Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I went to public schools in a very middling district in the metro, studied out of state at a big public midwest research university, graduated with $20k in student loan debt, and currently have a 91st percentile income in a professional occupation. The private school thing in STL is a volatile mix of racism and snobbery, nothing more and nothing less.
I went to public schools in a very middling district in the metro, studied out of state at a big public midwest research university, graduated with $20k in student loan debt, and currently have a 91st percentile income in a professional occupation. The private school thing in STL is a volatile mix of racism and snobbery, nothing more and nothing less.
lol at this post. You just used anecdotal evidence (you) and a huge generalization all in one.
Here I'll flip it around.
I went to a private school, studied in-state at a big public midwest research university, graduated with 0k in student loan debt, have a PhD and currently have been in my profession for 1 year and have a 95th percentile income in a professional occupation in a low cost of living area. The public school thing is just a bunch of thugs, losers, and druggies/alcoholics, nothing more nothing less.
I think you can be successful both ways. My parents apparently thought that SLUH was better than Mehlville. Hindsight being 20/20 they were probably right. I probably wouldn't have cared either way at that age, but I do know my neighbors that were my age that went to Mehlville happened to fall into the wrong crowd, barely graduated HS, and one of them ended up in rehab with a huge drug problem. Not saying it was because of public school, but had i attended with him I would have potentially been in the same crowd as he was my age, my neighbor, and we hung out a lot as younger kids.
That wasn't what the person said at all. They basically said why go to an expensive private HS and then go to a mediocre college.
Most people would argue your most important years in developing who you become as a person are your middle school and high school years. Surrounding your kids with other kids that have parents that care about their child's education is typically a positive.
Plus you are working off of how expensive these HS are now, which has shot up recently. My parents paid about 20k for all 4 years I went to SLUH. Now that's pretty much the price of one year.
let's assume we invest 5k per year for 4 years and we earn 10% on this investment
Year 1: 5k * .10 = 5,500
Year 2: 10,500 *.10 = 11,550
Year 3: 16,550 *.10 =18,205
Year 4: 23,205 *.10 = 25,525
Adding 25k to the price of Mizzou would have covered my freshman year and a third of my sophomore year at Northwestern, Wash U., or U. Chicago.
I was looking at K-12 at the cost of a typical private St. Louis HS typical education at that point in time (which was between SLUH and the ridiculous tuitions of other elite privates). Using a cost inflator of 2% per year + bump for high school vs. K-8.
Someone coming out of HS in the late 90s, for example, could have saved roughly $128,000 (at 10%) by going public. I used the late 90s because it would take from then to roughly now to get through 4 yrs of school + PhD + time to buy a home for the full example. Extra tuition for college at that point (private v. public) was right at $20K per year, growing at 3% per year. Keep in mind, the balance of whatever is left over from that $128,000 each year is earning returns to offset some of the annual withdrawal. After 4 years of college, $36,000 would have been left. After 7 years of a PhD program, that would have grown to roughly $70,000, which is enough (even after capital gains taxes) for a down payment on a nice house. Considering what actual returns were in the 90s and a lot of the 00s (more than 10%) there is probably some additional cash in there for a car.
I don't disagree with you that primary education important, but the truth is, the most crucial time is Pre-K to abt 2nd grade, and assuming a school of at least mediocre quality, the most important influence is parental involvement at any point from birth on.
School quality (again, once a certain quality threshold has been reached) is what people make of it. The key distinction is the social influence and doors that open socially based upon school ties. If you live in STL, the high school name carries a lot of weight. If you live anywhere else, it doesn't mean squat. Nationally, the Northwestern, etc name carries a lot more weight than Missou. The real payoff is quantified in terms of how many doors your social ties can open. If you're going to stay here, being connected to the who's who of St. Louis is more important. If you're going to relocate elsewhere, the university and friends and contacts you make nationally are far more important.
I was looking at K-12 at the cost of a typical private St. Louis HS typical education at that point in time (which was between SLUH and the ridiculous tuitions of other elite privates). Using a cost inflator of 2% per year + bump for high school vs. K-8.
Someone coming out of HS in the late 90s, for example, could have saved roughly $128,000 (at 10%) by going public. I used the late 90s because it would take from then to roughly now to get through 4 yrs of school + PhD + time to buy a home for the full example. Extra tuition for college at that point (private v. public) was right at $20K per year, growing at 3% per year. Keep in mind, the balance of whatever is left over from that $128,000 each year is earning returns to offset some of the annual withdrawal. After 4 years of college, $36,000 would have been left. After 7 years of a PhD program, that would have grown to roughly $70,000, which is enough (even after capital gains taxes) for a down payment on a nice house. Considering what actual returns were in the 90s and a lot of the 00s (more than 10%) there is probably some additional cash in there for a car.
I don't disagree with you that primary education important, but the truth is, the most crucial time is Pre-K to abt 2nd grade, and assuming a school of at least mediocre quality, the most important influence is parental involvement at any point from birth on.
School quality (again, once a certain quality threshold has been reached) is what people make of it. The key distinction is the social influence and doors that open socially based upon school ties. If you live in STL, the high school name carries a lot of weight. If you live anywhere else, it doesn't mean squat. Nationally, the Northwestern, etc name carries a lot more weight than Missou. The real payoff is quantified in terms of how many doors your social ties can open. If you're going to stay here, being connected to the who's who of St. Louis is more important. If you're going to relocate elsewhere, the university and friends and contacts you make nationally are far more important.
The assumption is that your parents would be willing to give you cash like they invested in your adolescent education. I can tell you flat out that would not be the case for me. Also PhD programs are typically closer to 5 years. I didn't graduate HS until '02 UG in '06, took a year off and still finished my PhD in '12.
I don't live in STL anymore, but no one really cares where I did my UG and most of my friends have advanced degrees of some sort (JD, MD, MBA, MS, etc.) that are different from their UGs. so an UG from Northwestern would mean about as much to an employer as a HS diploma from Sluh would mean in St. Louis after you had a BA/BS.
Overall I don't disagree that there are multiple ways to spend the money and each person could have a different outcome based off of that. But I will disagree with the premise that saving the money to give to your kid later is the best idea, IMO it is just a different idea, no better, no worse.
Also if you invest the 20-25k saved in 4 years of going to a private university and through the PhD program the #s would be on par with your #s. So the question then becomes, what is more important. 12 years of a private education from ages 6-18 or 4 years of private education from ages 18-22? Again, I would say that is different for everyone, but it's a good question.
On a completely unrelated note; anyone going to any World Series' games this weekend?
I went to public schools in a very middling district in the metro, studied out of state at a big public midwest research university, graduated with $20k in student loan debt, and currently have a 91st percentile income in a professional occupation. The private school thing in STL is a volatile mix of racism and snobbery, nothing more and nothing less.
How dare St. Louis parents choose what they feel is best for their kids. It must be racism and snobbery.
Since you are such a twin cities snob, I find it ironic that when given an opportunity, Minneapolis parents segregate their students even within the public system there in your liberal utopia:
^I've lived in both STL and MPLS, so I have a right to call it as I see it. If you can't accept the history behind the present the situation, which is racism and snobbery, then whatever, dude. What your Minnpost link refers to absolutely PALES in comparison to the complete and total metro-wide dysfunction of STL school politics. And honestly, they'll solve the problem before it gets bad, because that's how Minnesotans roll.
The emotional benefits (peace of mind, sense of hope, pride of being part of some exclusive social crowd... things that are hard to measure quantitatively), as opposed to rational benefits (cost, # of AP tests passed, ACT score, etc) are what drive so many people to choose private schools. I have two kids and I would love it if I could afford to send them to elite private schools. Those places just knock your socks off with service and amenities. When you drop your kid off at a top-tier private school, everything is taken care of - peers are all smart, teachers are all top notch, individual attention is always available when needed, etc. That doesn't make the parents snobs or racists, just typical monkeys trying to figure out how to most effectively propagate their genes (i.e, ensure their children are set for the future).
^I've lived in both STL and MPLS, so I have a right to call it as I see it. If you can't accept the history behind the present the situation, which is racism and snobbery, then whatever, dude. What your Minnpost link refers to absolutely PALES in comparison to the complete and total metro-wide dysfunction of STL school politics. And honestly, they'll solve the problem before it gets bad, because that's how Minnesotans roll.
Sure, you can call it as you see it and I can point out when its nonsense. Minnesota hasn't had to deal with complications over time from the great migrations, either, as has St. Louis and most other midwestern rust belt cities. Minneapolis is not dealing all that well with its much smaller black population or its Somali population, although I know the official "story" says its all great.
The emotional benefits (peace of mind, sense of hope, pride of being part of some exclusive social crowd... things that are hard to measure quantitatively), as opposed to rational benefits (cost, # of AP tests passed, ACT score, etc) are what drive so many people to choose private schools. I have two kids and I would love it if I could afford to send them to elite private schools. Those places just knock your socks off with service and amenities. When you drop your kid off at a top-tier private school, everything is taken care of - peers are all smart, teachers are all top notch, individual attention is always available when needed, etc. That doesn't make the parents snobs or racists, just typical monkeys trying to figure out how to most effectively propagate their genes (i.e, ensure their children are set for the future).
The newer public high schools I've been in look like college campuses, so I would disagree a bit about private schools having a big amenities advantage. Even older ones, like Kirkwood High School, have really upgraded their facilities. They also have pretty amazing labs and things of that nature. And I think teachers might actually tend to be better at the publics because they make more money.
I went to public schools in a very middling district in the metro, studied out of state at a big public midwest research university, graduated with $20k in student loan debt, and currently have a 91st percentile income in a professional occupation. The private school thing in STL is a volatile mix of racism and snobbery, nothing more and nothing less.
oooh, oooh, oooh....private school, 94th percentile income
Factor my wife into the mix though, and the numbers don't work out as well...But hey, someone's gotta raise the kids!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
