Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP should make a donation earmarked for buildings, salaries, or programs. Be the change you want to see, right?

I am sorry, I don’t have much more than the 60k i pay for tuition to make a dramatic difference in how things are run in the school.

If you don't like what the school is doing then find another that meets your expectations...that's what people who are all about the $ do (when they don't have the kind of $ to "buy" themselves favors and influence).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have no idea if the school could even enroll more full pay students, and too high a concentration of full pay students may make the school less elite and selective. If you want an elite school, you have to fill it with elite students, and there are only so many rich ones to go around. Plus the rich ones don’t want to go to school with exclusively rich kids.

There are a lot of good reasons to want a diverse student body but if you want a crass one, which seems to be the OP’s vibe, you can’t sell a story of merit based, selective admissions in a K12 if you only admit full pay students.

Yes. Many of the aid families have the exceptional kids who are subsidized by the wealthy kids in the middle of the pack. I have one of them and we know most of the others.

NP here. I am happy to have super smart kids receive financial aid. I am less happy for the family with 4 kids with a huge house and a much nicer car than mine receive aid.

I find it more healthy to not worry about what other people are getting or what they (appear to) have. It's not my business. Do I like the school, the teachers, the community? Is my student happy, being challenged, being mentored? I have zero time to be worrying about whether someone who seems like they have $ is getting financial aid. It's not worth the energy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps it's the economy that's the issue and not the "generosity" of an institution that finds itself facing rising costs and fewer families able to pay full tuition.

This has been going on for a few years. Also they have control on the amount of financial aid they give.

I'm guessing you don't understand the big picture - even if it has been going on over time and they control their financial aid - that doesn't change a situation where the school values keeping families that are already there who are falling on harder and harder times in the DMV.

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps it's the economy that's the issue and not the "generosity" of an institution that finds itself facing rising costs and fewer families able to pay full tuition.

+1

In many cases, wealthy donors earmark their funds for financial aid. This is a good thing as it provides opportunities for children who would otherwise not have them. This is an incredibly snobby comment.

What a bizarre thread. Schools provide financial aid because it's consistent with their missions to establish a student body that is as diverse as possible (socially, economically, culturally, racially). People from different backgrounds contributing to discourse is a key part of successful education.

That said, if you don't like is no obligation to support that diversity with contributions. If you don't like the concept at all, there is no obligation to send your kid to any kind of school that supports it.

We are full-pay and also make a sizable contribution. I like the school and support them in allocating the money as they see fit. The school is very diverse but also has significant wealth. I'm not losing sleep concerned that my donation is going to the wrong place. Is it possible that wealthy families are taking advantage of financial aid? Sure, same as any government aid, private charity or anything else.

Do the right thing, whatever that means for you, and move on with your life.

The smartest kids are not the children of the captains of industry. They are the kids of scientists, lawyers, doctors, and professors. Most of those people can afford to pay something, but 60K per year per kid isn't prudent on their salaries. Most of those people can also afford neighborhoods with decent publics and can get into public magnets. Financial aid for those families is just a pragmatic recognition that they have excellent alternatives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's in poor taste for you to blame a school's financial situation on financial aid. Why don't you have a look at the annual report and Form 990 and see what you think of their executive compensation, for example. Financial troubles can come from all sorts of places, such as weak fundraising, costly facility issues, having a top-heavy staff, having to pay a legal settlement, an ill-considered building project or relocation, and poor management of the endowment or a recession harming returns.

As others have pointed out, the aid is there in part to make the school attractive to desirable candidates. It's a competitive market for the brightest and most talented kids. You can't fill up a school with full-pay kids and have the same academic and athletic outcomes.

Not bad taste at all. It’s expensive and appreciate value for money like anyone else.

So why not consider any other potential financial factors?

Anonymous wrote:I think it's in poor taste for you to blame a school's financial situation on financial aid. Why don't you have a look at the annual report and Form 990 and see what you think of their executive compensation, for example. Financial troubles can come from all sorts of places, such as weak fundraising, costly facility issues, having a top-heavy staff, having to pay a legal settlement, an ill-considered building project or relocation, and poor management of the endowment or a recession harming returns.

As others have pointed out, the aid is there in part to make the school attractive to desirable candidates. It's a competitive market for the brightest and most talented kids. You can't fill up a school with full-pay kids and have the same academic and athletic outcomes.

Not bad taste at all. It’s expensive and appreciate value for money like anyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's in poor taste for you to blame a school's financial situation on financial aid. Why don't you have a look at the annual report and Form 990 and see what you think of their executive compensation, for example. Financial troubles can come from all sorts of places, such as weak fundraising, costly facility issues, having a top-heavy staff, having to pay a legal settlement, an ill-considered building project or relocation, and poor management of the endowment or a recession harming returns.

As others have pointed out, the aid is there in part to make the school attractive to desirable candidates. It's a competitive market for the brightest and most talented kids. You can't fill up a school with full-pay kids and have the same academic and athletic outcomes.

What makes you think the academic and athletic outcomes would not be better with full-pay kids?

Because there are only so many full-pay kids who are also top performers. Many schools are competing for them, and they can also get into selective public schools. There's not enough of those kids to go around to go around, and they have other options. I don't know why a school that OP describes as having declining facility condition, declining faculty quality, bad food, and bad after-school offerings would be able to attract enough of those kids to fill up.

Is that really true though?

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "top", and different schools may be looking for different things. But you know, only 5% of kids can be in the highest 5%, right?

Tell me again why a really high-performing kid would choose a school that is as OP described it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's in poor taste for you to blame a school's financial situation on financial aid. Why don't you have a look at the annual report and Form 990 and see what you think of their executive compensation, for example. Financial troubles can come from all sorts of places, such as weak fundraising, costly facility issues, having a top-heavy staff, having to pay a legal settlement, an ill-considered building project or relocation, and poor management of the endowment or a recession harming returns.

As others have pointed out, the aid is there in part to make the school attractive to desirable candidates. It's a competitive market for the brightest and most talented kids. You can't fill up a school with full-pay kids and have the same academic and athletic outcomes.

What makes you think the academic and athletic outcomes would not be better with full-pay kids?

Because there are only so many full-pay kids who are also top performers. Many schools are competing for them, and they can also get into selective public schools. There's not enough of those kids to go around to go around, and they have other options. I don't know why a school that OP describes as having declining facility condition, declining faculty quality, bad food, and bad after-school offerings would be able to attract enough of those kids to fill up.

Is that really true though?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's in poor taste for you to blame a school's financial situation on financial aid. Why don't you have a look at the annual report and Form 990 and see what you think of their executive compensation, for example. Financial troubles can come from all sorts of places, such as weak fundraising, costly facility issues, having a top-heavy staff, having to pay a legal settlement, an ill-considered building project or relocation, and poor management of the endowment or a recession harming returns.

As others have pointed out, the aid is there in part to make the school attractive to desirable candidates. It's a competitive market for the brightest and most talented kids. You can't fill up a school with full-pay kids and have the same academic and athletic outcomes.

What makes you think the academic and athletic outcomes would not be better with full-pay kids?

Because there are only so many full-pay kids who are also top performers. Many schools are competing for them, and they can also get into selective public schools. There's not enough of those kids to go around to go around, and they have other options. I don't know why a school that OP describes as having declining facility condition, declining faculty quality, bad food, and bad after-school offerings would be able to attract enough of those kids to fill up.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about misplaced financial jealousy. Some pay a fortune for school, and others don't, even though they may not appear poor.

The issue is not with families. It's with schools who think they can charge 60K a year per kid, and then offer generous aid to others. Such a gap in who owes what is bound to create resentment! There is no universe in which it will not. It's bad enough that colleges and universities all operate with that model, but grade schools need to do it too.

Schools should figure out a different financial model where families pay mostly all the same price. Say, 20K. For everyone. It's a lot more affordable, the middle class can swing it just like the rich. There would be a lot fewer financial aid packages necessary. And yes, schools would pay their administrators smaller salaries, which is a good thing. Administrative bloat is a bad thing. The rich families can still get together and have capital improvement campaigns.

This is probably true. There is a loss of trust when people figure out they are the suckers for not negotiating tuition like they are buying a used car.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's in poor taste for you to blame a school's financial situation on financial aid. Why don't you have a look at the annual report and Form 990 and see what you think of their executive compensation, for example. Financial troubles can come from all sorts of places, such as weak fundraising, costly facility issues, having a top-heavy staff, having to pay a legal settlement, an ill-considered building project or relocation, and poor management of the endowment or a recession harming returns.

As others have pointed out, the aid is there in part to make the school attractive to desirable candidates. It's a competitive market for the brightest and most talented kids. You can't fill up a school with full-pay kids and have the same academic and athletic outcomes.

What makes you think the academic and athletic outcomes would not be better with full-pay kids?

I think it's in poor taste for you to blame a school's financial situation on financial aid. Why don't you have a look at the annual report and Form 990 and see what you think of their executive compensation, for example. Financial troubles can come from all sorts of places, such as weak fundraising, costly facility issues, having a top-heavy staff, having to pay a legal settlement, an ill-considered building project or relocation, and poor management of the endowment or a recession harming returns.

As others have pointed out, the aid is there in part to make the school attractive to desirable candidates. It's a competitive market for the brightest and most talented kids. You can't fill up a school with full-pay kids and have the same academic and athletic outcomes.