It has been theorized by the "masses" that the tuition structure suffers from the following catch-22.. <b> There is no groundswell of populist demand to reduce tuition because....</b>
A. Rich people are rich, so they can afford any tuition amount anyway. In that case, they prefer that the school have all of the bells and whistles to better their children's lives.
B. Poor people are on scholarship anyway, so the amount that they pay is fixed. Tuition could double, they'll still be at their fixed, too low rate.
C. Only the "chumps" care about tuition, because they're the only idiots who pay tuition, even though they can't afford it.
Not sure what to make of this argument... it appears accurate on its face, doesn't it? It's the classic middle class squeeze, and a popular argument in comparing our schools to our governments. But it's more than just that ... it focuses on the itch in everyone's brain that is just waiting to be scratched: the "Us against Them" mentality. People love to believe that the world is out to get them. The government is wiretapping everyone's phone lines. The drug companies' vaccines don't work. Coffee is addictive. Congress and President Obama want all of your money. Alright, maybe that one is true, but not all conspiracy theories work. So let's take this one apart.
I'll stereotype for a moment.... rich people are amongst the frugal people I know; that's a compliment, so let's skip the angry responses. There are plenty of rich people who do not like to waste their money... spend it on a vacation for which they're getting enjoyment? Yes. But it's all about value for a rich person, frequently even more so than for the chumps. So yes, they don't mind paying a bit more if they're getting a quality education, one that is grounded in the religiousity they seek.
Chumps care about tuition... we get that, I think we can move on.
Now let's talk about the "Strugglers"... I personally look forward to a day when I will no longer be a "struggler". It may take years and it may not happen, but I'm trying to meet that goal.What's interesting is, that a lot of people I've spoken to don't see themselves as poor shnorrers getting tzedaka. Now, sure, they're appreciative of the tzedaka and they recognize that it is tzedaka, but they don't see <i>themselves</i> as poor people. I'm not a psychologist, so I can't delve too far into that... but I imagine it's a psychological thing that people seem themselves as they want, not in a harsh-lighted reality world in which they are taking charity.
I personally see the scholarship not as a given right (which is the way chumps think strugglers view it), but as a helping hand, giving me a chance to pull myself up and stalling the pressures of having too many expenses to survive. I look forward to paying full tuition, as crazy as that sounds. And with that in mind... it upsets me when tuition is raised. I feel like I get closer to the goal every year to paying full tuition, and they keep moving the goal line farther away. I'm not sure why it takes 12 administrators to run a school. Am I really on scholarship just to pay salaries of administrators? That would upset even the Strugglers, because no one wants to be on scholarship if they don't have to. Do I care if my children get Israeli dance or music classes? Not at all. And yet... at the same time, I'm not in charge of the school. I'm not sure that anyone cares about my opinion, and I'm sure that every administrator within a 400 mile radius of the Chump blog has heard that the "masses" are angry about paying too much. So why care about my view?
But don't think for a minute that we're okay with increased tuition. Because we're not.
25 comments:
Thanks Struggling. I hear where you are coming from but honestly scholarship parents are likely feeling less pressure on tuition increases generally. Even if you want to work your way out - that is still a ways off where those in the middle are struggling in the here and now.
That said - I understand that my kid's school increases the tuition obligation even for those on scholarship when tuition goes up. So - the pain is felt even by scholarship families - though maybe not as acutely.
I applaud the fact that you want to pay full tuition. It shows that you do understand that you are receiving tzedaka and are appreciative of it, while at the same time your goal is to not be in this position.
Yet, many in your position do feel that scholarship is a given right. How else do they purchase homes that they can no longer afford once the tuition bill hit? If schools ended scholarships tomorrow, what would "the strugglers" do? They rely upon scholarship to meet their bills.
Given the fact that you want to pay full tuition, and that you believe this situation is only temporary, what is your opinion about interest free loans? What if the school told you that instead of a scholarship of $10,000 (example) they were giving you $5,000 grant and a $5,000 loan whose repayment would commence when your last child graduated. You may be paying for elementary school for an additional 20 years, but you will have paid a more of your responsibility.
IRS,
I agree with you that tuition increases likely affect the Chumpers more than the Strugglers at this point. But would you agree that they're tougher on those Strugglers right on the border of Chump-hood? Because there are a lot of people in that area too. Further, would you agree that Chumps are more able to digest (even if done bitterly) that $250 increase than Strugglers?
Strugglers,
I really don't get your points.
You said "the community" ie others mustn't tell you have to live religiously but that "the community" must support your growing family otherwise we are attacking your religious views? You cry that we are imposing on your religious views by telling you to only have kids you can afford, but in reality you are imposing your religious views on us becuase we are left with the bill (so to speak).
This most recent post your argument to debunk the logical answer - that scholarships don't care about raising tuitions because they don't pay the increases - is I really care as I hope (same as "wish" in your previous post) to pay full tuition one day.
In this post, you also say that most people don't feel like it's tzedaka. We know that. That's because somewhere over the past generation, scholarship moved into the entitlement category from needs charity category.
You use nice sympathetic words to everyone's victomhood, but in reality you are expressing a vanila flavor defense of the entitlement mentatility. Your kids (as many as you and your rabbi decide) are entitled to our funds.
By the way, is our communal obligation to your unlimmited bunch of kids (for you to decide later) also to send your children to whichever school you want? Cheapest, most expensive?
Mini-Chump,
Well, let's go back a step here. I recognize that full tuition supplements my partial tuition payment, but you're arguing a hypothetical argument. Aren't you? It's not like I could call up a legacy school tomorrow and say "I'm putting my child in public school. Send Mini-Chump back $5,000." The school is charging you what it wants to, and you are making a choice to pay the price. Is there a correlation between charity cases pulling out of the school, and refunds/tuition cuts to parents? There have been just as many arguments made that the partial tuition is beneficial, but the classroom and teacher are already necessary. What is the incremental cost of the 18th child in a class? Additional books? A chair? If I'm on a 30% scholarship, I think the school is coming out ahead on my money. This is what smart companies and yeshivot do. Charge a price, draw in a number of customers, then sell at a discount (above your cost) and bring in as many customers as you can handle (without incurring significant additional cost). If I remember my high school economics, that's good business sense. The yeshiva is getting plenty of my money, and I'm sure that it doesn't cover the incremental cost of my child in each class. So I'm not even 100% convinced that your high tuition is impacted by my situation.
There's more to that, but let's put that aside for now, and address your question on its individual merits.
Let's be clear, I have not said that the community shouldn't tell me how to live religiously. I have also not said that anyone's attacking my religious views. I also didn't "cry" that you're imposing anything on me by saying that I should only have kids that I can afford. Everyone's entitled to their views and their opinions. I simply said that I follow my Rav's guidance in terms of how many children we have. I look forward to being able to pay for full tuition in the next few years. For those people in my shoes who are being helped in a time when we're down economically, we hope to be paying full tuition soon. I guess waiting until we become (half) millionaires seemed like a bad idea, because it might be at an age where it's unsafe for my wife to have 3 or 4 children. Or wait... what if you only have 2 kids, but for a variety of unfortunate reasons, you have medical expenses that cripple you financially? Or if you suffer a financial loss from starting your own business from which you are struggling to recover? Do we eliminate all of those people too? Should we review and approve each business idea to see if it'll succeed? After all, if it fails, parents might not be able to pay tuition. Maybe we should do medical exams... anyone at high risk for heart attack/diabetes, you need to leave the school too.
Also, I ask that you take another look at the post. I did not say that "most people don't feel like it's tzedaka." Here's the quote (my emphasis in bold)... "What's interesting is, that a lot of people I've spoken to don't see themselves as poor shnorrers getting tzedaka. Now, sure, they're appreciative of the tzedaka and they recognize that it is tzedaka, but they don't see themselves as poor people."
I do believe that scholarship has moved into an entitlement to some extent, but that is an unfortunate and significant downside to the reality that we have an even more significant upside to the scholarship program: helping people when they need it most.
We're having an open dialogue, a discussion of open ideas. I certainly clearly see your views now. I am interested in your view on how to manage these short-term scholarship needs. Is it a robust review process before someone gets a scholarship? Done. That exists. Is it asking people to drain out avenues of assets and revenues before they get a scholarship? Done. That exists. Is it asking people to approach family members for help? Done. That exists. What else do you have?
Did I misunderstand? It appears that you don't believe anyone deserves anything... do you want to just turn off the spigot and everyone else be darned?
A friend of mine once said to me "I can afford to pay full tuition, but why should I?" Other people I know on scholarship have many luxuries in their lifestyle that they aren't willing to give up (newer cars, cleaning help, vacations etc).
I don't think its so much about scholarships per se - everyone agrees that we should be helping out those less fortunate than us. The question is, for how long? At what expense?
So a widow raising 4 kids by herself - sure, the community wants to rally and help. But the medium wage earner with the stay at home mom who just doesn't want to put themselves out? I don't think so.
The biggest problem is that being on scholarship is not an embarrassment. Same as food stamps, welfare, WIC, HUD...people are no longer ashamed to be societal leeches. That spills over to tuition.
What are you willing to give up to pay more money towards tuition?
You are correct about who the beef is for the parents. The schools are the ones deciding who should pay for who.
"we have an even more significant upside to the scholarship program: helping people when they need it most"
You have identified the crux of the isuue. Everyone is required to help people when they need it most. Yet, we have no definition of when that point is. Yes, we all agree that the family hit by unforseen medical expenses, the widow/er who has taken a hit in income or the person has lost their job needs it at that point. All of us will help them, no questions asked.
Where there is disagreement is the case of the struggler. Someone who has made decisions in life with no realplan how to pay for them. Examples include those who bought a house prior to tuition kicking in and now cant afford it, those who have kids and mortgage based on the speculation that in 5 years I can afford it and the SAHM who says if I work I wont come out ahead. It is my opinion that giving tzedaka to them does not meet the criteria above. These are NOT the people who need it most.
The economic example mentioned is faulty in that Yeshiva is not a luxury, but has been defined by our community as a necessity. Therefore, the yeshiva should not have to give a discount to attract people. Why cant my child be the 18th in the classroom and get the discount?
I appreciate this discussion, but as you can tell I am not swayed by your arguments. I believe the answer lies in the lower cost models out there. Unfortunately, BC does not offer one
Planning is needed for Peak Oil. It will hit us Orthodox like a brick wall.
honest:
The local low cost elementary school in Bergen County would not be succesfull. It's an urban legend. Struggling, can answer for himself, but most people who can't afford tuitions on scholarship do not have an incentive to go to it.
Two proofs:
1) there is a low cost girl's high school in bergen county that is half the other local girl's high school. The less expensive one is much smaller.
2) between squeezing from the full tuition paying parents and big donors, the schools are all full. Those who can't pay get scholarhsip and those that can pay contribute for their own children and the "community" children, on scholarship.
Price is NOT a consideration in bergen county school selection. The most expensive school is as full (or fuller) that the others.
These debates are so hypothetical. What are the real facts. How many dollars in scholarships (including those given to local rabbonim, staff of the school, etc). What is the average income of those on scholarship? How is scholarship eligibility reckoned. Is there an actual formula? Does it reasonably reckon cash income, etc? What are loan expectations.
As a seperate matter I sense that part of the issue and resentment is a divide between some MOs and black hats about family size. In the context of the tuition debate, the larger families of black hats force money to move from MO to black hats. That is obviously causing resentment.
Yerachmiel,
I'm not really sure how the black hats fit into this conversation. Are people really resentful of the black hats about family size? If so, let's consider...
A MO "Struggler" whose children receive scholarships and are taking up space in the yeshiva should stop having kids, because they're costing Chump to pay increased tuition to cover their costs. If they would just get off the dole, the Chump could pay a more reasonable tuition and afford that fancy vacation that he so richly deserves.
Okay, that makes the Chump sound bad, but it's his money so let's let him spend it the way he wants. But let's keep going...
The Black Hat community has as many children as they want, and they do not force Chumps to pay their tuitions or any other expenses. (I guess beyond having a few schnorrers come to town once a month)
And yet there's animosity towards the black hats? Why? And where is the evidence of this resentment? I don't resent the black hats for their way of life; I do get angry at them from time to time for the silly way they handle certain situations (i.e. protesting an ice cream store that has mixed seating, handing speechs cursing the gay community to the NY governor candidate). Let's face it, every MO person at some point in their life is going to have a colleague, neighbor, or co-worker come over to them and ask them questions about those "crazy guys in the long black frocks".
I don't sense that the resentment is about family size. Although you could argue that a lot of our state and federal aid goes right into Lakewood. :)
Struggling,
Sorry, I think that you are ignoring (not sure if intentional or not yet) the elephant in the room. In many Teaneck homes, chumps and subchumps frequently use words like "can't afford more kids" and stress about not being able to afford more kids. These are people who you consider wealthy (it seems from your posts) but do not live rich. They pay their bills and their tuitions in full. They probably have a few extras that they view needed like sleepaway camp and pay for it too.
So when you post and express that there is a view for others in this tuition mess that family planning is not part of the topic, I think you are missing a huge point of contention in this debate. There are simply hundreds of families that are stressed by tuitions (partially subsidizing your tuitions) and yet limit their family size while you do not.
Obviously there are differeneces on this subject by different rabinnic authorities. My point is not to solve the observance issue but merely to point out that this is huge issue. No one cares what you do in your bedroom, but when you are building in "help" from others - others may take exception.
Maybe those who don't believe in family planning have to make other sacrifices like living in apartments, condos, affordable fringes, etc. so that they can have their most important goals met and still attend the expensive schools. I don't know, but trying to have the most expensive neighborhood and a large family, might not be doable for most. Point is, everyone seems to make choices, but being on scholarship puts your desicions to be paid for by others.
By the way, I respect your choices about family size - more than you know. But there is no bravery if you will be making the purchase (having more kids) using my credit card.
You referenced in the post that want tuition to go down too.
How do you suggest that happen? Put another way, what are you willing to give up for affordable tuition? Extra 15 minutes to another cheaper school? Larger class sizes?
Coop,
There are a whole slew of nuances that we're leaving out, most specifically that the Strugglers aren't the ones who are dictating the terms of tuitions and scholarships. Chumps are paying full tuition and Strugglers are getting (hopefully temporary) help. Those are the rules and I personally abide by them. I've heard arguments that I'm circumventing the rules by having children, and I understand that logic, but my plan isn't to take more scholarship. By the time my 4th child is ready to go to the legacy schools, I expect to be a Chump financially. I thought I was going to be a Chump already by now. I'm sure many others felt the same and we were somewhat blindsided by the recession. Do I want to be on scholarship for the next 3-5 years? No, but I'm not ready to defy halachic responsibilities to avoid it. However pathetic this next comment may make me, I'll say it anyway: I have faith in Hashem to make it all work out. Of course, cynics will say that I'm not relying on Hashem, but instead relying on the Chumps. To you, I'll say that maybe Chumps are the messengers for Hashem, or maybe I'll say that the administrators are the messengers for Hashem. After all, they're the ones collecting the tuition from the Chumps. It's not like the Chumps would willingly pay for my kids to go a legacy BC school. That much we already know.
As for changes, I do support larger class sizes, and would support and follow people an extra 15 minutes to another cheaper school. I actually think that in many ways, putting my older children on a bus at 7:45 to school is not that different from putting them on a Teaneck/Bergenfield bus or driving a carpool. I would not support being one of a small group of 5 families sending to a cheaper schoool, and I would not support any decision/program designed to kick all Strugglers out of the legacy schools. I don't believe that Chumps own the schools and I am fairly certain that my tuition covers my child's cost.
Struggling / Coop -
there is one constituency you are also forgetting about in terms of funding scholarship - i.e., those who donate more than their share to cover scholarship for others. i don't know the exact figures and how closely this covers the need but i do know it covers a large portion of the needs. we say that chumps are covering with their tuition and somehow if there were no scholarships / strugglers then their tuition would go down. actually much of it is already covered by very generous people in our community. chumps might argue that if that money wasn't going to scholarships - tuition would be lower for everyone else - i.e., the chumps. true - cash is obviously fungible - but do you really believe that these same people would donate to ensure that chumps can live a nice lifestyle in expensive neighborhoods? not hard to convince them to give to those in need - even if there is some small portion that are either directly or indirectly taking advantage (you be the judge on how to categorize - i believe both are very small portion of the total). but to convince them to help out a lawyer making 250k, living in a 600k house with 4 kids - but is struggling - probably not impossible but wouldn't hold my breath.
Anon 1:04.
Good point. But you don't see the absurdidy in your arguement that Chumps or anyone else should subsidize someone making 100k to live in one of the most expensive counties and towns and sections and blocks in the entire country. You think that everyone should have a "right" to be paid for by others to live in an expensive area in a house. I don't.
How about instead of putting yourself in a high cost sturcture where you can't afford tuition, you live in houseing that you can afford with tuition? It's what my immigrant grandparents did (heck probably everyone's did). You lived where and how you could afford. If you can't afford your tuition bills plus housing that you "want". You should make adjustments not go on charity.
1:13 - I fully agree. My assumption is that most scholarship families don't aspire to be on scholarship and that most chumps don't aspire to be chumps. Stuff just happens. The question is what do you do about it when stuff hits the fan. I would expect (and do know this happens) that scholarship families who see no light at the end of the tunnel - eventually move out of town or move their kids out of school. I know this is not always the case - people get "stuck" either mentally or emotionally. When the schools says enough is enough is up for debate and likely something that the schools grapple with. Why I don't understand is what it takes for chumps to realize that it is time for them to move out if they can only hope to be bankrupt chumps and/or eventually struggling on scholarships.
I believe there is a degree of hypocrisy on strugglings remarks. He writes that he does not want to take tzedaka but at the same time says he is unwilling to send his children to a school where he can pay full tuition but is located in another neighborhood. To me that is a decision that it is ok to take tzedaka.
What I have never understood, and would like clarified, is the thought process about entering a situation a person knows they can't afford. The idea that "I can afford it in 5 years" is hard to comprehend. If birth control is not allowed then wait on buying the home. If the mortgage will not allow full tuition then pick a new community. I am not saying move or limit children. What I would like is have greater insight into the mindset when making these decisions.
Honest,
It will take me some time, but I'm happy to outline my financial scenario and how I got to where I got. With shabbos coming, I don't have that ability now.
Shabbat Shalom!
Honest,
If you were short enough money for one mortgage payment, would you ask for a charity collection to pay off that month's payment or would you say "I can't afford it" and move to a cheaper neighborhood?
My belief is that I can afford this soon, and also... my belief was that I would already be able to afford it. Should I have seen the recession coming? I would have made a lot of money in the market if I had. :)
Honest -
I would agree. I'm assuming the situation in most cases is that the family had the ability to pay and fell on hard times. If someone is coming into a neighborhood or school knowing they will never be able to pay (which I don't believe Struggling is saying he did) then to me that is outright geneiva. I'm floored when I see the comments on the other blogs of people expecting scholarship or bragging about it - it makes me sick but I assume very strongly that this is the minority (if not there are a lot of people with little intelligence and a warped sense of entitlement in our community).
If someone however had the ability to pay and had every intention of being able to pay as their family increased but fell on hard times - they are a reasonable candidate for scholarship. Everyone of us made assumptions when we made life decisions - e.g., I'll be able to continue to afford to pay my mortgage based on my salary. You have to have some faith and expectation in the future. I'm sure some people - including chumps - assumed that the picture would be a lot more rosy then the reality. Sometimes this is poor planning, sometimes it is just what happens - question for the community is when to help out and when not to. That is what the scholarship committees are there for.
Anon 2:07
To be short 1 month is very different than being short EVERY month. I am talking about the situation where a family's fixed expenses (home, tuition, average food, clothing, insurance) is higher than income. Unfortunately, I disagree with Anon 2:39. I find many families who fall into this category. Maybe when they moved into BC they could pay the bills, but they knew tuition was coming and didn't plan appropriately. Falling on hard times is not defined as not being promoted or not making partner. Falling on hard times is loss of job or unforseen medical expenses.
So to me the answer is yes, you should have seen the recession coming. Not to make a ton of money in the stock market, but to say if my annual income never increases can I pay my current bills. If the answer is no, what I dont understand is how you enter the situation to begin with
Honest, Anon,
In many cases, the family either had the ability to pay and fell on hard times or they had a plan for paying, but the plans fell apart. I would say that I fit into the second category. I did not move into my house expecting to need scholarship money, but at the same time, knowing that we would have 4 kids in an apartment was an absolute motivator for buying and moving into a house. I know that our forefathers lived 8 in a bed, but our forefathers also died of pneumonia on a regular basis. I'm not ready to go back to the 1920's, and I would hope that you wouldn't will me back to an apartment with 6 people in it, just so you could take that extra summer vacation you so desperately earned.
Irrespective of the merits of that argument, the yeshiva has taken it out of your hands. They've effectively said "We do not trust the more affluent crowd to support our less affluent crowd, so we'll charge tuition and cover scholarships the way we see fit." That's not a popular approach,but it's the one in place right now.
I'm floored when I see the comments on the other blogs of people expecting scholarship or bragging about it - it makes me sick but I assume very strongly that this is the minority (if not there are a lot of people with little intelligence and a warped sense of entitlement in our community).
I really have not seen much of that kind of commentary on the blogs, and I've seen 100x less of that in person. Being on scholarship has made people feel comfortable talking to me about their situations. Without fail, people have expressed modesty, contrition, thankfulness, and an almost-apologetic mood. I actually have been regularly shocked by the postings of the angry Chumps when they say that the Strugglers or Helpless are flaunting that they got scholarships. Really? Is anyone that stupid to brag that they're getting scholarships and using their funds inappropriately?
More likely is the version that the Chumps stare at the Strugglers and count their every dollar spent, without knowing the full story. Driving a new car? Your lease is covered by your tuition stealing. Got some new jewelry? I saw the same piece in the Tiffany's catalog and it wasn't cheap. Lawn service? Must have excluded that money from your scholarship application. There's a story told about a jewish store-owner who came to a famous Rav and asked him how come his business wasn't as successful as the store just down the street. The owner explained to the Rabbi, "I don't understand. My merchandise is cheaper, the quality is actually better, and our location is basically the same. I know his supplier and I'm getting better pricing. So how is his store doing better than mine?" The Rav's response was, "He's only running one store; you're trying to run two." Bottom line? Everyone needs to stop passing judgment on others' situations.
The scholarship situation is exacerbated by the recession, by people purchasing homes at the height of their value, by using mortgage strategies that had previously paid off for years (variable rate mortgages were a great idea before 2008), and by sheer bad luck. No one expected the markets to collapse, to take jobs with it, and to hurt the home value market in a way never imagined. Alas, it did and now people need help to get through this. But I don't think people are bragging about gaming the system. Not only is that ridiculous, it's also dangerous if someone would end up reporting you.
Post a Comment