Serious question: Why can't private schools lower their tuition
- Thread starter Cross Bones
- Start date
It's not physically feasible at Montini, and likely at other schools. No place to put more students.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I have a more serious question. Why can't some of these clowns who have been running this state and country for the past six years create an environment where businesses can thrive and people can actually get good jobs making good money to help pay for, not only increases in tuition, but increases in everything else we need?
The average income for middle class people has shrunk in the last six years and you want to know why private schools can't lower their tuition? Hey here's an idea. How about lowering our taxes? Illinois has the second highest property taxes in the country.
How about letting people keep more of their own money and staying the hell out of the way of business first? Then let's see what happens.
The average income for middle class people has shrunk in the last six years and you want to know why private schools can't lower their tuition? Hey here's an idea. How about lowering our taxes? Illinois has the second highest property taxes in the country.
How about letting people keep more of their own money and staying the hell out of the way of business first? Then let's see what happens.
So, we have some schools with no room at the current tuition, while others are saying they could shut down due to the high cost of tuition? So, I understand Naz and Montini are in some of the better off areas as far as income goes, I imagine Benet and Loyola are in a similar position. But how about the city schools and Joliet? Has SHG outpriced their prospective students?
The one thing I can say about no room, is (and I've stated it before) when there was "no room" at DGS, I took classes in trailers. Is this not an option as well?
The one thing I can say about no room, is (and I've stated it before) when there was "no room" at DGS, I took classes in trailers. Is this not an option as well?
I would prefer you take this to a separate thread. But I agree. We should as a country lower our taxes. Problem is we spend more on making war than damn near every other country combined. So we have to get the money somehow. Tanks and missiles arent free.
Well, my parents did. Eventually DGS built an addition. But they were paying for an education, not a building. If the building was the issue then I imagine I the public school would be the way to go, no?
Lower it to $6K and its probably more palatable plus the school would be more sustainable. Plus more of the students that want to go, but cant pay $12K would now be capable.
Montini did have trailers at one point. That area is where an addition was built. Montini has no room left.
Why can't private schools lower tuition to expand their potential student base?
For some of the same reasons why automakers won't lower the price of cars to sell more cars. You might sell more cars with a lower price, but it's not a sustainable model. Lowering private school tuition might get more kids in the door, but unless that decreased tuition is accompanied by decreased per student expenses of at least as much, it isn't a financially sustainable model.
Look at it this way: JCA has an enrollment of roughly 700. Let's assume that JCA charges tuition of $10K per year, and every single student pays that $10K. The result is total tuition revenue of $7 million. If JCA were to reduce tuition to $8K per year, and 100 extra students were to enroll as a result, it would then have 800 students paying $8K in tuition for total tuition revenue of $6.4 million. The 100 extra students is a 14% increase in enrollment, but the total tuition revenue has gone down by 9%. Not sustainable, unless you have a brilliant idea as to how JCA can make up that $600K shortfall in total tuition revenue.
Or, look at it this way: Even at $14,775, tuition at Loyola does not cover the full cost of educating each student. There is always a gap between tuition and the actual per student cost, and Loyola is not unique in that regard. I am not aware of ANY Catholic school that charges full cost tuition.
I'm not sure exactly what Loyola's gap is this year, but it's probably somewhere in the $1500-$2000 range per student. In that respect, Loyola sometimes says that every student is the recipient of financial aid in the amount of the gap. Multiply that per student gap of, say, $1500 by the 2000 students who attend Loyola, and you can see that Loyola has to find $3 million per year through fundraising and other net revenue producing activities like summer school and camps and facility rental so that Loyola's students "only" have to pay $14,775 instead of much more than that. BUT, not every student pays $14,775. Roughly one-quarter of all Loyola students pay a reduced tuition bill. So, actually, the per student gap is bigger because a significant percentage of Loyola students pay a little less than $14,775, and some pay much less.
If JCA were to charge lower tuition in order to attract more tuition paying students, it would basically just be increasing the per student gap by the amount of the tuition reduction. Follow? As long as a Catholic school does not charge full cost tuition, each and every student who enters the school ADDS to that school's annual operating deficit that must be reduced or eliminated through other revenue producing activities.
This post was edited on 12/19 11:04 AM by ramblinman
For some of the same reasons why automakers won't lower the price of cars to sell more cars. You might sell more cars with a lower price, but it's not a sustainable model. Lowering private school tuition might get more kids in the door, but unless that decreased tuition is accompanied by decreased per student expenses of at least as much, it isn't a financially sustainable model.
Look at it this way: JCA has an enrollment of roughly 700. Let's assume that JCA charges tuition of $10K per year, and every single student pays that $10K. The result is total tuition revenue of $7 million. If JCA were to reduce tuition to $8K per year, and 100 extra students were to enroll as a result, it would then have 800 students paying $8K in tuition for total tuition revenue of $6.4 million. The 100 extra students is a 14% increase in enrollment, but the total tuition revenue has gone down by 9%. Not sustainable, unless you have a brilliant idea as to how JCA can make up that $600K shortfall in total tuition revenue.
Or, look at it this way: Even at $14,775, tuition at Loyola does not cover the full cost of educating each student. There is always a gap between tuition and the actual per student cost, and Loyola is not unique in that regard. I am not aware of ANY Catholic school that charges full cost tuition.
I'm not sure exactly what Loyola's gap is this year, but it's probably somewhere in the $1500-$2000 range per student. In that respect, Loyola sometimes says that every student is the recipient of financial aid in the amount of the gap. Multiply that per student gap of, say, $1500 by the 2000 students who attend Loyola, and you can see that Loyola has to find $3 million per year through fundraising and other net revenue producing activities like summer school and camps and facility rental so that Loyola's students "only" have to pay $14,775 instead of much more than that. BUT, not every student pays $14,775. Roughly one-quarter of all Loyola students pay a reduced tuition bill. So, actually, the per student gap is bigger because a significant percentage of Loyola students pay a little less than $14,775, and some pay much less.
If JCA were to charge lower tuition in order to attract more tuition paying students, it would basically just be increasing the per student gap by the amount of the tuition reduction. Follow? As long as a Catholic school does not charge full cost tuition, each and every student who enters the school ADDS to that school's annual operating deficit that must be reduced or eliminated through other revenue producing activities.
This post was edited on 12/19 11:04 AM by ramblinman
I think this is a really good question that you could also tie in to attending college. By the time my kids are attending college, it could cost upwards of $100k a year for them to attend. Right now, if you want to attend a good school in college, you're likely not going to get in for anything less than $40k a year.
I would have zero issue sending my child to a private or catholic school. But I have a hard time shelling out close to $50k for my son or daughter to attend HS and then shell out that same amount per year in college.
I understand that many private and catholic schools can provide an excellent education. Is their education better than what they may get at the local HS? Depending on the area it is for sure.
Its just hard for me to dip into my pockets twice like that.
I would have zero issue sending my child to a private or catholic school. But I have a hard time shelling out close to $50k for my son or daughter to attend HS and then shell out that same amount per year in college.
I understand that many private and catholic schools can provide an excellent education. Is their education better than what they may get at the local HS? Depending on the area it is for sure.
Its just hard for me to dip into my pockets twice like that.
First of all, this is a public board. Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you own it. I will write my opinion if I feel like it...which is what you do as well. I don't need you to come back saying what I am writing is off subject. It is right on the subject.
Just the idea that you need to ask this question seriously shows your incredible ignorance on such subjects. Ramblin gave a good explanation and I agree with his assessment. Costs go up every year and the calculation is based on a per student basis. Do you need to know what the costs are too? But it goes beyond that.
News flash:
The predessor is out of office and this is your boy's economy now and has been for years. Grow up and take responsibility. Time to act like an adult and stop blaming others from the past for the current situation. Why don't you spend time on another aspect of why it is more difficult to pay tuition? People are making less money now than they were in 2008...period...if they have a job at all. Why don't you ask the reasons for that because it goes into the equation of the problem. To ignore it as you have shows your ignorance.
So the question must be asked, how much does it cost to educate a student?
How much more would it cost to educate a classroom with 2 students than it does a classroom of 1 student? Three students instead of two? Fifteen instead of 10? Twenty-five instead of 15?
How much more would it cost to educate a classroom with 2 students than it does a classroom of 1 student? Three students instead of two? Fifteen instead of 10? Twenty-five instead of 15?
You are an idiot, plain and simple. No debate need be had about it. I didn't mention the previous nor current president. I would prefer you start your own politics thread because my thread is not about politics then you can spew your ignorance in a thread that it was meant for.
It's only a revenue issue if they are not making a profit though.
If they are operating with 700 students, each paying 12K they have made $8.4M
If they can get 900 students with each paying 10K then they have made $9.0M
if it costs the same to operate with 700 students as it does 900 then they are leaving $600,000 on the table
It's really sad that you think you make sense here.
First of all, you are oversimplifying. I may be partially to blame for this, because I tried to make my JCA example a simple one to follow. The reality is that it is never simple.
JCA has 700 students. Most pay the published tuition and some do not. Those who do not pay the published tuition receive financial aid in the form of reduced tuition. No student is paying tuition that covers the full per student cost.
If JCA were to charge $2000 less in tuition and pull in 200 extra students (your example, not mine), who is that bringing to the party? Is it bringing to the party people who will pay the full reduced tuition, or is it bringing to the party bargain hunters who won't participate in fundraising and who will require financial aid IN ADDITION to the reduced tuition?
How many more students do you realistically think would enroll in JCA if tuition were $10K and not 12K? Do you really think that there are enough to increase the school's enrollment by 29%? Frankly, I think it would be far less than that. I think that most people who can manage $10K for private school tuition can manage $12K. I don't think that the demand for admissions would skyrocket if tuition were lowered by what would amount to $83 dollars per semi monthly take home pay.
Lastly, you can't increase a school's enrollment by 29% and expect that there will be no increased costs. Once you start simplifying for the sake of using examples, it snowballs and all common sense somehow disappears.
This post was edited on 12/19 1:35 PM by ramblinman
Which is why I asked how much it actually costs to educate a student. I am making plenty sense here. I may have gone to public school, but this is simple math. If people are not paying the $12K tuition then why do people keep claiming that A) people are paying 12K in tuition, and B) The school cannot afford to charge less for tuition?
Those two statements YOU made, ramblinman, simply cannot be true at the same time.
Those two statements YOU made, ramblinman, simply cannot be true at the same time.
I'm not saying that people are not paying the $12K in tuition. I've said several times in this thread that most parents in most schools like Loyola and JCA are paying the published tuition. What I have been saying for years is that fewer and fewer people in grneral are willing to pay private school tuition.
Using your "logic", why don't you also ask a "serious question" about school taxes? If school taxes in your district were decreased, then eventually, more people would move into your district because it would cost less to live there and that would result in more taxpayers paying the reduced school taxes. Right?
It is not math it is logics and you are poor at both
Yes some people pay $12K and yes some people pay a different amount. The school cannot afford to decrease tuition to all by $x per student.
It's math, and my #'s were perfect. Whoever your math teacher was ought be executed.
The fact that you don't know the difference between math and logic is not a ringing endorsement for whichever school failed you.
Private schools used to be cheap. Then, with fewer and fewer brothers, priests and nuns joining religious orders there were fewer and fewer available to teach. Now it's hard to find anything but lay teachers in private schools. Lay teachers expect to be paid, and they should be.
Because 70% of the cost of private education is salary and benefits you can't add students, put them in trailers and not expect the costs will go way up. Teachers will have to be assigned to those trailers and that adds lots of costs. Private schools costs went up way faster than the rate of inflation as teaching staffs were converted over to lay teachers, but has since leveled off and is fairly comparable to the rate of inflation now.
The problem now is not that private schools need to lower tuition.....it's that the middle class has been decimated over the last thirty years and that was the backbone of private education in the past. Private schools need a financially strong middle class in order to make a go of it. Until that happens we will see a smaller and smaller constituency that is served by private education.
Ramblinman is correct about his JCA example. Bones says that falling revenue is only a problem if the schools are not profitable. I laughed out loud. None are profitable. They lose money on every student that comes through the door. They can only make up that shortfall through donations, and some can't do that.
Because 70% of the cost of private education is salary and benefits you can't add students, put them in trailers and not expect the costs will go way up. Teachers will have to be assigned to those trailers and that adds lots of costs. Private schools costs went up way faster than the rate of inflation as teaching staffs were converted over to lay teachers, but has since leveled off and is fairly comparable to the rate of inflation now.
The problem now is not that private schools need to lower tuition.....it's that the middle class has been decimated over the last thirty years and that was the backbone of private education in the past. Private schools need a financially strong middle class in order to make a go of it. Until that happens we will see a smaller and smaller constituency that is served by private education.
Ramblinman is correct about his JCA example. Bones says that falling revenue is only a problem if the schools are not profitable. I laughed out loud. None are profitable. They lose money on every student that comes through the door. They can only make up that shortfall through donations, and some can't do that.
Apples to ham sandwiches. I am disappointed ramblin, very disappointed.Originally posted by ramblinman:
I'm not saying that people are not paying the $12K in tuition. I've said several times in this thread that most parents in most schools like Loyola and JCA are paying the published tuition. What I have been saying for years is that fewer and fewer people in grneral are willing to pay private school tuition.
Using your "logic", why don't you also ask a "serious question" about school taxes? If school taxes in your district were decreased, then eventually, more people would move into your district because it would cost less to live there and that would result in more taxpayers paying the reduced school taxes. Right?
The best example provided was the car example. If a Mercedes sedan costs $50K, and everyone wants one, why doesn't Mercedes just charge $25K and double the output in production? Here's where math and logic definitively collide. You cannot just decide to charge half to double your sales volume. If you do this, you are not factoring in costs, which are oddly enough a big factor in providing a product or service.
Make sense?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Make sense?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Thanks for chiming in lil buddy!
You did answer a portion of the issue, appreciate it. Paying actual teachers instead of Church personnel will or should add to the cost. But again, your reasoning is as faulty as it has ever been. Are the class rooms to capacity? No need for the trailers until the classrooms are at capacity. Considering JCA (since that appears to be the example) used to operate at over 1000 students and is at about 700, I can reasonably come to the conclusion that they are not at capacity. Pay attention teetime, this is the simple stuff.
So, no private schools are profitable? Sounds problematic. I don't know how true that is obviously, but if that is the case my next question is what makes the difference between ones that close and ones that stay open since all of them are losing money?
Originally posted by Cross Bones:
Which is why I asked how much it actually costs to educate a student. I am making plenty sense here. I may have gone to public school, but this is simple math. If people are not paying the $12K tuition then why do people keep claiming that A) people are paying 12K in tuition, and B) The school cannot afford to charge less for tuition?
Those two statements YOU made, ramblinman, simply cannot be true at the same time.
______________________________________________________________________________
Both are true at the same time.
The school that I have served on the finance committee for 20 years is in the same boat.
60% of the families we serve can pay the tuition that is stated and charged. Of that 60%, 20% or so could pay 300% of the stated tuition, and it makes no sense at all to reduce the stated tuition to leave that group's money on the table.
40% can't really afford the stated tuition, but get family help, borrow, work a second job or do whatever they have to in order to meet the stated tuition. A fairly large percentage of those 40% apply for some tuition assistance by submitting paperwork (including tax returns) which are shipped off to a third party who analyzes them and prioritizes them for a level of assistance.
At the school I serve the cost of educating a student is $9,700 and tuition is $8,000.
a) 35% of the people are not paying the full $8,000
b) The school cannot afford to charge less for tuition or we would receive less from the 60%
See how that all works?
This post was edited on 12/19 2:11 PM by Teetime
Which is why I asked how much it actually costs to educate a student. I am making plenty sense here. I may have gone to public school, but this is simple math. If people are not paying the $12K tuition then why do people keep claiming that A) people are paying 12K in tuition, and B) The school cannot afford to charge less for tuition?
Those two statements YOU made, ramblinman, simply cannot be true at the same time.
______________________________________________________________________________
Both are true at the same time.
The school that I have served on the finance committee for 20 years is in the same boat.
60% of the families we serve can pay the tuition that is stated and charged. Of that 60%, 20% or so could pay 300% of the stated tuition, and it makes no sense at all to reduce the stated tuition to leave that group's money on the table.
40% can't really afford the stated tuition, but get family help, borrow, work a second job or do whatever they have to in order to meet the stated tuition. A fairly large percentage of those 40% apply for some tuition assistance by submitting paperwork (including tax returns) which are shipped off to a third party who analyzes them and prioritizes them for a level of assistance.
At the school I serve the cost of educating a student is $9,700 and tuition is $8,000.
a) 35% of the people are not paying the full $8,000
b) The school cannot afford to charge less for tuition or we would receive less from the 60%
See how that all works?
This post was edited on 12/19 2:11 PM by Teetime
Yes, but making a car is not the same as educating a student. When making a car you can get the parts down to an exact price. You can get the labor down to an hourly wage. You can calculate how long it takes to manufacture a car.
Do that with educating a student. How much per word from the teacher?
This is what makes the difference, as I said in the post you responded to:
"They lose money on every student that comes through the door. They can only make up that shortfall through donations, and some can't do that."
It's simple stuff. Forget the trailers. At JCA they would still need more teachers if they had 100 more students.
What are you driving at anyway?
This post was edited on 12/19 2:19 PM by Teetime
"They lose money on every student that comes through the door. They can only make up that shortfall through donations, and some can't do that."
It's simple stuff. Forget the trailers. At JCA they would still need more teachers if they had 100 more students.
What are you driving at anyway?
This post was edited on 12/19 2:19 PM by Teetime
It's not about classrooms being at capacity or not. It's about salaries. Teetime hit it on the head. Salaries make up the lion's share of a school's expenses. If a school of 700 has its enrollment increased by 29%, it must add teachers to teach those extra students, among other additional expenses that come with having more kids in a school. Not adding teachers would drive up the teacher:student ratio and THAT would result in parents not wanting to pay for that.
If a school that once had 1000 students now has 700, I guarantee you there are fewer teachers now than before. Pay attention, Bones. This is the simple stuff.
This post was edited on 12/19 2:28 PM by ramblinman
Yes, now we're getting to the good stuff! Of course Salaries make up the large share of the expenses, as they should. We can agree on that and park that whole discussion elsewhere. But the meat of the issue is how much more does it cost to educate a classroom of 15 students as opposed to 20 students? Do you need another teacher for those 5 students per class?
But you bring up a good point rablinman, and I agree, more students in the class would make parents not want to pay for the school. So while in other threads you want to argue that lower #'s is a disadvantage, but here you are clearly advocating for keeping #'s down. Others here have acknowledged those low #'s as an advantage since they are artificially low (by that I mean not representing the population around the school, instead a product of engineering).
Thanks ramblin for clearing that up.
Boney,
You are onto something. I've sat on two school boards. Both times I've made that point: if you have extra capacity, you have generosity to give.
As long as the generosity is given appropriately (pastor's scholarship, etc) you're good.
Airlines do the same: plane's already going to Pittsburgh, send out an email last minute special.
You can run into trouble if folks start feeling like they're suckers paying full fare. Or those receiving generosity not contributing.
Most private school folks roll their eyes when they see public school finances.
Life is a lot easier with taxing authority.
You are onto something. I've sat on two school boards. Both times I've made that point: if you have extra capacity, you have generosity to give.
As long as the generosity is given appropriately (pastor's scholarship, etc) you're good.
Airlines do the same: plane's already going to Pittsburgh, send out an email last minute special.
You can run into trouble if folks start feeling like they're suckers paying full fare. Or those receiving generosity not contributing.
Most private school folks roll their eyes when they see public school finances.
Life is a lot easier with taxing authority.
Not all private schools have the luxury of turning kids away. I am sure that Guerin would love to have the ability to cap its enrollment.
I really have nothing to add to this. Agreed, its easier when you are collecting taxes and sending buses to pick up kids. But thats why I started the thread to see WHY it cant be done. Youre right, fill up that plane if possible. I dont know about going to Pittsburgh though (but I bet the plane to Vegas or Miami is packed already).
It's not about needing an extra teacher for 5 more students per class, nor is it about classrooms of 20 as opposed to 15. It's about needing extra teachers (plural) for 200 extra students in a school that used to be 700 the year before.
If the 700 student school had a teacher/student ratio of 1:18, that means it had 39 teachers. If the school grows 29% to 900 students (your example, not mine), in order to maintain that exact same 1:18 teacher/student ratio, the 900 student school would need to employ 50 teachers. If the 700 student school grew to 900 and didn't add any teachers at all, the teacher student ratio would grow to 1:23.
Come on, Bones, don't you realize you are arguing in circles? The numbers are the numbers!
If we were talking about 200 more students in a 2000 student school like Loyola, it might not have to hire more than a couple of extra teachers to handle the influx. Why? Because 200 extra students is just 10% more than 2000. In YOUR JCA example of going from 700 to 900, those 200 extra students equate to a 29% increase over 700. It is not pedagogically prudent to make do with the same numbers of teachers for 900 students as the school thought was the right number pedagogically for 700 students. As I have alluded, it would be a bad move to do that in a private school.
In what other threads have I said that lower #s are a disadvantage? Are you talking teacher/student ratio numbers? If you are, I don't ever recall talking about that in any posts prior to this thread. Are you talking about lower numbers as in declining enrollments in private schools? Because if you are, I have certainly said that is a disadvantage for private schools. But, you seem to want try to compare and contrast these two disparate things (teacher/student ratio and declining private school enrollments) in order to take some sort of shot at me.
By the way, declining enrollments do not necessarily equate to declining teacher/student ratios. In fact, what typically happens in private schools with declining enrollments is that teacher student ratios tend to increase (meaning the school lays off more teachers than it has to) as the school tries to skimp on quality to try to save a few bucks on the expense side. The higher the teacher/student ratio, the less attractive the school becomes to tuition paying parents. It becomes a spiraling situation that is hard to stop.
I am not clearly advocating keeping enrollment numbers down. What I am saying is that the higher the teacher/student ratio is in a private school, the less likely that parents will want to pay tuition for that.
You really need to think more before you post your stream of consciousness (such as it is).
This post was edited on 12/19 4:30 PM by ramblinman
Ramblin, you have lost because you try to argue every point when they cant be made at the same time.
You dont get to cry about $12K tuition and then in the next sentence admit that a significant # of people dont pay $12K in tuition. Either it is 12K or it isnt.
If the class size is 15, an additional 29% makes that class 19. You are arguing that you need additional staff to go from 15 to 19 per class. It is the schools' prerogative no doubt, but whether it is necessary is certainly more up to debate than you want to admit. The issue is that you refuse to change your model. And this is the model that apparently is not sustainable. You say it is a bad move to up the student:teacher ratio, well, closing the school is bad for the school too.
Youre going to have to tighten up your argument ramblin, when you play both sides of the fence it becomes too easy.
Latest posts
-
-
Which game this weekend has you excited?
- Latest: Sterling Warrior
