for private school every year, and the real estate is an investment that you keep, instead of pissing it away on private tuition.

When you buy into a more expensive school district, you get a nicer neighborhood and the assurance that your property value is not going to fluctuate wildly with each recession. I live in an expensive part of Bethesda, and during the 2008 recession, prices barely dipped. They stopped increasing for while, let's put it like that. The rest of the time we've been here, the price increase has been relentless. For that price, I get great public schools. And I can sell my house for a nice amount after the kids graduate.

It's a significantly better deal than living in a lower-income neighborhood, risking devaluation depending on who moves in next door, and with a public school that doesn't have as studious a cohort, not as many AP courses, maybe has more security issues, and perhaps less engaged staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is important that my children grow up around the right kind of people. Private school provides that environment.

Thats sort of the point of the post. This doesn't make much sense for many people. The elitism itself is a problem for middle class students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the value of an education can be measured solely in financial terms is completely cloddish.

It can also be measured in being able to expel problem kids. Know how many times my kids have had to evacuate their classrooms because some little shit was throwing chairs? Zero times!

This happened once in the span of our two kids' stint in public. I am OK with that, given the rest of the benefits we've accrued from staying in public. And I say this as the product of a series of fancy privates! Going to college after that was a shock to my system. I do not wish for my kids to spend their formative years in a private school bubble. Let them see someone throw chairs and tables in 4th grade. It won't kill them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the value of an education can be measured solely in financial terms is completely cloddish.

It can also be measured in being able to expel problem kids. Know how many times my kids have had to evacuate their classrooms because some little shit was throwing chairs? Zero times!

This happened once in the span of our two kids' stint in public. I am OK with that, given the rest of the benefits we've accrued from staying in public. And I say this as the product of a series of fancy privates! Going to college after that was a shock to my system. I do not wish for my kids to spend their formative years in a private school bubble. Let them see someone throw chairs and tables in 4th grade. It won't kill them.

Choosing the situation you prefer is different from saying something is a bad ROI because you could have invested the money instead. By that measure, vacations and pets are also terrible ROI but people happily spend money on those too.

[Anonymous]

Pardon my English, but here's MHO:
It's very individual. I believe people do the best they can with the info they have. There are some feeling involved, need and/or pressure. There is no right or wrong.
You talk about buying a home for your child or gifting the money in adulthood. How are those things better than paying for private? These are horrible choices. If you only knew what the alternatives are for that money.
You think you figured out what families give up (1.5 million) by going private. I cannot even start to tell you what you don't see if you think the return is 7%, buying a home for the kid is a good idea, or handing the money.
This $600k should be near 10 million by 30 and the kid would know how we got there. They are not handed the money, but the knowledge. Nobody would take out money from the market to buy a house, but borrow against assets in the market.
You decided to do the bare minimum that money allows. I'd rather send my kid to private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the value of an education can be measured solely in financial terms is completely cloddish.

Not quite.

I believe a majority of people in the middle class do not know how to invest and how to think long-term about money. So perhaps for them, even if their kids stayed in public, they would fritter away their extra dollars on useless things and not actually take the opportunity to build wealth. In those circumstances, why not pay for private instead, since investment is going to go to waste anyway?

But for those who do understand compounding and strategic money placements... public is a good idea. Usually those are also the people who make sure their kids learn something in public. They make the most of what they've got.

We are well above middle class, but not a 7 figure HHI. Kids are in public. We’ve worked very hard to set it up so that they don’t have to live the same “successful” lives we have had to. I hope they will choose to do something meaningful and not income-based, since they won’t need much money.

Your point?
We chose the meaningful careers that don't pay much and still ended up with 25M because of lucky (or intelligent) stock market investing.
You can have both.
Most people believe the myth that salaries build wealth. That is not true.

I love you trolls with your lottery winning numbers! As if someone with $25M would give a rats a$$ about DCUM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably oy makes sense to account for the higher property taxes you pay if you opt instead of private school to live in an expesnsive town with the better public schools. Like, if private costs $30k, and instead you move to Super Fancy Suburb for the good public schools, you probably buy a more expensive house and pay more property taxes than you would pay if you lived somewhere cheaper and sent kids to private. I know I moved to Super Fancy Suburb for this reason and my property taxes are about higher than they would be if I lived in the next town over literally three miles away.

The higher property tax does not come close to what you would pay for private school every year, and the real estate is an investment that you keep, instead of pissing it away on private tuition.

When you buy into a more expensive school district, you get a nicer neighborhood and the assurance that your property value is not going to fluctuate wildly with each recession. I live in an expensive part of Bethesda, and during the 2008 recession, prices barely dipped. They stopped increasing for while, let's put it like that. The rest of the time we've been here, the price increase has been relentless. For that price, I get great public schools. And I can sell my house for a nice amount after the kids graduate.

It's a significantly better deal than living in a lower-income neighborhood, risking devaluation depending on who moves in next door, and with a public school that doesn't have as studious a cohort, not as many AP courses, maybe has more security issues, and perhaps less engaged staff.

You’re still in MCPS. How insufferable can you be?

—also an MCPS parent