FA shouldn't go to people with 1 million dollar houses

[Anonymous]

I'm for financial aid for bringing more minorities into the private schools for diversity purposes. I resent others who game the system and should not be receiving aid. I've worked through terrible illnesses because if I quit -- my kid couldn't go to a private school. My husband doesn't make a lot either. We live in a terrible neighborhood and hate the DC public schools.

[Anonymous]

PP must be Skankmom Sock Puppet to write something like that. Don't respond, people.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to hear from the million dollar house dweller receiving financial aid who says I and others have NO CLUE. Well, please, clue me in. If you're telling me you have a million dollar mortgage, I say, okay, you're an idiot. You can't afford that, clearly. Sell your house (without any equity) and rent something you can afford. If you say there is a tax advantage, that's true. But that doesn't mean you live in a house you can't afford for a tax break. You live in a house you CAN afford for a tax break, or you rent. You don't penalize other children of need because you spent more on housing than you should have.

If on the other hand you actually have some substantial equity left in your house, tell me why it's fair that you accumulate wealth while borrowing from others.

[Anonymous]

It's not borrowing from others if it doesn't get paid back.

[Anonymous]

I stand corrected.

[Anonymous]

Unless you have knowledge that someone lied, or fiddled the numbers, on the FA application, I see no point in complaining. You can't know what their true circumstances are, and can't know why they qualified. I don't think the schools are so naive that non-needy families will qualify very often (and lots of families get relatively small grants).

People make lots of life decisions which you may not support. Do you think the schools should also refuse FA to lawyers who choose to work in the public or nonprofit sector rather than for a big law firm?

[Anonymous]

Yes if the public interest lawyers are living in $1 million dollar houses.

[Anonymous]

16:41 Are you serious? Even people at schools think something is amiss. People are questioning some of the assumptions that go into the FA process, so please don't insinuate that any of us are complaining for naught. It's called critical thinking and obviously the schools notice some of the questionable, behavior, like travel, fancy cars, that suggests families could be making more sacrifices. Also, a big mortgage means my sacrifices are helping someone build equity and there is something wrong with that. It's a life decision I don't support but I end up supporting by paying full freight and making sacrifices. You point about law school makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I totally don't get the idea that we shouldn't question these decisions. What? People question things all the time, like admissions decisions being unfair, etc. Apparently, when it comes to someone's million dollar house, I'm supposed to suspend disbelief and imagine this family is making all kinds of sacrifices which are just not immediately visible. Well you know what is visible? The fact that you are living in a gigantic house in a prime neighborhood. If you want to get everyone off your tail, start living the financially modest lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

16:55 Silly.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting. When you give $$ for financial aid to a university, you imagine the beneficiaries. When you give $$ to your DC's private school, you actually see the beneficiaries, sometimes day in and day out. That creates a lot more room for resentment -- e.g. I gave to the annual fund so *she* can get a tuition break?!

And I wonder how the formula works. Thinking, for example, about medical care. In less affluent families, the elderly relative who needs FT care may live at home with nursing provided by various family members. By contrast, an affluent family may be able to afford to outsource the care -- e.g. to an expensive assisted living facility. At which point, does the affluent (but cash poor) family get subsidized private school tuition as a result? Who gets told "sorry, you just can't afford private school" and who gets told "well, we'll make it affordable because we can see that your family is dealing with a medical serious medical needs? Basically, it usually takes lots of income or lots of assets to rack up big expenditures. Poorer people are more likely to barter or share or do it themselves or do without rather than spend. Should financial aid be designed to put the educational perks of big wage-earning within reach of unlucky/overburdened big wage-earners or should it be designed to make private schooling available to kids whose parents simply don't have many economic resources (rather than those who expend their resources on other things -- no matter how laudable or necessary)?

Here again, college is different both because the students are older and have more significant track records -- which means both that who deserves what is more a function of individual merit/achievement and that colleges can make predictions about future earning power and/or require the student to share the risk/investment by funding part of his or her education through loans.

[Anonymous]

17:00 I was with you until you got to merit-based scholarship and loans at the college/university level. Private school is all needs-based. It's an interesting definition of needs.

[Anonymous]

Re college -- I wasn't thinking merit-based scholarships. I was thinking merit-based admissions with a commitment to make it financially possible (one way or another -- grants, loans, work-study) for everyone admitted to attend.

I don't think local privates have need-blind admissions. Few, if any, have the endowments necessary for that to be possible and, of course, there's no viable way to tap into the current or future earning power of the students, as there is in college.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the philosophical confusion. We want aid to be based on need. Not based on how big a cry baby you are.

[Anonymous]

NP here. I agree that FA should go to people who actually would not otherwise be able to attend school - as opposed to it being more inconvenient. But I have a question about this home equity assumption:

If you bought a home that appreciated dramatically, but you otherwise have a lower paying job, how in the world could you afford the mortgage if you tried to draw down the equity?

For instance, I know that the person whom I bought my home from paid in the $200-250K range (several years ago) as did many other folks living in this area. As it happened, through some quirks of real estate development, home values tripled and in some cases quadrupled. Some people who did not sell but still live in their original homes with their original $250K mortgage could probably not afford a larger mortgage.