Home › Forums › Bais Medrash › embarassed to use School Scholarships
- This topic has 13 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by gavra_at_work.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 7, 2011 4:22 pm at 4:22 pm #594835gavra_at_workParticipant
To follow up on Joseph’s post:
School scholarships have a different dynamic that goes both ways:
1: You are taking from other Frum Yidden, not the amorphous “government”.
2: There are no specific guidelines as per who gets a scholarship.
Also related: Should someone supporting a child or SIL in Kollel no longer be eligible for a scholarship?
Your thoughts?
February 7, 2011 4:50 pm at 4:50 pm #737509SJSinNYCMemberShould someone supporting a child or SIL in Kollel no longer be eligible for a scholarship?
Absolutely. But I bet you knew that 🙂
IMO, scholarships should be moved to loans that must be repaid on a schedule, starting from the day the child graduates from high school. This way, the school has a continuous revenue stream.
It will also encourage fiscal responsibility because people will have to consider if their new car is worth being more and more in debt to the schools. [This should be a legal, 0% loan and inheritence should first go to pay off the loans]. Rare exceptions will be given.
February 7, 2011 5:07 pm at 5:07 pm #737511gavra_at_workParticipantIMO, scholarships should be moved to loans that must be repaid on a schedule, starting from the day the child graduates from high school. This way, the school has a continuous revenue stream.
In the yeshiva world, this would not work, as men who go to kollel or low paying jobs will just be stuck in a circle of debt.
Maybe where 80K is normal, but not where 40K is the norm, and children are in school when the parents are in their 60’s. The word “loan” is meaningless.
And yes S, I thought you might say that 🙂 I’m looking for others’ opinions as well.
February 7, 2011 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #737512SJSinNYCMemberGAW,
More than likely, they’ll be working until the day they die in a low end job. They’ll choose Kollel up front and paying off tuition later.
Others, may choose to get a career and be more financially responsible. They are more likely to be able to save for retirement, retire earlier and learn in their old age for significantly longer.
February 7, 2011 5:39 pm at 5:39 pm #737513Avram in MDParticipantSJSinNYC,
More than likely, they’ll be working until the day they die in a low end job.
Why hold such a negative attitude towards “low end jobs”? Jobs requiring fewer specialized skills usually pay less, but does that make those jobs less important? If everyone were “financially responsible” according to your definition, we would have no mailmen, sanitation workers, janitors, etc.
February 7, 2011 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm #737514gavra_at_workParticipantAvram:
The truth is the truth, it is not negative or positive. They are “low end” of the pay scale, and becuase they don’t pay well, the workers will find it harder to save for retirement.
Mailmen & sanitation workers make a large amount of money, BTW. Plus they get a pension, which most workers don’t get.
What are your thoughts regarding the original question?
February 7, 2011 6:31 pm at 6:31 pm #737515SJSinNYCMemberAvram, I do have a lot of respect for people earning honest wages (in addition to what GAW pointed out). That being said, if you are going to live a certain lifestyle, you need to fund it.
So, if you are going to live in Iowa and have two kids who both go to public school, live in a tiny house and drive an old beat up truck, chances are you can live nicely on a Janitor’s salary.
If you are going to live in BP, have 9 kids, send them all to private school and marry them off in big fancy weddings, you need to figure out how to support that lifestyle.
February 7, 2011 6:44 pm at 6:44 pm #737516Avram in MDParticipantgavra_at_work,
The truth is the truth, it is not negative or positive. They are “low end” of the pay scale, and becuase they don’t pay well, the workers will find it harder to save for retirement.
Obviously I cannot disagree with what you wrote above; however, would you categorize someone in such a job as irresponsible?
Mailmen & sanitation workers make a large amount of money, BTW. Plus they get a pension, which most workers don’t get.
Thank you for the correction. I guess I was incorrectly relying on stereotypes.
What are your thoughts regarding the original question?
[The question in question:]
Should someone supporting a child or SIL in Kollel no longer be eligible for a scholarship?
As with most questions asked in this forum, the answers really depend on the factors involved with each specific case. In principle, though, if a pledge were made to support a kollel student for a certain length of time (e.g., 2 years), then I would think it should be treated like a mortgage, since the pledge is like a contract. At the same time, I can see cantoresq’s point.
Also, I find SJSinNYC’s idea of a 0% tuition loan very interesting. With funds coming from both present and past students (parents), perhaps the tuition rates could be lowered since the burden is shared and fewer scholarships would be needed.
February 7, 2011 6:57 pm at 6:57 pm #737517gavra_at_workParticipantAvram:
1: I might expect the parents to either (1) make even with the school (by working nights, calling for the dinner, etc.)(2) take out a second mortgage (3) homeschool (4) tell the grandparent that they can’t go with them away for Pesach since their tuition is not paid up (or other money earning possibilities).
2: The question is “are you embarassed to use School Scholarships”? I would like a response to that, the second question is secondary.
3: In principle, though, should such a pledge be made?
February 7, 2011 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #737518Avram in MDParticipantgavra_at_work
2: The question is “are you embarassed to use School Scholarships”? I would like a response to that, the second question is secondary.
So you would like me to answer the personal question:-) Ok, sure.
I would not be embarrassed.
February 7, 2011 7:15 pm at 7:15 pm #737519SJSinNYCMemberGAW, Maayanot (a girl’s high school in Teaneck) recently sent out a letter stating that if your child goes to an expensive summer camp (most kids go post tenth grade on a touring camp experience), you are in jeopardy of losing your scholarship, regardless of who paid for the trip.
I wouldn’t be embarrased to use a scholarship, if I was doing everything I could to get off of scholarship. If I were in school, I would expect to need the temporary reprieve, but would assume I would repay my debt as well.
February 7, 2011 7:19 pm at 7:19 pm #737520gavra_at_workParticipantSo you would like me to answer the personal question:-) Ok, sure.
I would not be embarrassed.
The question does not assume one is actually on scholarship.
Thank you for your response. Do you mind if I ask why not? (i.e. why is it different than going from door to door, assuming you would be embarassed to do so).
February 7, 2011 8:10 pm at 8:10 pm #737521Avram in MDParticipantgavra_at_work,
Do you mind if I ask why not?
We would not be able to afford it otherwise. And that’s without going on big vacations, staying home for Pesach, and no camps.
February 7, 2011 9:00 pm at 9:00 pm #737522gavra_at_workParticipantAvram in MD:
Thank you for your response, although once again, whether you actually are on scholarship is not important.
I believe there are two possible reasons why School scholarships are looked at as being different than tzedaka collecting:
The first is the reason (I think) you brought. That is, that the community has a responsibility to school all children. If the parent can not afford it, then they will try their best, but the school will not turn away the child.
Second idea, is that the school negotiates with the parent a price it feels that the parent should pay based on income, etc., based on its mandate to school all children. Once that is paid, the school has no additional claims on the parents, as they paid the negotiated price.
The difference being what the responsibilities of the parent are. Is the parent responsible to make up any gap that they can (as Rav Schwab holds), or once the price is negotiated, that is the price and the parents are off.
I had this argument with a relative of mine who is on the board of one of the larger Bais Yaakovs in the USA. He claimed the second option, while I believe the first is what should be upheld.
Your thoughts?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.