Should schools be underwriting private education for the already privileged?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what you are saying is that a school should only be filled with rich families who are full pay where tuition isn't an obstacle or families who are poor or first generation families YOU feel are worth receiving the money? So middle class families who YOU think have privilege do not deserve any aid so should be locked out of private schools? Glad you aren't on the admissions committee of any of these schools! And how much privilege is too much? How do you determine this? Schools have their own priorities and want a diverse class to make it stronger. You are free to give or not give to a school requesting a donation. Did you send your kids to private school? They are filled with all types. You don't sound like a supportive friend.

NP. Yes that is what I am saying. This group of slightly UMC white children of Hill staff, ACLU lawyers and NYT reporters who went to Penn and Columbia is emphatically not who I want to subsidize with my meager discretionary income after I pay full freight. These are my literal peers, except with more children and a dramatically better work-life balance than I have

Sidwell and Sheridan of course can do what they want, but I’m not going to underwrite this

Wow. I think you are more offended that they have not chosen more lucrative careers with their education than you are about the financial aid. Lots of highly educated people choose to go into journalism or nonprofit work because it calls to them or they want to make the world a better place. Not everyone wants to be a greedy heartless, soulless person like you.

NP. Yes but there’s also a good portion of them who choose these types of jobs because they have less time requirements, more job flexibility and allow them to have more ‘work-life balance.’ I would love to have that too but I had to choose a job that would pay my daughter’s tuition bill. And I’m sure as h— not paying for their kid’s tuition as well. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I mean, demonstrably you did not have to. You could have done what they did.

My family receives FA. I am grateful for it. I think it's absolutely fine to not donate, or to mark your donation for a non-scholarship fund. But I think it's bizarre to have repeated threads on DCUM complaining about how a school you don't have to attend spends money you don't need to give.

[Anonymous]

It takes a village.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This level of pettiness is insanity.

Mmm. See to me, the constant ask to contribute $2,3 or $5k to financial aid is very real, not petty. It’s incessant. And I’d be delighted to do that, if I knew my gift would be used for the things I value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what you are saying is that a school should only be filled with rich families who are full pay where tuition isn't an obstacle or families who are poor or first generation families YOU feel are worth receiving the money? So middle class families who YOU think have privilege do not deserve any aid so should be locked out of private schools? Glad you aren't on the admissions committee of any of these schools! And how much privilege is too much? How do you determine this? Schools have their own priorities and want a diverse class to make it stronger. You are free to give or not give to a school requesting a donation. Did you send your kids to private school? They are filled with all types. You don't sound like a supportive friend.

NP. Yes that is what I am saying. This group of slightly UMC white children of Hill staff, ACLU lawyers and NYT reporters who went to Penn and Columbia is emphatically not who I want to subsidize with my meager discretionary income after I pay full freight. These are my literal peers, except with more children and a dramatically better work-life balance than I have

Sidwell and Sheridan of course can do what they want, but I’m not going to underwrite this

You don't get to pick what your school does. Sorry to tell you but, essentially, your full pay is still underwriting it - even if your donation dollars are pegged to not go to FA. They can just shift as needed - so any money that goes to the school is supporting the school and its chosen mission - including FA distribution. If you really care, go elsewhere. Or maybe fully fund a scholarship in your own name to target exactly the group you want to reach.

No, tuition doesn’t fund FA. Read your school’s detailed financials sometime. There’s no “shifting,” as that would be fraud. Our school has a healthy endowment and FA mostly comes from there and donors. Which I am not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was having lunch with a friend who sends their kids to a top private on financial aid. Both parents went to top undergrad and law schools and have chosen to go into less demanding careers that don't pay as well. Both parents work and the family probably makes somewhere around $350-400K all in (but they have multiple children).

Truly, this just rubs me the wrong way. Aid should go to families with limited upward mobility prospects, not kids of super intellectuals who are affirmatively choosing to work lower paying jobs and whose kids are very likely already set up for success in the world. Oh and this family lives in a strong public district but sends their kids to an elite private instead. Just feels disingenuous when the school is asking for donation after donation after donation (in addition to the wildly high tuition) so that kids of privileged backgrounds can get aid.

If they make 350-400K, they're not getting financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read a lot of these threads, but “you shouldn’t get aid because you could theoretically have a higher salary than your actual salary” is one of the most exceptionally sh*tty takes I’ve seen.

Meh. Take your white hat salary and your brilliant, value-laden kids to the local public school. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids go to an expensive private school, some of their most impressive peers are the kids of highly educated teachers or government employees with impressive degrees. I have no idea who gets financial aid but I send my kids to this school to be surrounded by kids from families who value strong education and hard work, not necessarily those who live in the biggest houses.

Kids from families who value strong education and hard work. But not the poor ones. No, not the poor ones.

None of these kids have true low income kids, i.e. families making under $80 or on assistance or foster care.

Those kids would cost $55K/year/kid in aid. A school with a $1 million dollar aid budget can only support 20 of them. If there are 2 kids in a family, they can support 10 families total. If there are 3 kids, they can support 6-7 families total. Plus these kids would need subsidized transportation, aftercare, etc. So that's another $10K/kid easily.

And then those 20 kids would be in school with classmates who all make $400-500K+. Many making $800K+ I think we can all agree that this might not be the easiest row to hoe for those kids. This scenario is not without significant problems for the 20 kids, the school, etc.

Wow. Now that’s one big fat convenient rationalization.

No, simply pointing out what these schools struggle with. Aid is finite. Do you give it all to 6-10 families across all grades or do you divide it up? It's not as easy as saying 'we want to fund impoverished kids." It's not a simple issue at all.

Of course it isn’t simple. But if the will was there to do it, all those enormous brains in admin and on the Board would figure out a way to fund more poor kids. And really, why should they? The families don’t want them to.

They can’t magic money out of thin air.

They can give less FA to people making above $250k and more to people making less than $100k. Reallocate. But the will to do it is lacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what you are saying is that a school should only be filled with rich families who are full pay where tuition isn't an obstacle or families who are poor or first generation families YOU feel are worth receiving the money? So middle class families who YOU think have privilege do not deserve any aid so should be locked out of private schools? Glad you aren't on the admissions committee of any of these schools! And how much privilege is too much? How do you determine this? Schools have their own priorities and want a diverse class to make it stronger. You are free to give or not give to a school requesting a donation. Did you send your kids to private school? They are filled with all types. You don't sound like a supportive friend.

NP. Yes that is what I am saying. This group of slightly UMC white children of Hill staff, ACLU lawyers and NYT reporters who went to Penn and Columbia is emphatically not who I want to subsidize with my meager discretionary income after I pay full freight. These are my literal peers, except with more children and a dramatically better work-life balance than I have

Sidwell and Sheridan of course can do what they want, but I’m not going to underwrite this

Wow. I think you are more offended that they have not chosen more lucrative careers with their education than you are about the financial aid. Lots of highly educated people choose to go into journalism or nonprofit work because it calls to them or they want to make the world a better place. Not everyone wants to be a greedy heartless, soulless person like you.

NP. Yes but there’s also a good portion of them who choose these types of jobs because they have less time requirements, more job flexibility and allow them to have more ‘work-life balance.’ I would love to have that too but I had to choose a job that would pay my daughter’s tuition bill. And I’m sure as h— not paying for their kid’s tuition as well. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I mean, demonstrably you did not have to. You could have done what they did.

My family receives FA. I am grateful for it. I think it's absolutely fine to not donate, or to mark your donation for a non-scholarship fund. But I think it's bizarre to have repeated threads on DCUM complaining about how a school you don't have to attend spends money you don't need to give.

Different PP. My post complained about the schools my kids attend(ed). I didn’t start the thread tho

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read a lot of these threads, but “you shouldn’t get aid because you could theoretically have a higher salary than your actual salary” is one of the most exceptionally sh*tty takes I’ve seen.

Meh. Take your white hat salary and your brilliant, value-laden kids to the local public school. Problem solved.

But there is no problem. Except in OP’s mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read a lot of these threads, but “you shouldn’t get aid because you could theoretically have a higher salary than your actual salary” is one of the most exceptionally sh*tty takes I’ve seen.

Meh. Take your white hat salary and your brilliant, value-laden kids to the local public school. Problem solved.

But there is no problem. Except in OP’s mind.

Exactly. Giving FA to a family making over $350k and has multiple kids is a good thing. Keeps the school from giving FA to some poor kid you don’t want sitting next to your kid, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read a lot of these threads, but “you shouldn’t get aid because you could theoretically have a higher salary than your actual salary” is one of the most exceptionally sh*tty takes I’ve seen.

Meh. Take your white hat salary and your brilliant, value-laden kids to the local public school. Problem solved.

But there is no problem. Except in OP’s mind.

Exactly. Giving FA to a family making over $350k and has multiple kids is a good thing. Keeps the school from giving FA to some poor kid you don’t want sitting next to your kid, right?

1) OP doesn’t actually know that’s what they make.
2) Multiple kids implies three or more, as people rarely use that term for two.
3) We don’t know how much they receive, could be $10k per kid.
4) Given all of the above, it’s completely reasonable they would receive something at a school where the tuition is between $45-60k per kid.
5) That “something” per kid probably isn’t enough to fund the FA that a poor kid would need, which is the point you keep missing.

These schools should definitely provide aid for poorer kids. But it’s much harder to fill a class when you are providing full tuition than when you are giving smaller amounts to more people. Your desired approach would result in a bunch of very wealthy kids and then a few token poor kids that could be trotted out at various intervals to make the donors feel good. I guess that would make you happy, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids go to an expensive private school, some of their most impressive peers are the kids of highly educated teachers or government employees with impressive degrees. I have no idea who gets financial aid but I send my kids to this school to be surrounded by kids from families who value strong education and hard work, not necessarily those who live in the biggest houses.

Kids from families who value strong education and hard work. But not the poor ones. No, not the poor ones.

You missed my point, I don't care about their income or wealth, just their values.

many teachers choose that path for flexibility - do you question their values too?

It's insane that you are questioning values of journalists, hill staffers, and ACLU (or other NGO) staff? Really? Usually these people are smart and care about making a difference. Meanwhile, there are plenty of big law or lobbyist parents I've met who have zero values (not all - but more in that high earner group than the lower earners being slayed).

I think you are responding to the wrong poster. I am not questioning the values of journalists, hill staffers, or ACLU folks. If they value a great education and hard work they are welcome and I hope our school gives them whatever financial aid is available.

+1

[Anonymous]

All the FA families I know of at my kids school fall into one of two categories:

* Middle class URMs
* Low earning, high education families of various races

The second group, with teachers' kids, tends to be at the top of the food chain academically and college-admissions wise. I think the college placement is probably the main reason they're recruited. Looks good for the school to have a kid into Harvard, even if his alum dad only works a schlub job at some random nonprofit.

I support the practice. Brings the school up academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read a lot of these threads, but “you shouldn’t get aid because you could theoretically have a higher salary than your actual salary” is one of the most exceptionally sh*tty takes I’ve seen.

Meh. Take your white hat salary and your brilliant, value-laden kids to the local public school. Problem solved.

But there is no problem. Except in OP’s mind.

Exactly. Giving FA to a family making over $350k and has multiple kids is a good thing. Keeps the school from giving FA to some poor kid you don’t want sitting next to your kid, right?

1) OP doesn’t actually know that’s what they make.
2) Multiple kids implies three or more, as people rarely use that term for two.
3) We don’t know how much they receive, could be $10k per kid.
4) Given all of the above, it’s completely reasonable they would receive something at a school where the tuition is between $45-60k per kid.
5) That “something” per kid probably isn’t enough to fund the FA that a poor kid would need, which is the point you keep missing.

These schools should definitely provide aid for poorer kids. But it’s much harder to fill a class when you are providing full tuition than when you are giving smaller amounts to more people. Your desired approach would result in a bunch of very wealthy kids and then a few token poor kids that could be trotted out at various intervals to make the donors feel good. I guess that would make you happy, right?

As you say, they should give more money to poorer kids. It’s easier to just give it to the UMC who just “need” an extra 10k.
Why would they want to do the harder thing?

[Anonymous]

Maybe there should be a rule that you can't receive FA for two generations. Wouldn't it be best if a FA education put you in a position to pay for someone else who needed it instead of just perpetuation a cycle of entitlement?

I also don't buy the idea that FA kids are always the best students. Sure, some are, and that's why the school
Supports them. But at our school, the top
Academic kids are almost all the kids of high earning, well educated parents. Not the teachers kids.