Should financial aid in private school be stricter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s my two cents — this will probably be buried, but oh well. I think people underestimate how expensive it is to live in this area. A $50k-a-year family paying $1,700 in rent for a 2-bed at the low end couldn’t even afford the $500–$1,500 a month financial aid that some more prestigious schools would give. A $135k-a-year family in a $300k townhome also couldn’t afford it. It’s a lose-lose situation — no one can afford any of this.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with ability to pay who game the system are not a reason to ban middle class families who cannot afford full pay from financial aid.

And most "poor" families don't even bother applying - would you? There's a lot of incidental costs involved with private school - the uniforms, aftercare, hot lunches, special lunches, the billion special outfits day, like hey wear your favorite football jersey this week, baseball next week, fave green pants, orange shirt, colonial costume, etc etc. The classist vibe. I don't think DD's grade has any poor families at all.

Yes we have to subsidize middle class families so they can cover their incidentals like the bmw, trips to Europe, the mortgage, etc etc

If this is the way you feel, why the heck are you participating in a system clearly against your values?! You're a total hypocrite!

That’s exactly my point. You should erase inclusion from your vocabulary if you want to be a bit more honest.

You should think more carefully about what inclusion means.

If you consider yourself an inclusive person and would, for example, "include" anyone in your family that your child chooses to marry - would you also include a rapist serial killer who beats your grandchildren? I wouldn't. I would purposefully exclude them from family gatherings.

Yes. Low income kids are similar to rapists serial killers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just break it down for me. Why is everyone so mad about this? Not a troll just wondering.

My guess is the some folks are stressed out about the economic situation and a random guy comes to propose a cut in financial aid.

OP didn’t propose a cut for financial aid - he/she asked if schools should be more strict about who receives it. I assume that the people who are so mad this question was asked are the people who receive aid either through questionable process and/or the ones who receive aid because they CHOOSE to live beyond their means and keep up with the Joneses. I assume the other side who feels strongly are the ones who have to sacrifice to pay their own kids tuitions and because they have chosen to live within their means and made responsible financial decisions, would not qualify for aid. Private school is a choice. It is not a right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone accepting financial aid at private schools is accepting donations. They are receiving philanthropy. It is expected that they are trying to get themselves back on solid financial footing so they can get off aid.

They should be actively trying to turn their life around so they no longer need charity.

Also, they should try to give back every cent that they received in financial aid to give another kid the same opportunity they had.

Donors are generous because they expect recipients to work towards paying their bills independently and to give back.

+1 financial aid is given to those who are likely to give back in the future. This is why high income recipients are more deserving.

+1 financial aid is more of a loan that the school would like to get back in donations. Give it to the families who can repay the loan.

Yes. Give financial aid to the grandkids of bill gates. Makes total sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation. In the Cleveland area, a family earning $136K a year would almost never qualify for aid from a Catholic high school—that’s considered upper-middle class there. Tuition is probably around $11K to $25K, and homes are far more affordable; you can buy a nice house for $200K or less.

In contrast, in the D.C. area, $136K is more of a middle-class income. Catholic high school tuition can run anywhere from $20K to $40K, and a modest townhouse might cost $350K or more. If a family earns $136K, has one kid, lives in a $350K townhouse, and the school charges $27K in tuition, I’d absolutely want them to receive aid. It’s all relative to cost of living.

I agree with your statement. Let me tell you what is the issue with an example with a concrete school and publicly available data (so parents from private schools don’t go bananas).

In Maret only 34 percent of the financial aid goes to families with income of 150k or less. So your example falls in that category which I think it’s fair. I don’t feel comfortable, specially with the 34 percent of financial aid that goes to families earning 250k or more. And that’s why I raise the issue if financial aid could be a bit stricter. I personally think that it should stop at an income grater than 150k.

If a really nice family with 4 kids earns 300k, you don't think they should get a break on tuition? Tuition at Maret is about 50k. With 4 kid they would pay 200k in after tax money. There is zero possibility of them being able to afford the school. Personally, I think larger families add to the cultural fabric of the school and increase diversity. Not everyone needs to come from a UMC family with 2 parents, 2 kids and a dog. Larger families, are part of the diversity.

What would happen if that family goes to public schools or decide to go to a cheaper religious private school. Absolutely nothing wrong. So the question is why schools should subsidize them. Why a household with 4 kids is more important than a household with 1 kid? Not entirely clear.

I will answer as though it were a real question.
What would happen is the student body of my kids schools would be less diverse because fewer of these tyoe of families would exist in the school. The school would be more polarized. I'm looking at this from the school's perspective, not that individual family's perspective.

I am full pay and evaluate the school as a whole, not just my personal situation within it.

[Anonymous]

No one can afford this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation. In the Cleveland area, a family earning $136K a year would almost never qualify for aid from a Catholic high school—that’s considered upper-middle class there. Tuition is probably around $11K to $25K, and homes are far more affordable; you can buy a nice house for $200K or less.

In contrast, in the D.C. area, $136K is more of a middle-class income. Catholic high school tuition can run anywhere from $20K to $40K, and a modest townhouse might cost $350K or more. If a family earns $136K, has one kid, lives in a $350K townhouse, and the school charges $27K in tuition, I’d absolutely want them to receive aid. It’s all relative to cost of living.

I agree with your statement. Let me tell you what is the issue with an example with a concrete school and publicly available data (so parents from private schools don’t go bananas).

In Maret only 34 percent of the financial aid goes to families with income of 150k or less. So your example falls in that category which I think it’s fair. I don’t feel comfortable, specially with the 34 percent of financial aid that goes to families earning 250k or more. And that’s why I raise the issue if financial aid could be a bit stricter. I personally think that it should stop at an income grater than 150k.

If a really nice family with 4 kids earns 300k, you don't think they should get a break on tuition? Tuition at Maret is about 50k. With 4 kid they would pay 200k in after tax money. There is zero possibility of them being able to afford the school. Personally, I think larger families add to the cultural fabric of the school and increase diversity. Not everyone needs to come from a UMC family with 2 parents, 2 kids and a dog. Larger families, are part of the diversity.

What would happen if that family goes to public schools or decide to go to a cheaper religious private school. Absolutely nothing wrong. So the question is why schools should subsidize them. Why a household with 4 kids is more important than a household with 1 kid? Not entirely clear.

I will answer as though it were a real question.
What would happen is the student body of my kids schools would be less diverse because fewer of these tyoe of families would exist in the school. The school would be more polarized. I'm looking at this from the school's perspective, not that individual family's perspective.

I am full pay and evaluate the school as a whole, not just my personal situation within it.

But is it really diverse? I think you can get a pretty diverse pool of middle class families that can pay full tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation. In the Cleveland area, a family earning $136K a year would almost never qualify for aid from a Catholic high school—that’s considered upper-middle class there. Tuition is probably around $11K to $25K, and homes are far more affordable; you can buy a nice house for $200K or less.

In contrast, in the D.C. area, $136K is more of a middle-class income. Catholic high school tuition can run anywhere from $20K to $40K, and a modest townhouse might cost $350K or more. If a family earns $136K, has one kid, lives in a $350K townhouse, and the school charges $27K in tuition, I’d absolutely want them to receive aid. It’s all relative to cost of living.

I agree with your statement. Let me tell you what is the issue with an example with a concrete school and publicly available data (so parents from private schools don’t go bananas).

In Maret only 34 percent of the financial aid goes to families with income of 150k or less. So your example falls in that category which I think it’s fair. I don’t feel comfortable, specially with the 34 percent of financial aid that goes to families earning 250k or more. And that’s why I raise the issue if financial aid could be a bit stricter. I personally think that it should stop at an income grater than 150k.

If a really nice family with 4 kids earns 300k, you don't think they should get a break on tuition? Tuition at Maret is about 50k. With 4 kid they would pay 200k in after tax money. There is zero possibility of them being able to afford the school. Personally, I think larger families add to the cultural fabric of the school and increase diversity. Not everyone needs to come from a UMC family with 2 parents, 2 kids and a dog. Larger families, are part of the diversity.

What would happen if that family goes to public schools or decide to go to a cheaper religious private school. Absolutely nothing wrong. So the question is why schools should subsidize them. Why a household with 4 kids is more important than a household with 1 kid? Not entirely clear.

I will answer as though it were a real question.
What would happen is the student body of my kids schools would be less diverse because fewer of these tyoe of families would exist in the school. The school would be more polarized. I'm looking at this from the school's perspective, not that individual family's perspective.

I am full pay and evaluate the school as a whole, not just my personal situation within it.

But is it really diverse? I think you can get a pretty diverse pool of middle class families that can pay full tuition.

Define middle class, a 140k family can’t afford private school.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if lots of comments referencing OP are OP. This thread reeks of troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent school’s bring in who they want. They aren’t getting scammed.

Yes. The only one scammed are middle income families subsidizing other middle income families through financial aid.

Nope, we all know what we are doing.

Well you know. But wouldnt hurt to say that financial aid is not really philanthropy. School are subsidizing well off families and excluding Low income families by design. Then somehow the image of inclusion that want to portray gets a bit tainted, right?

Inclusion is a strange concept. It normally doesn't "include" everyone by design. Take, for example, a huge corporation that advocates for a very inclusive environment. They won't hire uneducated people, yet they say they are inclusive. A school that is "inclusive" is similar- they include people who add to a rounded environment, designed and decided by themselves. Why do they have to "include" people that fall outside their own design?

You should add a footnote in your school brochure for inclusion : “we refer to inclusion as the capacity to include upper income class families that we like”

Why?
It already states what their mission and culture are. If you don't understand this from the published materials you don't deserve to be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if lots of comments referencing OP are OP. This thread reeks of troll.

Which ones were referencing op? I’m new to this thread and man it’s juicy this is why I love this website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent school’s bring in who they want. They aren’t getting scammed.

Yes. The only one scammed are middle income families subsidizing other middle income families through financial aid.

Nope, we all know what we are doing.

Well you know. But wouldnt hurt to say that financial aid is not really philanthropy. School are subsidizing well off families and excluding Low income families by design. Then somehow the image of inclusion that want to portray gets a bit tainted, right?

Financial aid: it does what is says on the tin, aids finances. It does not say philanthropy. Philanthropy is when someone donates money to a cause. That cause could be to aid finances of others, it could also be to save wildflowers in Antarctica or to fly rich people to the moon. The donor decides if they want to donate; the institution defines the cause and money allocation.

As stated above "inclusion" is defined by the institution, not by you.

If you don't like it, don't participate. (I don't like cucumbers, so I don't eat them. See how easy that is?)

If you actually disclose the household income of families receiving aid do you think people will be equally enthusiastic about it? Maybe you. Not sure about the middle class guys that pay full tuition. Why disclosure becomes such a difficult concept?

Because it's a PRIVATE institution.

If it were public, I'd have a completely different response

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent school’s bring in who they want. They aren’t getting scammed.

Yes. The only one scammed are middle income families subsidizing other middle income families through financial aid.

Nope, we all know what we are doing.

Well you know. But wouldnt hurt to say that financial aid is not really philanthropy. School are subsidizing well off families and excluding Low income families by design. Then somehow the image of inclusion that want to portray gets a bit tainted, right?

Inclusion is a strange concept. It normally doesn't "include" everyone by design. Take, for example, a huge corporation that advocates for a very inclusive environment. They won't hire uneducated people, yet they say they are inclusive. A school that is "inclusive" is similar- they include people who add to a rounded environment, designed and decided by themselves. Why do they have to "include" people that fall outside their own design?

You should add a footnote in your school brochure for inclusion : “we refer to inclusion as the capacity to include upper income class families that we like”

Why?
It already states what their mission and culture are. If you don't understand this from the published materials you don't deserve to be there.

Share a link so I can see it. Most schools are more in the camp of “fake inclusivity”. And your posts show that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Independent school’s bring in who they want. They aren’t getting scammed.

Yes. The only one scammed are middle income families subsidizing other middle income families through financial aid.

Nope, we all know what we are doing.

Well you know. But wouldnt hurt to say that financial aid is not really philanthropy. School are subsidizing well off families and excluding Low income families by design. Then somehow the image of inclusion that want to portray gets a bit tainted, right?

Financial aid: it does what is says on the tin, aids finances. It does not say philanthropy. Philanthropy is when someone donates money to a cause. That cause could be to aid finances of others, it could also be to save wildflowers in Antarctica or to fly rich people to the moon. The donor decides if they want to donate; the institution defines the cause and money allocation.

As stated above "inclusion" is defined by the institution, not by you.

If you don't like it, don't participate. (I don't like cucumbers, so I don't eat them. See how easy that is?)

If you actually disclose the household income of families receiving aid do you think people will be equally enthusiastic about it? Maybe you. Not sure about the middle class guys that pay full tuition. Why disclosure becomes such a difficult concept?

Because it's a PRIVATE institution.

If it were public, I'd have a completely different response

Many private schools (non religious) are non profit. By law are required to disclose financial information. So no, they are not private like a private company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if lots of comments referencing OP are OP. This thread reeks of troll.

Which ones were referencing op? I’m new to this thread and man it’s juicy this is why I love this website.

It’s just a bitter upper income class parent that is unhappy with this thread.