Anonymous wrote:You realize that an HHI of 400K puts you in the top 3% of income in the DC metro area (and the top 1% nationwide). You think that people who make more money than 97% of other people in the area deserve financial aid? Unreal.

You can look at what percentile various incomes are by region in this map the NY times made. In the DC area, the 50% percentile is somewhere between 90-100K. So I can see where that could be considered "DC middle class." But 400K? Really?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?_r=0

I don't see how this could possibly be considered wealthy. You are better off than 97% of people in one of the wealthiest metro areas in the country. A school has to have a better allocation of resources than subsiding extremely the wealthy, but not 800-1 million crowd. Also Harvard's endowment is way larger than most private schools.

In addition, sure people are screwed by not being able to save for college or retirement, but the reality is what it is. Being in a position where you can max out your 401Ks and save for college is a luxury because most people in the country can't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Straw man doesn't me a what you think it means

It is a straw man, because the family in the hypothetical wouldn't be bypassing private because "they don't want to pay what someone charges you," they'd be bypassing because they can't rationally afford private.

If your position is that private school tuition should not be priced so that every family can rationally afford private school, that's fine. If your position is that the assumptions in the hypothetical are too conservative (e.g., you think a family of 4 has more than $120k available even after cutting out the fat on a $250k net income), that's fine. Many of the responses here keep flipping back and forth between the two arguments.

Anonymous wrote:Straw man doesn't me a what you think it means

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying they should select the situation they can afford. The Sister Wives kids can go to public school if they can't afford private, and so should the $400k family.

Again, your position is that private school should per se exclude certain people based solely on financial criteria. That's a perfectly acceptable position to take, but I don't see why it's so difficult for people to entertain an opposing framework.

Just because you don't want to pay what someone charges you doesn't mean they are excluding you if they don't lower their price.

If you want to challenge some of savings / disposable income assumptions in the hypothetical scenarios that's fine, but don't create straw man arguments that nobody is asserting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying they should select the situation they can afford. The Sister Wives kids can go to public school if they can't afford private, and so should the $400k family.

Again, your position is that private school should per se exclude certain people based solely on financial criteria. That's a perfectly acceptable position to take, but I don't see why it's so difficult for people to entertain an opposing framework.

Just because you don't want to pay what someone charges you doesn't mean they are excluding you if they don't lower their price.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "system"? Capitalism? Because you're talking about something that is not regulated or government supported in any way (unlike, say, college, where persons attending public or private school have equal access to federal loan assistance and grants).

It's self-regulated - nobody is suggesting that the government mandate anything. The debate is how schools should allocate tuition costs amongst students.

Harvard doesn't meet 100% of demonstrated financial need because of any government requirements. They do it because they've decided it's the right thing to do.

The government supports a financial aid system that is available to all and Harvard fills in the gaps. And it does that via endowment, not by charging parents who make $1M more in tuition than parents who make $400K. There is no government financial aid program for primary and high school (it's called "public school") and private schools don't have endowments like Harvard.

And I agree with the other poster that Harvard isn't doing it "because it's the right thing to do." It's so they can get the students they want, and they have their pick. If STA or Sidwell had a billion dollars, they might do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying they should select the situation they can afford. The Sister Wives kids can go to public school if they can't afford private, and so should the $400k family.

Again, your position is that private school should per se exclude certain people based solely on financial criteria. That's a perfectly acceptable position to take, but I don't see why it's so difficult for people to entertain an opposing framework.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "system"? Capitalism? Because you're talking about something that is not regulated or government supported in any way (unlike, say, college, where persons attending public or private school have equal access to federal loan assistance and grants).

It's self-regulated - nobody is suggesting that the government mandate anything. The debate is how schools should allocate tuition costs amongst students.

Harvard doesn't meet 100% of demonstrated financial need because of any government requirements. They do it because they've decided it's the right thing to do.

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying they should select the situation they can afford. The Sister Wives kids can go to public school if they can't afford private, and so should the $400k family.

Anonymous wrote:What "system"? Capitalism? Because you're talking about something that is not regulated or government supported in any way (unlike, say, college, where persons attending public or private school have equal access to federal loan assistance and grants).