Should financial aid in private school be stricter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of defensiveness here. I’m with you OP. I’d much rather my school give scholarships to truly low income children who need a chance in life vs UMC families that want private but can’t afford it.

Most, if not everyone, would agree with this. If you don’t think your school is doing this, bring it up to your school’s board. If they don’t fix it, stop donating or start your own scholarship targeting the exact groups you want to help.

OP is nosy and making assumptions about people’s financial aid and income statuses. She probably doesn’t even donate to her school.

I only know for sure a few kids that get financial aid. All of them have parents that work at the school. These parents are definitely invested in their kids and the school. They are middle class and they wouldn't be able to afford the $80k+ to see their 2+ kids there. Some of these are our favorite teachers so offering financial aid as an employment perk is fine with me. Actually, I'd rather have this than truly low income kids whose parents are uninvolved in the school because they work 2 jobs and have alcoholism - my daughter was friends with a girl like this at our school and we very much tried to be that support system. Fast forward to highschool and the girl failed out, her mother died or liver failure, and last I heard she's the 'entrepreneur' selling drugs. Five years of financial aid wasted in my opinion.

The main issue with this post is that it makes sweeping generalizations about low-income families, reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Here are the key problems:

1. Associating Low-Income Status with Parental Neglect and Addiction
The post implies that truly low-income parents are generally uninvolved in their children’s education because they work multiple jobs and struggle with alcoholism.
While some families face hardships, not all low-income parents are uninvolved, nor do they all struggle with addiction. Many work hard to support their children’s education.

2. Suggesting That Financial Aid for Low-Income Students Is a "Waste"
The post frames financial aid as only worthwhile if the student succeeds, rather than as an opportunity for those who wouldn’t otherwise afford private school.
The idea that a student "failed out" and their mother’s death led them to selling drugs suggests a lack of empathy for systemic issues rather than recognizing the challenges some students face.

3. Favoritism Toward Middle-Class Families Over Low-Income Families
The poster prefers financial aid to go to middle-class teachers rather than low-income families, based on personal comfort with teachers.
This reinforces elitism—that financial aid should benefit those who "fit in" rather than those with the greatest financial need.

4. Insensitive Language & Judgmental Tone
Describing someone as an “entrepreneur” selling drugs trivializes their struggles.
The phrase “five years of financial aid wasted” is particularly problematic because it suggests that struggling students don’t deserve help unless they meet a certain outcome.

While concerns about school culture and parental involvement are valid, this post comes across as classist and lacking compassion. It assumes that financial aid should only go to students with stable families, ignoring that financial aid exists to give disadvantaged kids a chance, not just to reward those with ideal circumstances.

It's lived experience. Bias develops through lived experience. You could benefit from a basic psychology course. And yes, people here write about lived experience.

BTW - 'entrepreneur' I the term the kids in HS use. Perhaps you should get familiar with this before your kids get there.

Thanks for the AI response though. It shows your inability to think and form a real opinion.

The AI is so people become a bit more aware about how elitist and racist are. I really like the AI interpretation of posts like yours. Maybe you should also check so you are a bit more aware of how an awful person you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We could be that family you are describing. Quite honestly, we wouldn't send our kids to private school if we didn't get about half off (not a fancy exclusive school but an OK catholic school). Private schools are a business. They know what they are doing. They want to keep numbers up and what we pay for our daughter covers keeping her there I'm sure. She's easy, has involved parents, and doesn't need much support.

This is our experience too. Anecdotally, FA kids do well academically and don't cause rich-kid problems. The school uses FA to keep them there and round out the class, which creates a better overall experience for everyone. And the school is getting 50% to 80% of tuition, which is a chunk of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of defensiveness here. I’m with you OP. I’d much rather my school give scholarships to truly low income children who need a chance in life vs UMC families that want private but can’t afford it.

Most, if not everyone, would agree with this. If you don’t think your school is doing this, bring it up to your school’s board. If they don’t fix it, stop donating or start your own scholarship targeting the exact groups you want to help.

OP is nosy and making assumptions about people’s financial aid and income statuses. She probably doesn’t even donate to her school.

I only know for sure a few kids that get financial aid. All of them have parents that work at the school. These parents are definitely invested in their kids and the school. They are middle class and they wouldn't be able to afford the $80k+ to see their 2+ kids there. Some of these are our favorite teachers so offering financial aid as an employment perk is fine with me. Actually, I'd rather have this than truly low income kids whose parents are uninvolved in the school because they work 2 jobs and have alcoholism - my daughter was friends with a girl like this at our school and we very much tried to be that support system. Fast forward to highschool and the girl failed out, her mother died or liver failure, and last I heard she's the 'entrepreneur' selling drugs. Five years of financial aid wasted in my opinion.

The main issue with this post is that it makes sweeping generalizations about low-income families, reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Here are the key problems:

1. Associating Low-Income Status with Parental Neglect and Addiction
The post implies that truly low-income parents are generally uninvolved in their children’s education because they work multiple jobs and struggle with alcoholism.
While some families face hardships, not all low-income parents are uninvolved, nor do they all struggle with addiction. Many work hard to support their children’s education.

2. Suggesting That Financial Aid for Low-Income Students Is a "Waste"
The post frames financial aid as only worthwhile if the student succeeds, rather than as an opportunity for those who wouldn’t otherwise afford private school.
The idea that a student "failed out" and their mother’s death led them to selling drugs suggests a lack of empathy for systemic issues rather than recognizing the challenges some students face.

3. Favoritism Toward Middle-Class Families Over Low-Income Families
The poster prefers financial aid to go to middle-class teachers rather than low-income families, based on personal comfort with teachers.
This reinforces elitism—that financial aid should benefit those who "fit in" rather than those with the greatest financial need.

4. Insensitive Language & Judgmental Tone
Describing someone as an “entrepreneur” selling drugs trivializes their struggles.
The phrase “five years of financial aid wasted” is particularly problematic because it suggests that struggling students don’t deserve help unless they meet a certain outcome.

While concerns about school culture and parental involvement are valid, this post comes across as classist and lacking compassion. It assumes that financial aid should only go to students with stable families, ignoring that financial aid exists to give disadvantaged kids a chance, not just to reward those with ideal circumstances.

It's lived experience. Bias develops through lived experience. You could benefit from a basic psychology course. And yes, people here write about lived experience.

BTW - 'entrepreneur' I the term the kids in HS use. Perhaps you should get familiar with this before your kids get there.

Thanks for the AI response though. It shows your inability to think and form a real opinion.

The AI is so people become a bit more aware about how elitist and racist are. I really like the AI interpretation of posts like yours. Maybe you should also check so you are a bit more aware of how an awful person you are.

Right.... because calling people "awful" will produce kind egalitarian people. Do you even see the irony or are you too stupid for that too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We could be that family you are describing. Quite honestly, we wouldn't send our kids to private school if we didn't get about half off (not a fancy exclusive school but an OK catholic school). Private schools are a business. They know what they are doing. They want to keep numbers up and what we pay for our daughter covers keeping her there I'm sure. She's easy, has involved parents, and doesn't need much support.

This is our experience too. Anecdotally, FA kids do well academically and don't cause rich-kid problems. The school uses FA to keep them there and round out the class, which creates a better overall experience for everyone. And the school is getting 50% to 80% of tuition, which is a chunk of money.

+1
And by providing partial aid to more kids, more kids get aid, therefore less of a dichotomy and more of a balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of defensiveness here. I’m with you OP. I’d much rather my school give scholarships to truly low income children who need a chance in life vs UMC families that want private but can’t afford it.

Most, if not everyone, would agree with this. If you don’t think your school is doing this, bring it up to your school’s board. If they don’t fix it, stop donating or start your own scholarship targeting the exact groups you want to help.

OP is nosy and making assumptions about people’s financial aid and income statuses. She probably doesn’t even donate to her school.

I only know for sure a few kids that get financial aid. All of them have parents that work at the school. These parents are definitely invested in their kids and the school. They are middle class and they wouldn't be able to afford the $80k+ to see their 2+ kids there. Some of these are our favorite teachers so offering financial aid as an employment perk is fine with me. Actually, I'd rather have this than truly low income kids whose parents are uninvolved in the school because they work 2 jobs and have alcoholism - my daughter was friends with a girl like this at our school and we very much tried to be that support system. Fast forward to highschool and the girl failed out, her mother died or liver failure, and last I heard she's the 'entrepreneur' selling drugs. Five years of financial aid wasted in my opinion.

The main issue with this post is that it makes sweeping generalizations about low-income families, reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Here are the key problems:

1. Associating Low-Income Status with Parental Neglect and Addiction
The post implies that truly low-income parents are generally uninvolved in their children’s education because they work multiple jobs and struggle with alcoholism.
While some families face hardships, not all low-income parents are uninvolved, nor do they all struggle with addiction. Many work hard to support their children’s education.

2. Suggesting That Financial Aid for Low-Income Students Is a "Waste"
The post frames financial aid as only worthwhile if the student succeeds, rather than as an opportunity for those who wouldn’t otherwise afford private school.
The idea that a student "failed out" and their mother’s death led them to selling drugs suggests a lack of empathy for systemic issues rather than recognizing the challenges some students face.

3. Favoritism Toward Middle-Class Families Over Low-Income Families
The poster prefers financial aid to go to middle-class teachers rather than low-income families, based on personal comfort with teachers.
This reinforces elitism—that financial aid should benefit those who "fit in" rather than those with the greatest financial need.

4. Insensitive Language & Judgmental Tone
Describing someone as an “entrepreneur” selling drugs trivializes their struggles.
The phrase “five years of financial aid wasted” is particularly problematic because it suggests that struggling students don’t deserve help unless they meet a certain outcome.

While concerns about school culture and parental involvement are valid, this post comes across as classist and lacking compassion. It assumes that financial aid should only go to students with stable families, ignoring that financial aid exists to give disadvantaged kids a chance, not just to reward those with ideal circumstances.

It's lived experience. Bias develops through lived experience. You could benefit from a basic psychology course. And yes, people here write about lived experience.

BTW - 'entrepreneur' I the term the kids in HS use. Perhaps you should get familiar with this before your kids get there.

Thanks for the AI response though. It shows your inability to think and form a real opinion.

The AI is so people become a bit more aware about how elitist and racist are. I really like the AI interpretation of posts like yours. Maybe you should also check so you are a bit more aware of how an awful person you are.

Right.... because calling people "awful" will produce kind egalitarian people. Do you even see the irony or are you too stupid for that too?

Oh sorry. There is a typo.

Yes, we should exclude low income families from financial aid. You are a beautiful person and you are right.

[Anonymous]

Many of the top graduates at Sidwell, etc are partial financial aid, middle to upper middle class kids who are admitted in high school for their academic strength and interests and their ability to get into top colleges. They are subsidized by the full-pay lifers. The school needs these academic powerhouse kids who can get spots in Ivies, etc. These families can't pay $55K/year (and if asked, would instead go to Blair or TJ or Walls, etc) but they are able to pay $30k or $35K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of the top graduates at Sidwell, etc are partial financial aid, middle to upper middle class kids who are admitted in high school for their academic strength and interests and their ability to get into top colleges. They are subsidized by the full-pay lifers. The school needs these academic powerhouse kids who can get spots in Ivies, etc. These families can't pay $55K/year (and if asked, would instead go to Blair or TJ or Walls, etc) but they are able to pay $30k or $35K.

I agree with that principle. What I see in my DC school is financial aid to to UMC that are not the top performers in academics or athletics. So not sure about the fairness of the FA criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the top graduates at Sidwell, etc are partial financial aid, middle to upper middle class kids who are admitted in high school for their academic strength and interests and their ability to get into top colleges. They are subsidized by the full-pay lifers. The school needs these academic powerhouse kids who can get spots in Ivies, etc. These families can't pay $55K/year (and if asked, would instead go to Blair or TJ or Walls, etc) but they are able to pay $30k or $35K.

I agree with that principle. What I see in my DC school is financial aid to to UMC that are not the top performers in academics or athletics. So not sure about the fairness of the FA criteria.

Always funny to see how much posters value athletics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the top graduates at Sidwell, etc are partial financial aid, middle to upper middle class kids who are admitted in high school for their academic strength and interests and their ability to get into top colleges. They are subsidized by the full-pay lifers. The school needs these academic powerhouse kids who can get spots in Ivies, etc. These families can't pay $55K/year (and if asked, would instead go to Blair or TJ or Walls, etc) but they are able to pay $30k or $35K.

I agree with that principle. What I see in my DC school is financial aid to to UMC that are not the top performers in academics or athletics. So not sure about the fairness of the FA criteria.

Always funny to see how much posters value athletics.

I value more socioeconomic diversity, which is lacking in my DC private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of defensiveness here. I’m with you OP. I’d much rather my school give scholarships to truly low income children who need a chance in life vs UMC families that want private but can’t afford it.

Most, if not everyone, would agree with this. If you don’t think your school is doing this, bring it up to your school’s board. If they don’t fix it, stop donating or start your own scholarship targeting the exact groups you want to help.

OP is nosy and making assumptions about people’s financial aid and income statuses. She probably doesn’t even donate to her school.

I only know for sure a few kids that get financial aid. All of them have parents that work at the school. These parents are definitely invested in their kids and the school. They are middle class and they wouldn't be able to afford the $80k+ to see their 2+ kids there. Some of these are our favorite teachers so offering financial aid as an employment perk is fine with me. Actually, I'd rather have this than truly low income kids whose parents are uninvolved in the school because they work 2 jobs and have alcoholism - my daughter was friends with a girl like this at our school and we very much tried to be that support system. Fast forward to highschool and the girl failed out, her mother died or liver failure, and last I heard she's the 'entrepreneur' selling drugs. Five years of financial aid wasted in my opinion.

The main issue with this post is that it makes sweeping generalizations about low-income families, reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Here are the key problems:

1. Associating Low-Income Status with Parental Neglect and Addiction
The post implies that truly low-income parents are generally uninvolved in their children’s education because they work multiple jobs and struggle with alcoholism.
While some families face hardships, not all low-income parents are uninvolved, nor do they all struggle with addiction. Many work hard to support their children’s education.

2. Suggesting That Financial Aid for Low-Income Students Is a "Waste"
The post frames financial aid as only worthwhile if the student succeeds, rather than as an opportunity for those who wouldn’t otherwise afford private school.
The idea that a student "failed out" and their mother’s death led them to selling drugs suggests a lack of empathy for systemic issues rather than recognizing the challenges some students face.

3. Favoritism Toward Middle-Class Families Over Low-Income Families
The poster prefers financial aid to go to middle-class teachers rather than low-income families, based on personal comfort with teachers.
This reinforces elitism—that financial aid should benefit those who "fit in" rather than those with the greatest financial need.

4. Insensitive Language & Judgmental Tone
Describing someone as an “entrepreneur” selling drugs trivializes their struggles.
The phrase “five years of financial aid wasted” is particularly problematic because it suggests that struggling students don’t deserve help unless they meet a certain outcome.

While concerns about school culture and parental involvement are valid, this post comes across as classist and lacking compassion. It assumes that financial aid should only go to students with stable families, ignoring that financial aid exists to give disadvantaged kids a chance, not just to reward those with ideal circumstances.

It's lived experience. Bias develops through lived experience. You could benefit from a basic psychology course. And yes, people here write about lived experience.

BTW - 'entrepreneur' I the term the kids in HS use. Perhaps you should get familiar with this before your kids get there.

Thanks for the AI response though. It shows your inability to think and form a real opinion.

The AI is so people become a bit more aware about how elitist and racist are. I really like the AI interpretation of posts like yours. Maybe you should also check so you are a bit more aware of how an awful person you are.

Right.... because calling people "awful" will produce kind egalitarian people. Do you even see the irony or are you too stupid for that too?

Oh sorry. There is a typo.

Yes, we should exclude low income families from financial aid. You are a beautiful person and you are right.

How about just understanding the way psychology works and what people say publicly and anonymously.... and the natural resistance to change, especially when you insult them.

[Anonymous]

It's true that most low income families do not understand the process or that FA is even available for schools like this. There has to be an in somewhere that lets them know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the top graduates at Sidwell, etc are partial financial aid, middle to upper middle class kids who are admitted in high school for their academic strength and interests and their ability to get into top colleges. They are subsidized by the full-pay lifers. The school needs these academic powerhouse kids who can get spots in Ivies, etc. These families can't pay $55K/year (and if asked, would instead go to Blair or TJ or Walls, etc) but they are able to pay $30k or $35K.

I agree with that principle. What I see in my DC school is financial aid to to UMC that are not the top performers in academics or athletics. So not sure about the fairness of the FA criteria.

Always funny to see how much posters value athletics.

The schools value athletics.. that's why it's an unavoidable part of the conversation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the top graduates at Sidwell, etc are partial financial aid, middle to upper middle class kids who are admitted in high school for their academic strength and interests and their ability to get into top colleges. They are subsidized by the full-pay lifers. The school needs these academic powerhouse kids who can get spots in Ivies, etc. These families can't pay $55K/year (and if asked, would instead go to Blair or TJ or Walls, etc) but they are able to pay $30k or $35K.

I agree with that principle. What I see in my DC school is financial aid to to UMC that are not the top performers in academics or athletics. So not sure about the fairness of the FA criteria.

Always funny to see how much posters value athletics.

The schools value athletics.. that's why it's an unavoidable part of the conversation

Schools are not just about academics. If we value arts and drama, then we should value athletics. The question is how we spread limited resources across all these areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of defensiveness here. I’m with you OP. I’d much rather my school give scholarships to truly low income children who need a chance in life vs UMC families that want private but can’t afford it.

Most, if not everyone, would agree with this. If you don’t think your school is doing this, bring it up to your school’s board. If they don’t fix it, stop donating or start your own scholarship targeting the exact groups you want to help.

OP is nosy and making assumptions about people’s financial aid and income statuses. She probably doesn’t even donate to her school.

I only know for sure a few kids that get financial aid. All of them have parents that work at the school. These parents are definitely invested in their kids and the school. They are middle class and they wouldn't be able to afford the $80k+ to see their 2+ kids there. Some of these are our favorite teachers so offering financial aid as an employment perk is fine with me. Actually, I'd rather have this than truly low income kids whose parents are uninvolved in the school because they work 2 jobs and have alcoholism - my daughter was friends with a girl like this at our school and we very much tried to be that support system. Fast forward to highschool and the girl failed out, her mother died or liver failure, and last I heard she's the 'entrepreneur' selling drugs. Five years of financial aid wasted in my opinion.

The main issue with this post is that it makes sweeping generalizations about low-income families, reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Here are the key problems:

1. Associating Low-Income Status with Parental Neglect and Addiction
The post implies that truly low-income parents are generally uninvolved in their children’s education because they work multiple jobs and struggle with alcoholism.
While some families face hardships, not all low-income parents are uninvolved, nor do they all struggle with addiction. Many work hard to support their children’s education.

2. Suggesting That Financial Aid for Low-Income Students Is a "Waste"
The post frames financial aid as only worthwhile if the student succeeds, rather than as an opportunity for those who wouldn’t otherwise afford private school.
The idea that a student "failed out" and their mother’s death led them to selling drugs suggests a lack of empathy for systemic issues rather than recognizing the challenges some students face.

3. Favoritism Toward Middle-Class Families Over Low-Income Families
The poster prefers financial aid to go to middle-class teachers rather than low-income families, based on personal comfort with teachers.
This reinforces elitism—that financial aid should benefit those who "fit in" rather than those with the greatest financial need.

4. Insensitive Language & Judgmental Tone
Describing someone as an “entrepreneur” selling drugs trivializes their struggles.
The phrase “five years of financial aid wasted” is particularly problematic because it suggests that struggling students don’t deserve help unless they meet a certain outcome.

While concerns about school culture and parental involvement are valid, this post comes across as classist and lacking compassion. It assumes that financial aid should only go to students with stable families, ignoring that financial aid exists to give disadvantaged kids a chance, not just to reward those with ideal circumstances.

It's lived experience. Bias develops through lived experience. You could benefit from a basic psychology course. And yes, people here write about lived experience.

BTW - 'entrepreneur' I the term the kids in HS use. Perhaps you should get familiar with this before your kids get there.

Thanks for the AI response though. It shows your inability to think and form a real opinion.

The AI is so people become a bit more aware about how elitist and racist are. I really like the AI interpretation of posts like yours. Maybe you should also check so you are a bit more aware of how an awful person you are.

Right.... because calling people "awful" will produce kind egalitarian people. Do you even see the irony or are you too stupid for that too?

Oh sorry. There is a typo.

Yes, we should exclude low income families from financial aid. You are a beautiful person and you are right.

How about just understanding the way psychology works and what people say publicly and anonymously.... and the natural resistance to change, especially when you insult them.

Forgot to add - but you are the poor, low IQ person trying to understand how financial aid works to get her inferior kids into private school to possibly better their despot lives.

Now - does that addition make you more or less likely to see my point of view?

That's how psychology works outside of AI tools. Humans have emotions and we cannot get away from that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's true that most low income families do not understand the process or that FA is even available for schools like this. There has to be an in somewhere that lets them know.

Targeted adds in social media. Super cheap.