Tuition Dilemma | Imamother

Peanut2

Fri, May 27 2011, 9:36 am

saw50st8 wrote:

Peanut2 wrote:

Yeah, except when people donate specifically to scholarship funds. Fundraising is sometimes in general for the school, but there are specific funds, projects, and ways to donate.

But yeah, I see what you're saying.

Everyone is getting so upset at funding other people, but I don't understand why that isn't an important value. The teachers that educate your children, for example, don't make enough to afford day school for their own kids (even if they only have 2 or 3.)
Sometimes social workers marry teachers. Maybe that social worker assumed she would marry a doctor or lawyer, but ended up falling for a guy whose passionate about something else?

Do we not want any teachers or social workers in the Jewish community? What about university professors, scientists, and researchers, who don't make as much as lawyers or business people? What about all not-insanely high paying professions? Look at the average income people have. A couple who makes $65K is doing okay, but are poor by Jewish standards and tuition standards. That's crazy.
What about people who lost their jobs? What about someone who does work as a secretary? Her kids shouldn't get a Jewish education? What happens if that secretary decides that it would be a good idea to go to grad school, or get some other degree or experience? How is she to pay tuition?

Everyone is acting as though people are deciding to rely on other people for tuition. Well, I hear the part about kollel - but if you send to a school with "kollel discounts" it's because those are the values of the school. Outside of the kollel world, it should be our value to help others who have less.
And especially in MO schools, we should support people making career choices that are based on what they are good at and where they believe they can make a contribution. We need good educators, good historians, good people doing what they're good at, not just dentists.

The problem is that no one trusts that the financial aid system is fair, that the costs are crazy, and that as the costs get higher, it becomes much harder for anyone making less than 6 figures to even dream of being able to pay full tuition. And people who make 6 figures but on the "lower end" and pay full tuition get a huge chunk of their money taken away by tuition, and then feel insanely resentful because they have to scrimp as well (though not as much as families who are legitimately on financial aid.) So the only people who feel properly middle class are actually very wealthy, really.

But that shouldn't change our values. Which is that as a community we want to educate children in a Jewish setting, and that we do think that we are all responsible (arevim) for each other and for making sure our communities are filled with people who have food, housing, clothing, and a Jewish education.

Its not just a matter of the social worker and teacher who got married. Its about people perpetually making choices that put them in a situation where they cannot afford tuition. If you are a teacher married to a social worker, realize from the start of your marriage that your limited funds means owning a home (especially if we are talking northern NJ where I live) will be impossible and you will have to live in a tiny rental to even come close to paying for tuition. Its about saving money BEFORE you have kids and scrimping and saving and not living the life everyone else does.

So it means driving ten year old cars, instead of newer leases. It means not going on vacation. It means eating cheaper meals. It means not having cleaning help even though at the end of the day you are exhausted. It means having pre-paid phones that are used in emergencies only rather than a cell phone plan.

But people (in general) aren't doing that. They buy a house before tuition obligations because once you have your mortgage the school doesn't make you sell. They lease cars and then add that to their monthly obligations. They get used to cleaning help in the early years and can't give it up when they have a few kids. They become SAHMs and buy jewelry etc etc etc.

Now of course this isn't everyone and not everything applies. But looking around, there is a LOT of abuse, subtle and overt.

I have no problem helping out those who end up in a situation temporarily. Like job loss, illness in the family etc. But I have a problem with people who choose lifestyles that won't allow them to pay their way.

I agree that when large chunks of a community repeatedly make bad financial decisions and expect others to carry the burden for them that's a big problem. I understand the resentment of people who feel like they're funding other people's fancy cars and vacations and ability to stay at home and get manicures. And that's not right.

But I have to disagree with you about the teacher and social worker. I think as a community that wants teachers and social workers, especially ones that are educated and qualified, we need to make sure that it is possible for them to be part of the community. And not just say "tough luck, should've married a corporate attorney or someone from a rich family."

Who is going to educate your kids if these are the decisions we make as a community? I have loits of MO friends who are passionate about Judaism and education and work as rabbis and educators. Should they give this up? They can make more money doing others things, but we need them as a community.

Same thing for other people who might just always make less. I have never met a teacher who lives in the way that you describe, and people with less money live in smaller houses, drive old cars, struggle financially and have more stress. As a community, we should still try to make sure that our educators (and others with lower paying professions, and by frum standards almost anything is low paying when you look at the price of tuition) can get good health care, can take care of themselves, can buy a house (because it will never be fancy or in the best place) and can provide for themselves in a respectful manner.

If we don't do that the quality of kids' education is going to go down even though tuition is in the sky. Because if teacher's cannot afford day school for their kids, that tuition money is being thrown in the trash can. You will only get the most dedicated who also married well, and unqualified bad teachers.

Barbara

Fri, May 27 2011, 10:30 am

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

He didn't say they raised the price like that; he was going through various methods of trying to increase money and saying why they don't work.

Either way, my husband who has been involved with fundraising in schools tells me I won't be able to convince anyone, so I might as well give it up...all I can tell you is I know this is the truth of a large majority of schools. All of them? I can't tell you. But I know it as fact, not as assumption.

You're assuming that fundraising is infinite, and that it will always cover all of the costs of those who don't pay.

Which, of course, begs the question of why there is tuition at all. If fundraising can cover all costs of all kids not paying full tuition, why can't it cover the cost of all kids in the school.

You're also assuming that all fundraising should be earmarked for the kids who don't pay full tuition. If its attributed equally across the student body -- and except for funds donated for specific projects, it should be -- then it is clear that non-scholarship students are paying for scholarship students.

If you can find the flaw in what I just said, or in what I posted above, then please point it out. Otherwise, you're just wrong.

Hashem_Yaazor

Fri, May 27 2011, 11:05 am

Barbara wrote:

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

I'm not assuming fundraising is infinite.

I'm assuming they'll fundraise what they absolutely must (or go bust Wink

).

So the bulk of responsibility is on the parents to pay for their own kids. If they absolutely can't, then the fundraising steps in. But they're not going to try to go over and above their nearly impossible task because parents can but don't want to pay tuition. So they ask parents to pay for their own kids.
After that, if there is a pressing need, then they resort to fundraising which makes up for the deficit.
We're looking at it in two different ways. I'm not "just wrong". But I will not be able to convince you of that, I see.

Barbara

Fri, May 27 2011, 11:39 am

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Barbara wrote:

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

I'm not assuming fundraising is infinite.

I'm assuming they'll fundraise what they absolutely must (or go bust Wink

You're assuming that all of the fundraising should be earmarked for kids whose parents cannot afford full tuition. Why assume that?

Liba

Fri, May 27 2011, 11:41 am

Barbara wrote:

You're assuming that all of the fundraising should be earmarked for kids whose parents cannot afford full tuition. Why assume that?

Why wouldn't you? What kind of family who can afford full tuition is taking money that was shnored/given as tzedakah/donated to give Jewish children an education that they otherwise wouldn't have?

Why would or should a school fund raise and get tzedakah for a child who doesn't need it?!

Hashem_Yaazor

Fri, May 27 2011, 11:43 am

It's not. It's going for whatever the school needs to add in funds.

The more tuition they take in, the less fundraising needed, but they don't use the tuition money from full-paying parents to cover the deficit of the other kids. It's used to pay for those students' educational expenses. Not dollar for dollar do they say "ok, Yanky's parents' tuition check should go to his teacher" but the tuition rates are not increased to make up for the deficit of people who pay reduced tuition rates. The full tuition rate does NOT compensate for the lack of money from other parents. It covers those kids' expenses, and those alone.

Hashem_Yaazor

Fri, May 27 2011, 11:45 am

Liba wrote:

Barbara wrote:

You're assuming that all of the fundraising should be earmarked for kids whose parents cannot afford full tuition. Why assume that?

I didn't read it as Barbara questioning if people deserve breaks, but rather if the fundraising is only going to kids whose parents don't pay full tuition, or if it's going to the school as a whole.

saw50st8

Fri, May 27 2011, 2:23 pm

Peanut,

Most MO schools I know give either substantial breaks or free tuition to some or all children of teachers. Its a BIG draw. And really, teaching schedules are generally MUCH easier than corporate jobs (I would LOVE to have summers off). This from talking to my friends who are teachers.

However, if you want to be a social worker, you have to live with the reality of the salary it provides. You shouldn't just come with the attitude of "Oh the community should give me a scholarship because I chose a low paying field." They should be putting themselves in the position to pay as much as possible, even if that means living in a tiny apartment with much less.

saw50st8

Fri, May 27 2011, 2:31 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Listen, I don't deny that without endowments and large donors most tuition would be prohibitive. Is that what you are talking about?

However, the schools in Bergen County at least have tuition rates of $14-18,000. Are you telling me that isn't enough to cover tuition? From everyone I've spoken to here, it absolutely is.

Barbara

Fri, May 27 2011, 2:32 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

How? You keep saying that, but repeating a statement doesn't make it more convincing. Again, if it costs $20,000,000 to run a school, and $10,000,000 is raised from non-tuition sources, then tuition needs to cover $10,000,000. How can it not matter if that is paid by 2000 students or 500 students.

Barbara

Fri, May 27 2011, 2:37 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Liba wrote:

Barbara wrote:

You're assuming that all of the fundraising should be earmarked for kids whose parents cannot afford full tuition. Why assume that?

I didn't read it as Barbara questioning if people deserve breaks, but rather if the fundraising is only going to kids whose parents don't pay full tuition, or if it's going to the school as a whole.

Correct. The *only* comment I've made on this thread about the desirability of tuition assistance is that, in particular instances, I think that it is a good and necessary thing.

Does it drive me bonkers when people say *why should I work? I can stay at home and get a scholarship.* Yes. And yes, people have said that to me.

Raisin

Fri, May 27 2011, 2:51 pm

fundraising might be difficult if all the parents on your school are making well into the 6 figure incomes. Potential donors will not really want to give money just so families can afford to go away for 3 vacations a year instead of two. But if it means people who cannot afford a yeshiva education will be able to, that might encourage donors.

(people get scholarships to harvard; no one NEEDS to go to harvard. Likewise I bet they don't begrudge recepients having a stay at home mother)

ally

Sat, May 28 2011, 1:48 pm

Raisin wrote:

Scholarships to Harvard are different.
They are either for students with an excellent academic record, in which case Harvard needs the students more than the students need Harvard. Generally, even those that are means tested have some type of academic selection criterion.

I agree with Barbara. The mathematics of the "fundraising pays unpaid tuition" doesn't stand up.

ally

Sat, May 28 2011, 1:50 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Do you perceive fundraising to be an infinite resource?

sarahd

Sat, May 28 2011, 9:19 pm

ally wrote:

Raisin wrote:

Scholarships to Harvard are different.
They are either for students with an excellent academic record, in which case Harvard needs the students more than the students need Harvardpays .

What's the or?

Peanut2

Sat, May 28 2011, 9:57 pm

ally wrote:

Raisin wrote:

Scholarships to Harvard are based solely on financial need. Harvard (and other comparable institutions) do not provide merit based scholarships based on academic record. If you got in, then you deserve to go.

Even universities that offer a limited number of merit-based aid (scholarships based on grades, volunteer work, etc.) offer this in addition to financial aid.

Also, Harvard really doesn't need to fight to get students. It's Harvard.

saw50st8

Sat, May 28 2011, 10:00 pm

Harvard also provides financial aid in many cases in loans instead of grants.

saw50st8

Sat, May 28 2011, 10:02 pm

Liba wrote:

Barbara wrote:

You're assuming that all of the fundraising should be earmarked for kids whose parents cannot afford full tuition. Why assume that?

But Liba, that penalizes those who take steps to ensure they can pay tuition. Should a family with a SAHM be entitled to scholarship money just because their income is less? I know many women (myself included) who work because we have to save up and then pay Yeshiva tuition.

I don't think its true charity to support people's irresponsibility.

imaamy

Sat, May 28 2011, 11:41 pm

In Calif the tuition is around $15K for middle school and they say it isn't enough for the full cost to educate one child.

amother

Sat, May 28 2011, 11:56 pm

imaamy wrote:

In Calif the tuition is around $15K for middle school and they say it isn't enough for the full cost to educate one child.

who says it's not enough? the teachers union? no amount of money will ever be enough for them! Wink