One of the biggest myths which hurts cities: That schools matter much

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The best education was the single objective, but not one of these wealthy parents opted for a private school? Still smells like herd mentality to me.

The private schools run $30K+ per year at that point, move to a suburb with high performing public schools, what part do you not understand?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

The private schools run $30K+ per year at that point, move to a suburb with high performing public schools, what part do you not understand?

You left out the part about them not being able to afford private schools in the city.

[Crawford]

Much higher suburban property tax rates often make up the cost difference.

But, yeah, I get it. For many parents, it's less of a hassle to just move to a top suburban district, and never have to worry about where kids attend school.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You left out the part about them not being able to afford private schools in the city.

I didn't leave anything out, It's not about being able to afford it, it's why pay it if there are other/better options.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Much higher suburban property tax rates often make up the cost difference.

But, yeah, I get it. For many parents, it's less of a hassle to just move to a top suburban district, and never have to worry about where kids attend school.

Exactly.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by McBane

Why would I gamble with my children's education? So I can live in a cool urban environment? I may be colored by living near Philly, which has terrible schools (except for the magnet schools and a handful of elementary schools). God forbid your children have any sort of learning disability or issue, then truly, a poor school district is not where you want to send your kids.

If you're educated and middle or upper middle class and can't manage to get your kids into one of the 5 or 6 good magnet (high) schools in Philadelphia then I'm gonna guess your kid isn't that smart to begin with.

These outcomes have much more to do with the parents than they do with the schools.

To an admissions office, your kid is much more interesting coming out of a public Philadelphia High School (even a magnet) than he or she is out of West Chester East or Bayard Rustin.

While on paper many of Philly's suburban public high schools look stellar (and admittedly, by national standards, many of them are) when you look at the actual matriculation data only a handful are truly impressive (Lower Merion, Tredyffrin Easttown, Upper Dublin, etc). I came across a matriculation list from Unionville Chadds Ford recently and I was wholly underwhelmed. It was a bunch of upper middle class kids going to places like the University of Delaware, Vermont (rich Northeasterns love Vermont, which is a wholly useless school), Penn State, Colorado, etc. I mean, there weren't that many exemplary schools on the list and certainly the concentration of top tier schools was much less than it would be at any city magnet school. This was from a high school that consistently has scores in the top 5 in the state.

The older I get I just realize this is intellectually lazy. I know so many people who moved to top tier school districts or sent their kids to private schools and as adults, these people turned out no better than their public school counterparts from the same backgrounds.

Then there's the entire league of tens of thousands of people in Philly's good suburban school districts who still send their kids to private schools. So like, what the hell is the point of that?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Then there's the entire league of tens of thousands of people in Philly's good suburban school districts who still send their kids to private schools. So like, what the hell is the point of that?

I don't understand this. My sister, who lives in one of the top public districts in MI, spends huge money for private school for three kids. What's the point?

[homebucket]

Putting 3 kids through private school K-12 makes helping out on a downpayment seem like chump change.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Putting 3 kids through private school K-12 makes helping out on a downpayment seem like chump change.

I'm not even clear her private school has better outcomes than the public option. It's weird.

I can see private school for religious/cultural reasons, for kids who need special attention, and for kids with subpar public options. But I don't get living in a rich suburb with outrageous property taxes funding lavish public schools, and then sending kids to privates.

[eschaton]

Checkin on my two kids, who are in public, urban magnet schools.

Daughter is in 8th grade, heading into HS next year. She's a straight-A student, but unfortunately one of those high-anxiety perfectionists who is sure she's going to fail everything, then gets back near-perfect grades. She hates school, and complains about all of the work endlessly, but I'm pretty certain she'd do it no matter where she was, due to her personality.

Son is in 3rd grade, and he takes after me a bit more, since he has ADHD. On one hand he's a math whiz, codes in his spare time, and is in gifted. On the other hand we can't get him interested in reading books (he can read just fine, he just isn't interested in it - my daughter was reading Harry Potter at his age), and he got a C in spelling last marking period. Most of his teachers are great this year, though his English/reading/spelling teacher is really frustrating (no graded assignments come home ever, homework is sporadic, and she doesn't use social media to stay in touch like his other teachers, so we never get a good idea on how he's doing) but this is literally the first problem teacher he's had in elementary school.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by craigs

You raise an excellent point. Some forumers with chips on their shoulders are framing parental assistance in homebuying as a story of spoiled-brat trust funders getting what they don't deserve, but that ignores other aspects of a complex and increasingly globalized phenomenon.

Many extended immigrant families, especially here in California, stick together financially when it comes to things like housing. That financial cohesion is a huge advantage in two ways: it allows a young-ish couple to buy a family-sized house in costly areas like Los Angeles, and it provides older family members a meaningful and caring place to live in later life (bonus: grandma watches the little ones). Next door to me is a three-generation Latino family with a pool cleaning business; across the street is an older Persian family with four grown adult kids who still live with their parents, and who spend their excess money on late-model German steel. The other two neighboring households that I know consist of white retirees who bought into the neighborhood decades ago, when it was a fraction of the cost it is today. Their kids moved out long ago, as was so common among white Americans above a certain age, and of course they could not and cannot on their own afford to buy here--so they and their strictly nuclear families live far away.

Agreed. I think this is an underlooked aspect that isn't really taken into account so far in this discussion. Very common here culturally to have multiple households living under one roof. Young cousins growing up together practically like brother/sister. Multiple generations routinely taking over pickeball courts.

If the Midwestern value is to detach oneself from their families once they reach adulthood, it makes me wonder how many elderly folks in Midwest end up living out the rest of their days alone or in a room with three other strangers in nursing homes vs the more familial centered households in places like California where older family members have their own room and enjoy home cooked meals and help raise and pass on culture to the younger generation. Neighborhood after neighborhood of immigrant rich communities, coming over with little to nothing, sacrificing everything they've got so their children can have a better life. It's only right that their children show some gratitude and return the debt even though no amount of money can repay it. Most of my friends, when they're looking for a place, have their parents in mind as far as them moving in at some point down the line.

It's a lifelong "we take care of our own" mentality that is bi-directional.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not even clear her private school has better outcomes than the public option. It's weird.

I can see private school for religious/cultural reasons, for kids who need special attention, and for kids with subpar public options. But I don't get living in a rich suburb with outrageous property taxes funding lavish public schools, and then sending kids to privates.

Yeah, if she's paying a premium to live in a good school district, it'd make sense to have her kids just go to public school, since she's technically already paying for it.

Otherwise, she could just move out into a cheaper/bigger/better house in a possibly nicer neighborhood that doesn't have as great schools, and then pay for the private education.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, why is it problematic if young people can't buy a home? This was never the case until the 1950's. It still isn't the case in most of the rest of the first world. People generally rent, and if they own, it's a family home, passed down or occupied by multiple generations. Not clear why renting is so problematic, when it works around the world, and worked historically.

Renting isn't really any more of an affordable option in high-cost markets either though. 

There's nothing wrong with renting, but ownership is preferable if it's intended for long-term housing. Aside from the stability that ownership provides, it's far more financially efficient to have your housing costs go towards an asset than into someone else's hands. It's easier to build wealth through ownership than by renting. 

The ease of home ownership for the past 70 years is a big part of why North Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world. Not sure why we'd aspire to return to pre-1950s standards of living. 

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by homebucket

If the Midwestern value is to detach oneself from their families once they reach adulthood, it makes me wonder how many elderly folks in Midwest end up living out the rest of their days alone or in a room with three other strangers in nursing homes vs the more familial centered households in places like California where older family members have their own room and enjoy home cooked meals and help raise and pass on culture to the younger generation. Neighborhood after neighborhood of immigrant rich communities, coming over with little to nothing, sacrificing everything they've got so their children can have a better life. It's only right that their children show some gratitude and return the debt even though no amount of money can repay it. Most of my friends, when they're looking for a place, have their parents in mind as far as them moving in at some point down the line.

It's a lifelong "we take care of our own" mentality that is bi-directional.

For practical reasons, that would become quite an overcrowded household if some of those children aren’t taught how to acquire property of their own… assuming that everyone gets along.

No surprise that Midwestern households encouraged their kids to get married and buy property when they had each had 4+ children per couple.

Midwestern families simply have enough money and costs are low enough that the children can start early.


The “elderly living alone” situation almost always concerns a parent with a home in a rural town with limited opportunities, and a child who left for education and jobs. Multigenerational households don’t fix that.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, not everyone has inheritances or parents funding new homes. There are a good number of 20- and 30-somethings with the money for a new home, even in high cost markets.

Also, why is it problematic if young people can't buy a home? This was never the case until the 1950's. It still isn't the case in most of the rest of the first world. People generally rent, and if they own, it's a family home, passed down or occupied by multiple generations. Not clear why renting is so problematic, when it works around the world, and worked historically.

Yeah, people think that the days of the Boomers buying cheap homes for starting a family in their 20s will continue on.

We are now realizing that this was never a sustainable model. But folks don't want to give it up.

[edale]

Originally Posted by homebucket

If the Midwestern value is to detach oneself from their families once they reach adulthood, it makes me wonder how many elderly folks in Midwest end up living out the rest of their days alone or in a room with three other strangers in nursing homes vs the more familial centered households in places like California where older family members have their own room and enjoy home cooked meals and help raise and pass on culture to the younger generation. Neighborhood after neighborhood of immigrant rich communities, coming over with little to nothing, sacrificing everything they've got so their children can have a better life. It's only right that their children show some gratitude and return the debt even though no amount of money can repay it. Most of my friends, when they're looking for a place, have their parents in mind as far as them moving in at some point down the line.

It's a lifelong "we take care of our own" mentality that is bi-directional.

Where is this claim coming from that there's a Midwestern value of detaching from family? Yes, the poor elders of the Midwest are left to rot in homes while the elderly in CA get to relish in the 'familial centered' culture of California. Does that not sound ridiculous to anyone else? The Midwestern stereotype is one of family values and insularity, is it not?

The distinction about multi-gen households is primarily between immigrants (first or second gen) and established American households. The value of detaching from family and acquiring a home of your own is being attributed as being Midwestern, when that's really the norm for all parts of the US. Immigrant households often live together out of necessity more than some intrinsic desire for communal living, though there are definitely cultures where that is more common. By the time these families are second and third gen American, multi-gen living will be much less common. Statistics from the census demonstrate this. In California and everywhere else in the US.

And for the record, growing up, both of my grandmothers moved into my Midwestern house when they were no longer able to live by themselves. I guess I grew up like a Californian!

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by edale

Where is this claim coming from that there's a Midwestern value of detaching from family? Yes, the poor elders of the Midwest are left to rot in homes while the elderly in CA get to relish in the 'familial centered' culture of California. Does that not sound ridiculous to anyone else? The Midwestern stereotype is one of family values and insularity, is it not?

The distinction about multi-gen households is primarily between immigrants (first or second gen) and established American households. The value of detaching from family and acquiring a home of your own is being attributed as being Midwestern, when that's really the norm for all parts of the US. Immigrant households often live together out of necessity more than some intrinsic desire for communal living, though there are definitely cultures where that is more common. By the time these families are second and third gen American, multi-gen living will be much less common. Statistics from the census demonstrate this. In California and everywhere else in the US.


And for the record, growing up, both of my grandmothers moved into my Midwestern house when they were no longer able to live by themselves. I guess I grew up like a Californian!

i think theres different things going on here.

southern european style extended family homes due to housing prices in california. ok i can see this. also southern europe isnt having a lot of kids, relatively, anymore, if thats the model.

also lots of people detached from extended families on coasts, though. i remained in the midwest due to a large extended family support network since i decided to repeatedly breed and so did extended family members. the family members on coasts did not have kids (which is also a thing i considered).

the detaching/isolating from extended family is a very middle/upper middle thing in the u.s. but it seems more prevalent on the coasts - the “sample” on the coasts of people who do this is surely full of midwesterners upset with being from the midwest (or that possibly don’t get along with family BACK THERE).

[Centropolis]

anyway the midwestern middle class seems to still be having a lot of kids (seems to me) and doesnt really seem anti-family or anti-extended family at all.

i can see an argument for a huge degree of physical isolation of the elderly but that seems to be a general
american issue.

[iheartthed]

The multigenerational household seems like an immigrant thing, more than a regional thing. It's common in immigrant communities in the Midwest too. That said, a lot of suburbs throughout the country have zoning laws that prohibit that type of multigenerational cohabitation.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

anyway the midwestern middle class seems to still be having a lot of kids (seems to me) and doesnt really seem anti-family or anti-extended family at all.

i can see an argument for a huge degree of physical isolation of the elderly but that seems to be a general
american issue.

Outside of religious minorities (mormons, amish, etc), no one is having "alot of kids". The whole midwest is at below replacement level when it comes to birth rates.