Serious question: Why can't private schools lower their tuition
- Thread starter Cross Bones
- Start date
I dont check this board everyday in the off season. I will be back later although the question has already been answered.
"Private schools do lower their tuition" is the ONLY answer that applies. Everything else is worthless drivel.
"Private schools do lower their tuition" is the ONLY answer that applies. Everything else is worthless drivel.
Is it really? You seem to not understand that you have proved my point in your very post. You're typically sharper than this, but this time you have stepped on the rake and the stick has hit you smack in the face rendering you unconscious.
Althtoff is charging half the tuition, according to your post, as the private schools I have already listed. Thanks for the support whether or not you were sharp enough to recognize that you lent it.
Stop JCHILL youre making too much sense, these other guys cant grasp it.
According to them if you have a Spanish class of 5 and you add a student, it then costs more to educate that class. Stupid? Yes.
Yeah corey, youy know some of those guys will argue just to argue no matter how dumb they sound.
Take for example some in this thread arguing in one sentence that everyone in the private school is not paying the full tuition, then in their very next sentence saying that they cannot lower the tuition... and then not being capable to see the contradiction in their two statements. I wouldnt believe it if I hadnt seen it myself.
Then to compare providing a service to building and selling a car... i can only shake my head.
Why are you being such a stupid fool? Nobody has said what you just said. Now you have to lie and shuck and jive to make a point? You and HHSTF have been on the same side of too many arguments. I think he is rubbing off on you.
YOU were talking about adding TWO HUNDRED extra kids to a school of 700 kids. Increasing a school's enrollment by 29% results in more teachers being hired. PERIOD! And more teachers being hired means more expenses that must be paid with your lower tuition! The above shows how desperate you are in this thread to twist and manipulate what you have said into a new example that doesn't make sense! Now you are talking about adding one student to a SPANISH class of five students? Pathetic!
You are really stooping low to make really ridiculous points that are more weak ass shots than they are points.
I never said that everyone in private schools is not paying the full tuition. Tuition is a source of REVENUE. It is not an expense. It is not the result of dividing total costs by total enrollment.
There is a difference between paying tuition in full and paying full cost tuition. Pay attention now, Bones...
Paying tuition in full is paying the published tuition charged by the private school Paying full cost tuition is very different. it means mean paying a tuition amount that covers the full cost to the school of educating a student. Nobody pays full cost tuition because it doesn't exist.
What I have said that you are trying to twist is that tuition does not cover the full cost of educating a private school student. In my world, that means that no student pays tuition that covers that student's full cost to the school. In your world, you just look for opportunities to semantically twist what someone says in order to take a shot that makes you think that you are making some sort of profound point.
Crusader has not proved your point because you HAVE NO POINT. He has supported nothing of your drivel, so no need to thank him.
Althoff is charging what they are charging because of the differences in costs in operating a private school in Belleville vs. operating a private school in the Chicago area. They are also charging what they are charging because, AS I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED, the Diocese of Belleville is SUBSIDIZING the tuition for students who belong to Catholic parishes within the diocese.
This thread shows how stubborn some people can be. The Reality is the true answer to the original question is yes tuition can be lowered however, as explained by some most systems choose not to for various reasons. There are pros and cons to each desicion therefore the choice is made based on individual business models. Everything can be lowered but there are consequences behind each move. The true question is what's important to you.
Exactly.
Furthermore, as ramblinman has confirmed and my brief research has shown, private schools do lower their tuition in some cases. The befuddling part is how some of them like ramblinman will say in one sentence that they do lower tuition, then in the next sentence say that they can't.
The two statements are incompatible.
What began this thread was you wondering if private schools could and should lower tuition for EVERYONE as a means of attracting more students. That is VERY DIFFERENT from those cases where students receive financial aid in the form of reduced tuition in response to demonstrated need.
What has happened to this thread, however, is that you have devolved into searching to score points by focusing on improbable examples and exceptions to the rule. The improbable example is talking about the negligible financial impact of adding one student to a Spanish class of five students. The exception to the rule is saying that private schools lower their tuition in some cases (which I always identify as being financial aid, and which you never acknowledge as such) and using it as some sort of proof that since tuition can be lowered for the minority of students who need financial assistance, it can and should be lowered for all.
You want a solution, Bones? Make a gift to a private school's endowed scholarship fund. Those funds are typically placed in interest generating investments. They spin off revenue each year that is used to help make up the lost revenue that results when private schools provide financial aid in the form of reduced tuition to those students with demonstrated need. The larger the scholarship fund, the more revenue it can spin off and the more financial aid that the school can offer to more students who need it. Here's Loyola Academy's address: 1100 Laramie Wilmette, IL 60091. Make your check payable to Loyola Academy and write the words "scholarship endowment fund" in the memo portion of your check.
If you really are interested in finding ways to expand the base of students as you asked in your initial post in this thread, THAT'S the answer you are looking for, Bones. It's definitely NOT reducing tuition across the board.
If you drop your scholarship fund gift in the mail in the next few days, you can take it as a charitable deduction on your 2014 income taxes.
This post was edited on 12/29 9:21 AM by ramblinman
Most of the privates are already providing an education that's equal at best to most local public schools and in many cases not as good.. The last thing they need is a decreased budget per student..
When St. George in Evanston closed in '69, it was because they had trouble getting the tuition up to $450/year from $400.
They had 833 students - all boys - in a building that could house 1,000.
At that same time it was expected that the Joliet diocese would close two of their high schools: Immaculate Conception and Providence.
They had 833 students - all boys - in a building that could house 1,000.
At that same time it was expected that the Joliet diocese would close two of their high schools: Immaculate Conception and Providence.
Bones - you do realize you can get a three bedroom home in Belleville for less than $100k, right?
http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Belleville,IL
The two city blocks on which Althoff sits are not valued at nearly the price of those in Chicago or Willmette, thus the disconnect between the costs of tuition between metro east school and those north of I-80.
http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Belleville,IL
The two city blocks on which Althoff sits are not valued at nearly the price of those in Chicago or Willmette, thus the disconnect between the costs of tuition between metro east school and those north of I-80.
If Bones had his way, he would have addressed (note my avoidance of the word "solved") St. George's problem by cutting tuition to $300. Prest-o, change-o! Bones the wizard has just made the problem disappear!
Is closing grammar schools the right long term solution to keep high schools open?? Or is this trend one that's not going to reverse itself?
I do not think it helps, but when those schools were opened, there was a demand. More and more, Americans are moving away from the church.
A good example is again Belleville. When that town was in growing mode, once a parish hit 2,000 families, the diocese started building another parish with accompanied parochial school. Starting from the edge of the city next to East St. Louis, the Diocese built Blessed Sacrament, then St. Henry's, Queen of Peace, St. Augustine's, St. Mary's and then finally, Cathedral. Most were at max capacity from the 60s until the early 80s.
Then St. Henry's closed - some kids went to QP, others to Blessed Sacrament. Then St. Mary's and Augustine's combined - but another parish grew in O'Fallon - same diocese. Now those Belleville parishes are combining church services and sharing priests.
The point is, there is less emphasis on God now - thus the decline in parochial educational demand.
This post was edited on 12/29 2:46 PM by crusader_of_90
A good example is again Belleville. When that town was in growing mode, once a parish hit 2,000 families, the diocese started building another parish with accompanied parochial school. Starting from the edge of the city next to East St. Louis, the Diocese built Blessed Sacrament, then St. Henry's, Queen of Peace, St. Augustine's, St. Mary's and then finally, Cathedral. Most were at max capacity from the 60s until the early 80s.
Then St. Henry's closed - some kids went to QP, others to Blessed Sacrament. Then St. Mary's and Augustine's combined - but another parish grew in O'Fallon - same diocese. Now those Belleville parishes are combining church services and sharing priests.
The point is, there is less emphasis on God now - thus the decline in parochial educational demand.
This post was edited on 12/29 2:46 PM by crusader_of_90
Honestly, is that all you have? First, I didn't call him out because he disagrees with me. He got called out because he looks ridiculous and continues to do so...then he disappeared for a while.
Being a stand up guy is one thing. But continuing to defend a statement that is so ridiculous is just plain stubborn and dumb.
And wasn't it you who was calling "Cutler Lovers" out when he was playing poorly? Wasn't it you calling posters out who disagreed with you? Yes it was. That stuff happens all the time here. Don't act like this stuff never happens just because you like the guy.
If he didn't know this thread was going to get ugly because of his stupid statement, then he isn't as smart as you think he is. But maybe he did, but just likes to argue...as always.
cru:
If we're talking about Illinois - no things don't look good for private schools. They're expensive, and getting more so with each passing year. And we face closures every year. It's a sad cycle. Some of the areas that are most in need of quality education within a dignified environment are those most at risk of losing their schools.
But with every Catholic school that couldn't make it financially and had to close, consider this:
There is NOT ONE public school in this state that will made good on their pension promises to their staff. And the word is we've passed the point of no return: there is no chance that those promises will be kept.
And if they were Catholic schools, they'd have all filed for bankruptcy by now.
Hey Dr
I don't have a dog in this fight. I know Crossbones
and he is a stand up guy. He does not shy away from
a post he started. As for my calling out Cutler lovers I admit
to doing this and I don't shy away from admitting my dislike
of him as a player. My calling out Cutler lovers is a direct
response from the flack I took last year for saying he sucked
and will continue to suck. I think you used in your recent post
He is a coach killer! I agree and this is also not a surprise. Will
see how the next coach handles this loser. I say cut bait and go fishing
for another QB now. We actually maybe able to Dump the bum and
His high salary. This window will close soon.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I know Crossbones
and he is a stand up guy. He does not shy away from
a post he started. As for my calling out Cutler lovers I admit
to doing this and I don't shy away from admitting my dislike
of him as a player. My calling out Cutler lovers is a direct
response from the flack I took last year for saying he sucked
and will continue to suck. I think you used in your recent post
He is a coach killer! I agree and this is also not a surprise. Will
see how the next coach handles this loser. I say cut bait and go fishing
for another QB now. We actually maybe able to Dump the bum and
His high salary. This window will close soon.
Cutler has always been a loser. Not sure why people think once they get to the NFL things will change.
Corey:
I realize that threads take twists and turns and subjects change. But we do have two other "Cutler Hater" threads on this board that you started.
You're missing the point. You accused me of calling people out who disagree with me. I pointed out how you did just that by starting two threads calling people out who disagreed with you. You can give me whatever excuse you want for doing it...but you DID do it and that's the point.
This post was edited on 12/31 10:01 AM by Dr. Mirakle
I realize that threads take twists and turns and subjects change. But we do have two other "Cutler Hater" threads on this board that you started.
You're missing the point. You accused me of calling people out who disagree with me. I pointed out how you did just that by starting two threads calling people out who disagreed with you. You can give me whatever excuse you want for doing it...but you DID do it and that's the point.
This post was edited on 12/31 10:01 AM by Dr. Mirakle
Ignazio- there isn't a public schook in the state that has promised their staff a pension, it's a state system and the employees that have been paying into it will get their future benefits as promised.. they might start paying more or work longer to get it, but they will get it..
I have not seen a teacher contract, so not sure who promised the pension, but since you are getting nit-picky, no state employee has been paying money for future benefits. The State via taxpayers has been paying. If you think the promised pensions will be paid, you are living in fantasyland. It is a race between Illinois and New Jersey as to is first to default on pensions.
When I send 16% of my check into my 401K, i guess I say I made that contribution, not my employer... Teacher pay, I believe, 9.2% of their salary into the pension.. and the local schools have no control over the oension plan, not how much they pay in or receive as a benefit.. there are a few things they can do to effect the payouts, such as ramping up salaries the last 5 years, but think that's now being limited better.. the problem is that it's hard to sustain a system where people work 35 years and live 25-35 years afterwards.
