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

Forum Index » Private & Independent Schools

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Yes, people are complaining precisely because FA does not contribute much to the economic diversity of a private school when it is used to subsidize the tuition of people who live in $1 million+ houses.

No one is objecting to FA per se.   But I'd like to see it contribute to upward mobility rather than be a safety net for the affluent.  [/quote]\

When you assume that FA does not contribute to diversity when it helps a family who lives in a $1 million house (and I am not conceding that there are or are not such cases), you are making a judgment that you are not qualified to make unless you are the FA office with the information required on FA applications. [/quote]

From the standpoint of economic diversity, actually peers may be in as good or better a position to judge as FA officers.  FA shows what assets people have on paper (which is subject to various forms of legal manipulation) rather than what assets people have access to on a daily basis and what kind of spending/lifestyle decisions they make (some of which FA offices may see and peers may not (elderly relative in nursing home) and vice versa (expensive vacations, clothes, cars)).

I don't see the benefit (personal or societal) in subsidizing (formerly) affluent people living beyond their means.  If you live in a $1 million+ house, then odds are your public school option isn't dire and someone in your family is educated enough to keep your kids on track academically.  Conversely, I do see both the personal and societal benefits in subsidizing the private school tuitions of families who have very limited economic resources.

That said, I can imagine situations (unexpected illness, job loss) where schools give FA to a family who formerly paid in full (and probably contributed to scholarship funds, annual giving, etc).  I would see an outright grant the first year as a humane and sensible approach, designed to give the family a chance to get back on their feet and/or make other plans.  After the first year or so, loans would seem more appropriate.  Basically, if you have a reliable paying customer with a short-term problem it can make sense to extend credit or offer discounts to keep them afloat because, long-term, they'll rebound, be grateful, and be able to pay their own way again.  Whereas if you add to their economic woes, the odds of that scenario goes way down.  Also, it seems harsh to cut off people who have provided for others  in their own hour of need.  Generosity should go both ways.  But it runs out at the point where you think people can and should be doing for themselves what they are asking you to do for them.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics