Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op didn't argue for getting rid of the system; she argued for re-engineering it so it prevented certain kinds of outcomes. And the type of re-engineering she's talking about would benefit the least-well-off rather than make it more difficult for them to qualify for FA.

OP did not say she wanted to improve the FA system. She said, without knowing all the particulars, that she wanted the person in the $1 million dollar house to have no FA.

OP here. I thought I actually made it clear. I DO know the particulars. And I am aghast that someone who makes $250K a year, who has about $700K in equity in a house, and who sends her children to expensive summer camps is draining my childrens' school's financial aid coffers.

What exactly is wrong with being upset about that? I would happily contribute (and do) to INCREASE the pool of financial aid in my childrens' school. That does not mean I want it going to families who are NOT NEEDY.

So what I want to know is HOW did this family qualify for financial aid? Did they lie about their assets? Do they have debt which offset those assets? What did their form for Princton actually look like?

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you OP. I want all of the private schools to have more children of color. I would like more FA money going to them and NONE to people who don't need/deserve it. Why should I live like "cheapy charlie" and no luxuries in my tiny house and no car...to support someone who has milked the system all the way through.

you sound extremely ignorant... and this is coming from a person of color who does NOT receive financial aid. idiot.

And not all children of color are financially needy.

That said, depending on demographics (sibs/staff/legacy), FA might be the best tool for increasing the school's racial and ethnic diversity. This isn't about desert or need in some cosmic sense -- it's about what kind of school community you want to create and what tools you have to work with.

Right, PP.

Why don't we just cue Janis Joplin. Oh Lord, won't you give me financial aid so I can buy me a Mercedes Benz.

Children of color are not the only ones who need and deserve financial aid.

I agree with you OP. I want all of the private schools to have more children of color. I would like more FA money going to them and NONE to people who don't need/deserve it. Why should I live like "cheapy charlie" and no luxuries in my tiny house and no car...to support someone who has milked the system all the way through.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op didn't argue for getting rid of the system; she argued for re-engineering it so it prevented certain kinds of outcomes. And the type of re-engineering she's talking about would benefit the least-well-off rather than make it more difficult for them to qualify for FA.

OP did not say she wanted to improve the FA system. She said, without knowing all the particulars, that she wanted the person in the $1 million dollar house to have no FA.

OP here. I thought I actually made it clear. I DO know the particulars. And I am aghast that someone who makes $250K a year, who has about $700K in equity in a house, and who sends her children to expensive summer camps is draining my childrens' school's financial aid coffers.

What exactly is wrong with being upset about that? I would happily contribute (and do) to INCREASE the pool of financial aid in my childrens' school. That does not mean I want it going to families who are NOT NEEDY.

Anonymous wrote:OP did not say she wanted to improve the FA system. She said, without knowing all the particulars, that she wanted the person in the $1 million dollar house to have no FA.

Which is different from saying there should be no FA, right? In fact, her objection was that FA should go to families that have fewer resources. She's not arguing against FA -- she's arguing about who should get it and what constitutes/how FA forms/administrators define and determine "need."

Of course at this point it's hard to tell whether OP is still in the mix at all or whether other posters have taken up the argument. But, at any rate, I didn't see anyone arguing against FA.

10:28 I am not advocating throwing out the baby with the bath water. I'm advocating retooling the system so private schools don't subsidize a luxury lifestyle through FA. I make sacrifices. I pay full freight. It ticks me off. We all pay for this nonsense through tuition. Also, what is this strain of reasoning: The world is imperfect, let's not try to fix anything. Also, most social welfare programs are large and anonymous. These folks are doing this for the entire community to observe! It's almost a disorder.

As if the equation of any critique with "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and "you don't know everything, so you can't judge" weren't all-or-nothing positions!

Anonymous wrote:Op didn't argue for getting rid of the system; she argued for re-engineering it so it prevented certain kinds of outcomes. And the type of re-engineering she's talking about would benefit the least-well-off rather than make it more difficult for them to qualify for FA.

OP did not say she wanted to improve the FA system. She said, without knowing all the particulars, that she wanted the person in the $1 million dollar house to have no FA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:18 Right if it was disclosed on the FA application it proves the system is wacked. If you think FA should subsidize luxury liviing, that's your beeswax. Have you read what folks at schools say about families like this? I don't know who lies -- if anyone. All I know is what I see. If you condone lying on FA applications, and argue that it's worth the risk because some aid goes to those who truly need it, that's your beeswax, too.

You are living in your own inexistent utopia if you believe that all social welfare programs should not exist for the deserving needy if there exist some undeserving recipients. There are externalities to any social welfare program. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

And what, exactly, is wrong with hoping that these systems suffer from less leakage? Hell, if it's not a problem for anyone, I think I'll go get me some financial aid right now. Apparently, it's nobody's business. Guys, I have a million dollar house, I drive a luxury car, and I am in the top 2% of incomes in the US. Anyone mind? No? Great. Sorry if your own kid doesn't get aid this year. This year, we're distributing aid randomly.

This type of all-or-nothing thinking is so helpful.

Op didn't argue for getting rid of the system; she argued for re-engineering it so it prevented certain kinds of outcomes. And the type of re-engineering she's talking about would benefit the least-well-off rather than make it more difficult for them to qualify for FA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:18 Right if it was disclosed on the FA application it proves the system is wacked. If you think FA should subsidize luxury liviing, that's your beeswax. Have you read what folks at schools say about families like this? I don't know who lies -- if anyone. All I know is what I see. If you condone lying on FA applications, and argue that it's worth the risk because some aid goes to those who truly need it, that's your beeswax, too.

You are living in your own inexistent utopia if you believe that all social welfare programs should not exist for the deserving needy if there exist some undeserving recipients. There are externalities to any social welfare program. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

And what, exactly, is wrong with hoping that these systems suffer from less leakage? Hell, if it's not a problem for anyone, I think I'll go get me some financial aid right now. Apparently, it's nobody's business. Guys, I have a million dollar house, I drive a luxury car, and I am in the top 2% of incomes in the US. Anyone mind? No? Great. Sorry if your own kid doesn't get aid this year. This year, we're distributing aid randomly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not judging based on outward appearances; I'm judging based on what people say -- the assumptions they make about the world, about right and wrong, etc. What has astounded me about this thread is the defenses/defensiveness of so many posters. The sense of entitlement is stunning, as is the cluelessness about the much less forgiving economic constraints that govern other peoples' lives.

Well, what's stunning to me from your post is the arrogance in your mistaken sense of omniscience.

People often say more than they realize -- and aren't happy when the underlying logic or implications of what they are saying is pointed out. You don't have to be omniscient (just attentive -- and sometimes not even that!) to recognize the values and assumptions behind many of these posts.

Your assumptions are founded on your mistaken sense of omniscience.