Are we too wealthy for financial aid for 3 kids?

[Anonymous]

Poor kids - they have a stay-at-home mom who would rather not be there. How can that possibly be good for those kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way the cost of childcare is set up, many women do not have the choice of going to work (because salary will not cover child care costs).

Agree with this for some, but not all, women.

Anonymous wrote:I do agree that it makes no sense to work just to send kids to private school. But people work for many reasons.

Disagree completely with both statements. Especially the second statement that implies that those of us who work are making selfish choices instead of working at jobs we hate in order to support the family.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that 150K per year is not enough for 3 kids at private.

Not if your mortgage is paid off and you have $1 million in home equity. She needs, what, $90K for the tuition for three kids.

[Anonymous]

Maybe OP could pull in some money providing in-home childcare, since she WANTS to stay home, and needs more $$
And says she has no truly marketable skills
If she takes in 3 kids at 1k/month each, there's the tuition right there!

[Anonymous]

I don't get what they are doing with all that money if they pay NO mortgage or rent. Why not pay for your kids education then if it is that importnat to you?

[Anonymous]

I think OP would be well-advised to stay away and stop posting here. She just keeps putting her foot in it.

[Anonymous]

OP I hesitate to respond to your previous post because your views appear so blinkered that I fear you will not understand. I am a full time working mother in a job I do NOT find more fun than SAH. I have kids in private school (NO financial aid) and I would give up everything (except a secure future for my children) - yes even my salary - which is considerably more than your husband's - to stay home with my kids and in my case I would love every minute of it. Unfortunately life is not as simple as you make it.

I spent the first 3 years of my kids' lives at home but both my husband are very concerned about giving our kids the very best education. That is our number one priority and with our kids in school we see no reason why we should not both be at work ensuring their education and futures are secure. We have a full time live in house keeper/nanny who looks after the kids for 2.5 hours a day until I get home from work at 4.30. For me working is a sacrifice - one I make ONLY for my children and I would work two jobs if I had to to ensure my kids are well educated. We put a lot of money away so that I can be at home during the teenage years when in our opinion it would be most beneficial. We have their college education sorted as well as decent inheritances for them. I am happy to sacrifice my life to make their lives better as tedious and painful as I find working.

We also have a 1m$ house that is paid off but for us, that equity is for our children.

Also life is never certain and we live our lives with that in mind. After 14 years at his first and only job my husband was made redundant 2 months ago in the most recent recession. With at least 3 years of emergency savings, my well paid job means that we can keep the kids in private school and we can ride out at least some of the current recession until my husband finds a new job/source of income.

Now you have made a different choice to us that involves its own sacrifices and I fully respect that. It is both rude and narrow minded to belittle others choices. That notwithstanding, I would be very unhappy if my kids' school subsidized your kids fees using money I have contributed for well deserving parents who really cannot afford the fees.

[Anonymous]

OP, you need to work out some issues with your husband re dipping into equity vs. moving. The financial aid offices won't solve this for you, given your home equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OP could pull in some money providing in-home childcare, since she WANTS to stay home, and needs more $$
And says she has no truly marketable skills
If she takes in 3 kids at 1k/month each, there's the tuition right there!

Oh sure, like anyone will hire someone who freely admits hating staying at home with her own children!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OP could pull in some money providing in-home childcare, since she WANTS to stay home, and needs more $$
And says she has no truly marketable skills
If she takes in 3 kids at 1k/month each, there's the tuition right there!

Oh sure, like anyone will hire someone who freely admits hating staying at home with her own children!

lol
don't most people lie to get jobs?
"yes, I love dealing with customers complaints, cos I've been a customer myself"
"I'm never tired of trying to make sure each guest has a wonderful stay here at the Hilton"
Lies are part of the game

[Anonymous]

I think that the "answer" to the OP is pretty simple. If you do not want to work and do not want to tap the equity in your home then you should send your child to public school. Yes, this may involve moving. Im my views financial aid is for families who really cannot afford to pay the tuition - and most schools (rightly so) look not only at income but also at assets and they also expect both parents to work. Financial aid is not a right, its a tool provided to help the less fortunate afford independent schools.

[Anonymous]

There's a lot of anger on this forum. Is the moderator asleep? Personal attacks are a no-no.

The original question was whether or not the OP was eligible for financial aid, given her financial situation. If the answer is a simple "no," with a clear explanation, that ought to suffice. Everyone makes choices. The OP can't keep her house, stay at home, and send her kids to private schools. She must either go back to work, move to a cheaper house or move to the suburbs. Or her husband must make more money.

That said, some schools with empty seats may essentially offer a "discount" to get those seats filled with a partially-paying student. That's a chancy proposition, but it exists. No schools will admit it publicly, but it's there.

[Anonymous]

What schools have "empty seats"?

[Anonymous]

Have no idea if they are offering discounts, but I have heard Edmund Burke and St. Andrews have empty seats in some grades. There may be more.

[Anonymous]

Okay, so let me get this straight:
--you can afford a home equity loan
--you can afford to have three kids
--you are not low income
--you have no mortgage expenses
--you have earning potential
--but a school should allocate scholarship funds, in this economy, to you.

Those scholarship funds come from parents hoping to make a difference in the lives of kids who need them. There are many parents paying full tuition out of their dual incomes, and in fact working for that tuition, whether they'd rather stay at home or not.

Scholarships are not subsidies for lifestyle choices-- they are to provide opportunities to children whose families can't otherwise provide them. You can. Count your blessings.

We're a two-income family educating one child. I'd raise hell if my school asked me to subsidize your reproductive and lifestyle decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Perhaps my ignorance is showing.

Yes, yes it is.