Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't really think of attorney jobs at the DOJ as public service jobs where you are making a big sacrifice to serve your country. I've worked in Big Law and I have friends at the DOJ/FTC/SEC etc. and once people have families, almost everybody who isn't a partner wants a government job because the lifestyle is just more conducive to a real family life, the pace is slower, there are fewer crazy clients asking weird things of you on your weekend time, and you're still making >$100K.

DOJ etc. attorney jobs are in very high demand by very smart people -- it's not like you're teaching science in Appalachia. If you have to hold your nose so much to perform your DOJ job -- it's such a tremendous personal sacrifice to work for $130K a year, get every other Friday off, telecommute, and spend quality time with your family -- I suggest that you quit your job and get that high salary job in Big Law you've been secretly dreaming about, and give someone else a chance at yours, because many would take it and be quite good at it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find the post interesting and puzzling all at the same time. I don't have a child in one of these schools yet, but we are applying. We will need substantial FA to send your DC to whichever school we are lucky to get into. This fact has not discouraged me from applying for a few reasons. One, we require FA simply because of the careers we have chosen to pursue. Both my husband and I graduated from a top 25 college and have advanced degrees. Nonetheless, we are both lifetime public servants by choice. Despite our annual income we have a deep commitment to making sure our children get the absolute best education possible. Part of that education is teaching them that life is about the choices you make including your income. Given my profession I certainly could be making 10 times more than I do had I chosen to not work in the public sector. I'm a lawyer, but a long time government lawyer by choice. I valued a commitment to public service and the flexibility of a less demanding work week so that I could be a present mother over earning a high salary. With that choice came certain consequences. We wont be buying a new car every year, we wont be taking lavish vacations every year, and they wont be wearing shoes and clothes that cost $500. However, we plan on working hard to instill in them IF they want those material things they are being provided an excellent education so that they can pursue whatever career choice they want and earn however much they want to provide those things FOR THEMSELVES! Does that mean they may not feel slighted as they grow and see other kids with all of the material things? No, it doesn't and of course they will. However, adversity builds character. Period. It isn't my job to protect them from all of the ills of the world, its to instill in them skills to handle any obstacle they face.

Heck I was on FA in college and never took a lavish Spring Break vacation and had to hear all about my roommates and dorm mates fancy vacations. Guess what? That's life. Unless you are in the 1% there will always be someone who can afford more than you. More importantly, while money can certainly make you more comfortable it doesn't define happiness. I don't want to suggest the OP concerns are valid, but I think the response should be -- yeah there may be challenges, but you have to decide why you want this education for your child...and THAT has to be your focus.

1) Being on FA in college is very different than being on FA in middle or high school.
2) I suggest that you have a more sensitive understanding of how your child might experience class difference in private school instead of simply brushing it off. My parents brushed of my struggles as a FA kid in private school, and I really wish that they had tried to empathize with me. Instead of trying to connect with me, they cut me off saying that it didn't matter. But, really, to a 13 year old girl these things do. Needless to say, we did not develop a very strong relationship as I became a teenager. I did not mention about 95% of my social life to them because I felt that they would not understand, or simply did not want to.

Anonymous wrote:Halfway through our second year, and so far, we've been completely comfortable with it -- but then our kid is in lower school, and I imagine it might get worse later.

For now, we're perfectly happy being the Toyota in a sea of BMWs.

But if I ever get the sense that he's starting to think we're "poor" then I will beat him like a French omelet.

Just kidding. But I will have a long, vigorous talk to him about how lucky we are and what actual poverty is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am perfectly happy to "subsidize" parents who are working for the federal government, for not-for-profits, etc. A lot of these jobs are very important and need to be filled by well-educated, highly qualified people. They are gainfully, and respectfully employed, IMHO. Think of people like scientists who work for NIH, for example, helping to cure disease but who are paid far less than those who go into the private sector.

Glad someone gets it. They idea that working for the government is perceived as not being willing to work hard to provide for my children is PATHETIC! I also said I work better hours, but I certainly work a hell of a lot more than 40
Hours a week, and the stress level of my job for the pay is a HUGE SACRIFICE! At the end of the day, I don't really care what others think about me needing FA to provide my children a good education. Despite being the parent who works and raises my kid, I will also be the parent who is active, volunteers time in the evenings and weekends, etc. I know the value my family will add to any IS, as well as the value of my child being a part of that school and that's really all that matters. All these uptight selfish people can be pissed all they want.

NP here -- I don't think you get it. If you and your husband have progressional degrees and work for the government, it is highly unlikely that you will qualify for financial aid for one child (if you are very junior and have multiple kids, you might get a small award). There is a huge difference between wanting financial aid and needing financial aid. Financial aid is not available as some kind of "reward" because you chose to work at a public service job that pays less than others you could have taken. Nor is it available because paying tuition would change your lifestyle. Check out the financial aid threads on this board, where folks are shocked by how much of their relatively small income they are expected to contribute. The kids of government lawyers are a dime a dozen at these schools. All of those "uptight selfish people" are pissed because they are scraping together tuition from their own public service jobs, or working at a lucrative job they don't really find rewarding, to earn enough money to pay full freight.

Signed, longtime government lawyer who pays full freight at a private school

PS -- I also hate to break it to you -- the bulk of the volunteer hours are during the school day. If you're a prosecutor working "a hell of a lot more than 40 hours a week," you are not going to be close to one of the more active volunteers. Those are the stay at home Moms/Dads. Just the way it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am perfectly happy to "subsidize" parents who are working for the federal government, for not-for-profits, etc. A lot of these jobs are very important and need to be filled by well-educated, highly qualified people. They are gainfully, and respectfully employed, IMHO. Think of people like scientists who work for NIH, for example, helping to cure disease but who are paid far less than those who go into the private sector.

Glad someone gets it. They idea that working for the government is perceived as not being willing to work hard to provide for my children is PATHETIC! I also said I work better hours, but I certainly work a hell of a lot more than 40
Hours a week, and the stress level of my job for the pay is a HUGE SACRIFICE! At the end of the day, I don't really care what others think about me needing FA to provide my children a good education. Despite being the parent who works and raises my kid, I will also be the parent who is active, volunteers time in the evenings and weekends, etc. I know the value my family will add to any IS, as well as the value of my child being a part of that school and that's really all that matters. All these uptight selfish people can be pissed all they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As always, every child is different. Some will take not having as many things as a real issue. Every family is different too. As parents, we just have to evaluate these issues carefully. And, it is easier to say that everyone is welcoming if you are the wealthier family doing the welcoming.

But, almost no one is exempt from teenage peer pressure to compare stuff. We're a solidly upper middle class family, but DC mentioned classmates who fly private as we walked to the back of the plane for Christmas. But, we're not a "keeping up with the Joneses" family and we can't even try at that level.

The plus side is that I think ostentatious displays of wealth are ridiculed rather at my DC's school. Old dads picking up their kids in sports cars seem to get particular abuse from my DC's circle.

Oh those well mannered private school kids, making fun of other kids' parents based on their cars. So very classy.

Please. I live near a very large public highschool (no idea if it is good or not), but at dismissal, you should see the cars the KIDS pull out in, it's like an exotic car show. Guess the parents value high priced cars instead of private school.

Not really...even at $40,000 a year that's no where near the cost of an exotic car...unless you consider Lexus, Acura or Infiniti to be exotic...

The cost of private school is the equivalent of buying a new exotic car every single year... Quite different than owning 1-2 nice cars!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As always, every child is different. Some will take not having as many things as a real issue. Every family is different too. As parents, we just have to evaluate these issues carefully. And, it is easier to say that everyone is welcoming if you are the wealthier family doing the welcoming.

But, almost no one is exempt from teenage peer pressure to compare stuff. We're a solidly upper middle class family, but DC mentioned classmates who fly private as we walked to the back of the plane for Christmas. But, we're not a "keeping up with the Joneses" family and we can't even try at that level.

The plus side is that I think ostentatious displays of wealth are ridiculed rather at my DC's school. Old dads picking up their kids in sports cars seem to get particular abuse from my DC's circle.

Oh those well mannered private school kids, making fun of other kids' parents based on their cars. So very classy.

Please. I live near a very large public highschool (no idea if it is good or not), but at dismissal, you should see the cars the KIDS pull out in, it's like an exotic car show. Guess the parents value high priced cars instead of private school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As always, every child is different. Some will take not having as many things as a real issue. Every family is different too. As parents, we just have to evaluate these issues carefully. And, it is easier to say that everyone is welcoming if you are the wealthier family doing the welcoming.

But, almost no one is exempt from teenage peer pressure to compare stuff. We're a solidly upper middle class family, but DC mentioned classmates who fly private as we walked to the back of the plane for Christmas. But, we're not a "keeping up with the Joneses" family and we can't even try at that level.

The plus side is that I think ostentatious displays of wealth are ridiculed rather at my DC's school. Old dads picking up their kids in sports cars seem to get particular abuse from my DC's circle.

Oh those well mannered private school kids, making fun of other kids' parents based on their cars. So very classy.

Anonymous wrote:As always, every child is different. Some will take not having as many things as a real issue. Every family is different too. As parents, we just have to evaluate these issues carefully. And, it is easier to say that everyone is welcoming if you are the wealthier family doing the welcoming.

But, almost no one is exempt from teenage peer pressure to compare stuff. We're a solidly upper middle class family, but DC mentioned classmates who fly private as we walked to the back of the plane for Christmas. But, we're not a "keeping up with the Joneses" family and we can't even try at that level.

The plus side is that I think ostentatious displays of wealth are ridiculed rather at my DC's school. Old dads picking up their kids in sports cars seem to get particular abuse from my DC's circle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am perfectly happy to "subsidize" parents who are working for the federal government, for not-for-profits, etc. A lot of these jobs are very important and need to be filled by well-educated, highly qualified people. They are gainfully, and respectfully employed, IMHO. Think of people like scientists who work for NIH, for example, helping to cure disease but who are paid far less than those who go into the private sector.

You're not getting the point. Those jobs are very important and those same people are the ones that PP has no clue would be subsidizing her lifestyle.
I doubt these scientists, non-profit,federal workers qualify for aid. PP probably won't qualify either so it is all moot.