ok, don't crucify me.. question about financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who is by no means wealthy but pays full freight for two kids, through saving, working hard and doing without, I'm happy to answer this.

"Really poor people" are never going to be recipients of FA at these schools, because there are too many other barriers to them going. But I would be MUCH more excited about my FA "donations" (that I am required to make) if I thought they were going to kids whose families would support them but otherwise truly would not have a chance to be there. Where are the kids of firefighters, police officers, and other first responders? Where are the kids of the new immigrant family whose parents work more than one job to support the family, but want the best for their kids in education?

No, "y'all" are not delusional at all about who FA goes to. Too many times it goes to families like OPs, who are doing nothing to diversify our schools or add help any child who would not otherwise have a perfectly fine if not brand-name education. That is why many of us are resentful of it.

+1 to your whole post, though the part about required donations confuses me. How are they "required"? Mostly interested in knowing so that I can see the signs if/when our school starts to make donations mandatory.

Take a good look at exactly where your tuition dollars go. Most likely, at least some small part goes to fund financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here.
The home equity thing is frustrating.

Obviously, it's part of our financial picture and at some point in our lives it may turn into cash (not a guarantee but it MAY). So I get that it's considered an asset.

But it's not a secure asset. It's not cash now. It MAY turn into cash some day.

And would anyone in their right mind actually USE home equity (and pay interest on it) to pay for private school? Baring some sort of real extenuating circumstance (kid is floundering and NEEDS to attend private in which case I understand it), it seems like an incredibly foolish thing to do.

Yes OP. Some people do take a home equity loan to pay for private secondary school. (I know because I have read threads on DCUM that discuss it, and we've considered it ourselves.)

I really don't see the difference between having $700,000 in home equity and having $700,000 in investments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.
The home equity thing is frustrating.

Obviously, it's part of our financial picture and at some point in our lives it may turn into cash (not a guarantee but it MAY). So I get that it's considered an asset.

But it's not a secure asset. It's not cash now. It MAY turn into cash some day.

And would anyone in their right mind actually USE home equity (and pay interest on it) to pay for private school? Baring some sort of real extenuating circumstance (kid is floundering and NEEDS to attend private in which case I understand it), it seems like an incredibly foolish thing to do.

Yes OP. Some people do take a home equity loan to pay for private secondary school. (I know because I have read threads on DCUM that discuss it, and we've considered it ourselves.)

I really don't see the difference between having $700,000 in home equity and having $700,000 in investments.

I don't either, but I wouldn't borrow against either to pay for private school (or almost anything else). They're both too precarious. If you want to use that money for school, sell the investments or the house and capture that profit--then it's real cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Embarrassing. Aid to people making more than $200K per year. Live below your means.

They did before, socking away $100k per annum, much to their advantage as homebuyers. Why can't you take the same approach now, OP?

She'd rather take the financial aid. Offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who are appalled by the middle class needinf FA please do tell exactly who is deserving in your mind? I find it utterly hilarious that you actually believe really poor people are the ones applying for FA. Really poor people are worried about meeting their basic needs, not private school.

Y'all are really delusional about who FA goes to. LMAO

As someone who is by no means wealthy but pays full freight for two kids, through saving, working hard and doing without, I'm happy to answer this.

"Really poor people" are never going to be recipients of FA at these schools, because there are too many other barriers to them going. But I would be MUCH more excited about my FA "donations" (that I am required to make) if I thought they were going to kids whose families would support them but otherwise truly would not have a chance to be there. Where are the kids of firefighters, police officers, and other first responders? Where are the kids of the new immigrant family whose parents work more than one job to support the family, but want the best for their kids in education?

No, "y'all" are not delusional at all about who FA goes to. Too many times it goes to families like OPs, who are doing nothing to diversify our schools or add help any child who would not otherwise have a perfectly fine if not brand-name education. That is why many of us are resentful of it.

This is a fair response and in my experience (or rather speaking for myself) our $220K includes a teacher salary (a teacher who has $100K in student loans between undergrad and grad school). Sometimes just looking at a families HHI does not paint the full picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Police officers' kids and firefighters' kids are doing jut fine in public school, thanks. I don't think small class sizes are enough to persuade them to go to school with kids of corporate lawyers and investment bankers.

That's completely inaccurate.

-Lawyer married to a police officer whose DC attends a Big 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who is by no means wealthy but pays full freight for two kids, through saving, working hard and doing without, I'm happy to answer this.

"Really poor people" are never going to be recipients of FA at these schools, because there are too many other barriers to them going. But I would be MUCH more excited about my FA "donations" (that I am required to make) if I thought they were going to kids whose families would support them but otherwise truly would not have a chance to be there. Where are the kids of firefighters, police officers, and other first responders? Where are the kids of the new immigrant family whose parents work more than one job to support the family, but want the best for their kids in education?

No, "y'all" are not delusional at all about who FA goes to. Too many times it goes to families like OPs, who are doing nothing to diversify our schools or add help any child who would not otherwise have a perfectly fine if not brand-name education. That is why many of us are resentful of it.

+1 to your whole post, though the part about required donations confuses me. How are they "required"? Mostly interested in knowing so that I can see the signs if/when our school starts to make donations mandatory.

Take a good look at exactly where your tuition dollars go. Most likely, at least some small part goes to fund financial aid.

This is pretty unusual these days. At most privates in higher cost urban areas (certainly in DC), tuition doesn't even cover 100% of operational costs--they are making up the difference through endowments. Financial aid is typically funded separately through a fund designated for this purpose. Families are encouraged to donate to it, but I don't know of schools where a donation is required. Maybe "strongly encouraged" some places? Happily not at our school, where we usually bid on some silent auction items but otherwise don't make major donations, and don't feel especially ostracized. We do volunteer a lot of time, which we have more of than money.

[Anonymous]

Which schools are known for ostracizing those families who don't donate enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.
The home equity thing is frustrating.

Obviously, it's part of our financial picture and at some point in our lives it may turn into cash (not a guarantee but it MAY). So I get that it's considered an asset.

But it's not a secure asset. It's not cash now. It MAY turn into cash some day.

And would anyone in their right mind actually USE home equity (and pay interest on it) to pay for private school? Baring some sort of real extenuating circumstance (kid is floundering and NEEDS to attend private in which case I understand it), it seems like an incredibly foolish thing to do.

Yes OP. Some people do take a home equity loan to pay for private secondary school. (I know because I have read threads on DCUM that discuss it, and we've considered it ourselves.)

I really don't see the difference between having $700,000 in home equity and having $700,000 in investments.

Kind of answered your own question, OP. If you think it's foolish to take an equity line out to finance private school, then don't do it. If your kid is floundering and needs to attend private school, you have a means to finance it. But either way, you understand that those of us to scrimp and scape to pay full freight are appalled that you would look to us to help finance your child's education when you're sitting on so much equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which schools are known for ostracizing those families who don't donate enough?

No actual schools that I know of, at least in my area. But people on DCUM often discuss such schools where people are pressured to donate. I'm not convinced they really exist (but I'm also not in an income bracket where I would be a target donor anyway, so maybe it is a real issue for those who are). Our school certainly deluges us with advertisements for fundraisers and the auction and the gala, but that's just par for the course. I ran the gala at one kid's school one year, and every time we sent an email out, three or four more families would buy tickets (hopefully not because they felt pressured, but just because it reminded them that they meant to do it and hadn't yet!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who are appalled by the middle class needinf FA please do tell exactly who is deserving in your mind? I find it utterly hilarious that you actually believe really poor people are the ones applying for FA. Really poor people are worried about meeting their basic needs, not private school.

Y'all are really delusional about who FA goes to. LMAO

As someone who is by no means wealthy but pays full freight for two kids, through saving, working hard and doing without, I'm happy to answer this.

"Really poor people" are never going to be recipients of FA at these schools, because there are too many other barriers to them going. But I would be MUCH more excited about my FA "donations" (that I am required to make) if I thought they were going to kids whose families would support them but otherwise truly would not have a chance to be there. Where are the kids of firefighters, police officers, and other first responders? Where are the kids of the new immigrant family whose parents work more than one job to support the family, but want the best for their kids in education?

No, "y'all" are not delusional at all about who FA goes to. Too many times it goes to families like OPs, who are doing nothing to diversify our schools or add help any child who would not otherwise have a perfectly fine if not brand-name education. That is why many of us are resentful of it.

Why not raise this issue with the school then? Maybe you can volunteer to help determine who is and isn't worthy of financial aid. It's curious, though, that you are willing to entrust your children's education to the school when you don't seem to trust the school to manage its finances or determine who should or should not receive financial help to attend.

--Former financial aid recipient (for two children) who now pays full price for one, lives in a neighborhood that I'm sure you would never consider, and has, after school payments, a level of disposable income that you would probably find appallingly low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who are appalled by the middle class needinf FA please do tell exactly who is deserving in your mind? I find it utterly hilarious that you actually believe really poor people are the ones applying for FA. Really poor people are worried about meeting their basic needs, not private school.

Y'all are really delusional about who FA goes to. LMAO

As someone who is by no means wealthy but pays full freight for two kids, through saving, working hard and doing without, I'm happy to answer this.

"Really poor people" are never going to be recipients of FA at these schools, because there are too many other barriers to them going. But I would be MUCH more excited about my FA "donations" (that I am required to make) if I thought they were going to kids whose families would support them but otherwise truly would not have a chance to be there. Where are the kids of firefighters, police officers, and other first responders? Where are the kids of the new immigrant family whose parents work more than one job to support the family, but want the best for their kids in education?

No, "y'all" are not delusional at all about who FA goes to. Too many times it goes to families like OPs, who are doing nothing to diversify our schools or add help any child who would not otherwise have a perfectly fine if not brand-name education. That is why many of us are resentful of it.

This is a fair response and in my experience (or rather speaking for myself) our $220K includes a teacher salary (a teacher who has $100K in student loans between undergrad and grad school). Sometimes just looking at a families HHI does not paint the full picture.

What does a teacher's salary have to do with it? Teachers can make a lot more than many other professions and $220 is a really good income. And, student loans are your choice and responsibility. If you want your kid in private, reduce expenses or go to an affordable one like we did which was under $12K a year. (eventually we went public). Its offensive to see people overspending living in grand houses when some of us live in tiny houses and make good choices. FA should be for people who truly need it, not a teacher's child where the teacher can send their kid to public and supplement at home given they have the skills. You are far from poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who are appalled by the middle class needinf FA please do tell exactly who is deserving in your mind? I find it utterly hilarious that you actually believe really poor people are the ones applying for FA. Really poor people are worried about meeting their basic needs, not private school.

Y'all are really delusional about who FA goes to. LMAO

As someone who is by no means wealthy but pays full freight for two kids, through saving, working hard and doing without, I'm happy to answer this.

"Really poor people" are never going to be recipients of FA at these schools, because there are too many other barriers to them going. But I would be MUCH more excited about my FA "donations" (that I am required to make) if I thought they were going to kids whose families would support them but otherwise truly would not have a chance to be there. Where are the kids of firefighters, police officers, and other first responders? Where are the kids of the new immigrant family whose parents work more than one job to support the family, but want the best for their kids in education?

No, "y'all" are not delusional at all about who FA goes to. Too many times it goes to families like OPs, who are doing nothing to diversify our schools or add help any child who would not otherwise have a perfectly fine if not brand-name education. That is why many of us are resentful of it.

This is a fair response and in my experience (or rather speaking for myself) our $220K includes a teacher salary (a teacher who has $100K in student loans between undergrad and grad school). Sometimes just looking at a families HHI does not paint the full picture.

What does a teacher's salary have to do with it? Teachers can make a lot more than many other professions and $220 is a really good income. And, student loans are your choice and responsibility. If you want your kid in private, reduce expenses or go to an affordable one like we did which was under $12K a year. (eventually we went public). Its offensive to see people overspending living in grand houses when some of us live in tiny houses and make good choices. FA should be for people who truly need it, not a teacher's child where the teacher can send their kid to public and supplement at home given they have the skills. You are far from poor.

I think your statement at the end really distills this debate down to its essence. Who should FA be for? Some, as you apparently do, see FA as only for those who are poor. Your view would largely result in independent schools (setting aside Catholic parochial schools) with the very wealthy and the poor and very few in between. More and more schools are trying to craft FA models that seek to spread the FA dollars along the full spectrum of families - some poor, some middle class (however you want to define that, but let's just say it is the families in an area like DC where HHIs in the $200k to $300k range are not super rich), some really rich. They're both defensible views, but as someone who works at the board level in a local independent, I can tell you that schools are generally trying to work toward the latter and not the former. My prediction - in the next 5 to 10 years, you'll see shifts in how schools talk about financial aid and will increasingly work to make an independent school education affordable along the full spectrum of incomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More and more schools are trying to craft FA models that seek to spread the FA dollars along the full spectrum of families - some poor, some middle class (however you want to define that, but let's just say it is the families in an area like DC where HHIs in the $200k to $300k range are not super rich), some really rich.

Herein lies my problem with some of the posts in this thread. Not being rich or super-rich doesn't automatically make you middle class! You can be upper class, but not rich. Why is being upper class so hard for some people to own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More and more schools are trying to craft FA models that seek to spread the FA dollars along the full spectrum of families - some poor, some middle class (however you want to define that, but let's just say it is the families in an area like DC where HHIs in the $200k to $300k range are not super rich), some really rich.

Herein lies my problem with some of the posts in this thread. Not being rich or super-rich doesn't automatically make you middle class! You can be upper class, but not rich. Why is being upper class so hard for some people to own?

I wrote the first statement here and I use middle class as a short hand for the middle income set in terms of looking at financial aid. I agree with your larger point that what people in this area tend to think of as a middle class is really wealthy by most any measure. Your point does highlight, a little, my larger point, which is that some of the venom in threads like these is that so many of us come at these issues with different language to describe ranges of income and socio-economic status.