Should schools be underwriting private education for the already privileged?

[Anonymous]

Schools want families that can pay something. Families that are poor can’t do that. Some privates have indexed tuition which is just another name for financial aid. There is always an expectation for the family to pay a portion of tuition.

I get 60% aid for both kids. I’ll think of while I’m at the beach house this weekend before going back to my mommy track job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think financial aid should be for super talented kids from poor families. Average kids from middle class families can easily go to good public schools. There is nothing bad about that.

So you advocate for a polarized student body with "rich" kids and "poor" kids and no touch with the 80% of the population that is middle class? To me, this is a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SAHM families shouldn't receive financial aid but it's fine for the dual income parents I know who have bought second homes and multiple cars who then ask for FA? One of our friends remarked she should have bought a beach house because of all the people getting FA who had done so (and could claim debt). She felt frustrated that they had scrimped and saved and were penalized for it. Maybe a SAHM wouldn't make enough to pay for child care.

At some point you have to let it go. Let the schools determine who they want to give money to. They will make the decisions based on who they feel will be an asset to the school. That might include SAHM families or people with beach houses or country club memberships. I don't know and don't ask. If I thought we would qualify and needed the help, we'd apply too. I know one thing for sure, these schools certainly don't mind when those SAHMs are the ones volunteering!

Really?! I think they create BS jobs for SAHPs to do so they can feel involved. Our private school has severely cut down on these BS roles through the years as the demographics have shifted to more 2 working parent households with nannies. We've been at the same school for 20 years (4 kids). Our family "volunteers" by donating at a high tier, as they would expect from us. Most of the FA at our school go to those in the community. I.e. teachers and admin who otherwise couldn't afford to send their kids there. I'm totally fine with that.

Which school?

Sorry, I said we donate at a high tier and if I told you the school I would instantly be recognized. I think we might be the only family with 20 years donating at that level, so no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think financial aid should be for super talented kids from poor families. Average kids from middle class families can easily go to good public schools. There is nothing bad about that.

So you advocate for a polarized student body with "rich" kids and "poor" kids and no touch with the 80% of the population that is middle class? To me, this is a bad idea.

Yes, this is what some people here seem to want, strangely.

[Anonymous]

This topic gets so old. There was a thread over summer where I mentioned that alumni actually make up significantly more of donations than current families. It makes sense if you think about it—there’s a lot more of them and if they’re good alums, they give far longer than the 12 or so years they or their kids went to the school. Current families complain a lot about their giving, and while its not nothing, it’s also not the end all be all. Madeira just got a 60M donation from an alum, and people here are being all entitled about a 3K donation that they think gives them the right to dictate how the school spends…

[Anonymous]

Agree 100%. I stopped giving to our school when I learned a scholarship kid and their privileged family went to Cabo, and we didn't travel bc we couldn't afford it-- bc we are paying full tuition. For privileged parents born on 3rd base, it should not be my problem that you are poor planner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This topic gets so old. There was a thread over summer where I mentioned that alumni actually make up significantly more of donations than current families. It makes sense if you think about it—there’s a lot more of them and if they’re good alums, they give far longer than the 12 or so years they or their kids went to the school. Current families complain a lot about their giving, and while its not nothing, it’s also not the end all be all. Madeira just got a 60M donation from an alum, and people here are being all entitled about a 3K donation that they think gives them the right to dictate how the school spends…

Makes sense. We receive FA and I plan to keep donating after graduation - much less annually than the tuition we pay, lol, but enough to make up what we received in FA and hopefully more.

[Anonymous]

ugh you sound like my type obnoxious rich relatives.

Sorry that these types of kids are in fact better than your kids. Bankers and big law kids are a dime a dozen. The school also wants the kids of scientists and journalists and people who have goals and priorities other than making every penny possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SAHM families shouldn't receive financial aid but it's fine for the dual income parents I know who have bought second homes and multiple cars who then ask for FA? One of our friends remarked she should have bought a beach house because of all the people getting FA who had done so (and could claim debt). She felt frustrated that they had scrimped and saved and were penalized for it. Maybe a SAHM wouldn't make enough to pay for child care.

At some point you have to let it go. Let the schools determine who they want to give money to. They will make the decisions based on who they feel will be an asset to the school. That might include SAHM families or people with beach houses or country club memberships. I don't know and don't ask. If I thought we would qualify and needed the help, we'd apply too. I know one thing for sure, these schools certainly don't mind when those SAHMs are the ones volunteering!

Really?! I think they create BS jobs for SAHPs to do so they can feel involved. Our private school has severely cut down on these BS roles through the years as the demographics have shifted to more 2 working parent households with nannies. We've been at the same school for 20 years (4 kids). Our family "volunteers" by donating at a high tier, as they would expect from us. Most of the FA at our school go to those in the community. I.e. teachers and admin who otherwise couldn't afford to send their kids there. I'm totally fine with that.

Which school?

Sorry, I said we donate at a high tier and if I told you the school I would instantly be recognized. I think we might be the only family with 20 years donating at that level, so no.

Not following. How would IDing the school that mostly gives FA to teachers and admin ID you? Are you the only family there? I get you are rich and embarrassed to be on DCUM but, really, no one cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This topic gets so old. There was a thread over summer where I mentioned that alumni actually make up significantly more of donations than current families. It makes sense if you think about it—there’s a lot more of them and if they’re good alums, they give far longer than the 12 or so years they or their kids went to the school. Current families complain a lot about their giving, and while its not nothing, it’s also not the end all be all. Madeira just got a 60M donation from an alum, and people here are being all entitled about a 3K donation that they think gives them the right to dictate how the school spends…

It’s perennial because some schools talk a good game about diversity but don’t actually do much to achieve anything beyond the visual kind. When that’s pointed out, people get uncomfortable and defensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree 100%. I stopped giving to our school when I learned a scholarship kid and their privileged family went to Cabo, and we didn't travel bc we couldn't afford it-- bc we are paying full tuition. For privileged parents born on 3rd base, it should not be my problem that you are poor planner.

So you’re mad the school recruited a kid smarter than your kid. OK!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By your logic, no one with a stay at home mother should be considered for financial aid since they are purposefully not maximizing their earnings. Yikes!

Um yeah. That's exactly right. Why the hell should I be out here busting my ass while she sits around all day and they get aid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools want families that can pay something. Families that are poor can’t do that. Some privates have indexed tuition which is just another name for financial aid. There is always an expectation for the family to pay a portion of tuition.

I get 60% aid for both kids. I’ll think of while I’m at the beach house this weekend before going back to my mommy track job.

I really, really hope you're joking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By your logic, no one with a stay at home mother should be considered for financial aid since they are purposefully not maximizing their earnings. Yikes!

Um yeah. That's exactly right. Why the hell should I be out here busting my ass while she sits around all day and they get aid?

Sits around all day? Is this a joke?

[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

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. And it's fine that they do. But that doesn't mean the PP, or I, should subsidize their private school education. I would like to do work that calls to me, too. But there are things that I want in life, including a private school education for my kids, that I wouldn't be able to afford if I did that. So, I took the more lucrative job that pays better - it's a trade-off that I made. I accept that. But they made trade-offs too - a job that pays less than they could otherwise make, but for more personal fulfillment. That's fine too. But you can't have your cake an eat it too, at least with my donation dollars.