I am curious....

Nada--Good analysis. BTW when do you sleep?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-late-adulthood-20100522,0,5089904.story?page=1

"In 1960, 77 percent of women and 65 percent of men had acquired certain traditional markers of maturity by age 30: leaving home, completing school, full-time employment, marriage and family. In 2005, the figure had plummeted to 27 and 39 percent, respectively, according to the MacArthur Research Network."

"The job site CollegeGrad.com's online poll reports that 64 percent of 2009 college graduates are back in the nest."

i think kspeak doesn't need a mortgage, can afford to send the kids private all the way, wanted to buy now and is convincing herself that the downside is at most 15%. she is assuming that qol will remain at current levels, that demographics will continue to support her pricing, and seems to be making certain other assumptions as well. fine, she has convinced herself that the risk is contained. she hasn't convinced me.

Dreamer, more important question: why are you up at 5am? ;)

Nada... I'm old. Old guys get up early.

aboutready, and the government seems to incuurage citizens to remain literally "children" until they're too old for ... whatever (health care provision?)

salut, i don't think it's the gov't at this point, i think it's the economy.

ar, it started way before the economic upheaval. Boys and girls - not men and women, and the "youthful" stereotypes are enforced by eternal youth myth of fashion mass media, the government is just trudging. along. So you're right that it's not the gov't alone fault but the need to be productive is not encouraged.

rather "fashion and mass media".

salut, i don't disagree that as a society we have been delaying maturation, and this has occurred over any number of decades. but the current situation is merely the continuation of a decade of no job growth. the recession of the early 00's left many behind, and the intervening years didn't produce any real increase in jobs while they are now producing a real increase in graduates. many graduates, even those with advanced degrees, are finding that they have spent their money for little, as jobs requiring their degrees are not available.

it's kind of hard to grow up, get an apartment, get married and start a family when decent employment with future growth is so relatively unattainable. and that is likely to hinder the prospects of those who came of age in the last decade and in this one for their lifetimes, at least in terms of the statistical average. this has real implications for real estate trends and household formations, possibly for years to come. boomers are entering the time period where many will need to sell, either because they need the value of the asset to live or they need an assisted living environment, and the young do not seem to be ready, willing and able to pick up the slack.

60 is the new 20!
Play your cards right and make it to Medicare and Social Security and you'll never have to grow up.
Parent's indulge their adult children with financial aid and condem them to a life of bakshish. We have more than a generation or three of beggers and losers. Keep play'in those vedio games and text messaging and info-entertaining your selves and soon the new overlord Mr. China and Mr. India will kick you ass. Short attention span is now the new norm.

one comparison could be made between today's real estate market and the stock market in early 1988 - following a huge crash/correction, yet multiples still much (50% or so) higher than they were at the trough. I was too young to know what was going on, but I'm sure many thoughtful analyses were done arguing that we still had more to correct so that we could get back to those earlier multiples. And I suppose if you held out for lower multiples you were rewarded - 21 years later, and at a 9% or so CAGR later - sort of winning the battle but losing the war. And of course that low multiple only existed for a few weeks, so I doubt it did much for a cautious investor on a practical level. Am I saying we are in for a huge rise in residential real estate - like stocks had in the 90s - no. But it is an interesting historical analogy of the question in this thread of which multiple was the correct one.
And of course you needed earnings to rise to get that huge CAGR, which means you would need rents to rise for a similar comparison, but with rents flattish over the past 10yrs, I could make the case that rents are the value, so locking them in long term (i.e. buying), is the smart play.

This was already starting to come true 15+years ago. The first wave of the children of baby boomers didn't find it as easy to get jobs as the previous generation, and we saw the first college grads going off to teach English in Asia, become Starbucks baristas, etc.

But it's not just economic. The advent of birth control has changed the whole dynamics of when to marry.

Ok .. I'm back ... meeting's all day.

I certainly haven't convinced myself the downside is at most 15% - unlike most others, who claim to have absolute certainty that we WILL get back to, say, 12x of $500 psf, I've said anything is possible, and markets overshoot on the way down. I'm saying I think this is the most LIKELY scenario.

You can call me a defensive homeowner and insist that is why I am arguing. Of course, in reverse I could say the same of those who want to own after prices come down more ... and obviously that's why many are on this forum (I realize there are others who do own who still feel this way, of course). But as a rule I try to take people at face value rather than second guess their motives. It's worked for me personally and professionally but clearly not on this board.

I have said more than once I think renting is smart for many if not most and there is ZERO urgency to buy. I guess I am not overly concerned if things overshoot on the way down - one a longer term hold, I'm looking at equlibrium pricing. My math works - and it makes zero assumptions that rents will go up over a 15 year period. It assumes only that I can't get more than 5% on my cash post-taxes (note this is essentially 9% pretax) in a low risk manner and that the value in nominal terms will be what it is today in 15 years. Even if you bought in 1987 your home would have recovered by 2002, and in this case I'm buying in the equivalent of 1989. I've also noted that my QOL perception is different than others and my "tradeoff" wouldn't work for all. But you can't really rent a townhouse long-term since these are usually short term 1-2 year rentals subletted by owners. So the other option was a 3 BR rental in a better neighorhood.

Also, I've never claimed the historic NATIONWIDE price/rent ratio is 20x (although this is San Francisco's - another city with structurally higher numbers of renters - according to my research). I've done research and I have seen something like 15-17x as the average over the last 30 years ... this does include some bubble but also includes some slump, so net-net, it's an accurate statement. Anyway, if you're going to refute my arguments, at least make sure you quote me right.

Yes, I do realize 16% rates were accompanied by high inflation. I think this scenario is likely to play out again as we have been devaluing our currency through the government's printing of money. In other words, I don't see high rates without high inflation, although rates of course should always be higher than inflation.

On public schools - I think the zoned school is important but the district overall also matters - especially if you can test into G&T or go to a district school that isn't a zoned school. People are so black and white that it's either "good zoned school" or $35k private but there are range of options that many of my neighbors have done: Catholic schools, Jewish schools, charter schools, G&T etc. Anyway NYC10023 I think it's great that you are involved in the process.

AR, I agree that many are being left behind in today's economic times. I am not condoning this, but I think this more of a social issue than an issue for Manhattan real estate. The unemployment rate for college grads under 25 is roughly in line with national averages: 10%. The unemployment rate for people who didn't finish college is something like 25%. I guess my point is it's the employed college grads buying houses in NYC, not the unemployed high school grads. And I don't really forsee a lot of Baby Boomers selling Manhattan real estate ... the buyers were Gen Xers over the last few years ... if anything Baby Boomers are buying 1 bedrooms in the city because they don't want a big house anymore.

Anyway ... I enjoy the dialogue ... and I am always respectful and tolerant and open.

its been said a number of times. if you are buying in this environment, you have to be ok with the possibility of a major loss. who knows if the chance is 30% or 50% or the possible loss is 15% or 50%. no one.

but, in my mind, to ignore this possibility is unwise.

my family and i have made a lot of money in real estate over the years; never once (before now) did i ever believe that there was any possibility of a loss of principal.

kspeak this year's graduate class. where do they go? you do realize it's not just unemployment rates? new grads are the highest percentage participants in the labor pool and the most likely to take jobs that don't correlate to their education?

you do understand that the owner of the one bedroom can't move up to the two bedroom until the one bedroom sells?

Oh and manhattan increased its housing stock by 7 percent from 2000-08. I've seen zero evidence of a correlative increase in population.

Don't forget that many baby boomers are still struggling with unemployment or underemployment as a result of the recession and a reluctance to hire "more experienced" staffers in the recovery.

aboutready

'Oh and manhattan increased its housing stock by 7 percent from 2000-08. I've seen zero evidence of a correlative increase in population'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/nyregion/24york.html

'The population of Manhattan, which had grown by nearly 90,000 since 2000, dropped by about 2,500, according to the estimate, which is based on calculations as of July 1, 2009. While that drop is tiny, it contrasts with annual gains that peaked at 15,000 in the middle of the decade.'

'The survey put the city’s population on July 1 at 8,391,881. For Manhattan, the total was 1,629,054.'

so 87,500 growth from a base of 1,541,000 is about 5.7%

not quite matching the 7% housing stock gain you mentioned (source?), but relatively close. And of course you would expect the housing to come before the people.

plus Manhattan is an attractive 2nd home market (think europeans and baby boomers), not to mention that for tax reasons many people do their best to live here w/o actually having to claim residence, so I can see why in the 2000s the mkt could absorb more units than just population growth.

printer not so attractive now. might be a net sell opportunity.

but if you have an increase in housing stock of 7% and an increase in population of 6% you're still way behind, because many units house more than one person.

i'll try to find the source. i read it today, but it is escaping me.

Can you feel it?
Can you feel topping over the wave?
Behind the peak there is a valley.
How deep?
Hard to know.
Residential RE is at a cusp.
The money printing machine is done printing money.
Soon it's actual value will have to be realized. It could be the American version of Argentina circa 1979. I'm not wishing bad things on us just trying to make sensible predictions as to the future value of Manhattan residential RE. I'm feeling my bear bones.

columbia country your family has been in real estate for years and years and this is the only downcycle you've ever seen. right now. you didn't see a loss of principal in 2007. and in years in years of real estate investing you can't conceed that on a nominal basis things usually aren't worth less over 15 years.

ar manhattan's population grew 5% from 2000-2007 .

anwyway ... good night.

kspeak, and the number of housing units grew by 7%. even assuming that the population growth could afford the new housing stock, on average more than one person lives in the new housing stock. do the numbers.

'but if you have an increase in housing stock of 7% and an increase in population of 6% you're still way behind, because many units house more than one person'

true, but as stated earlier, Manhattan has a large # of second-home owners. and they are more likely to buy condos than co-ops. and since the vast majority of the new units are condos, they are likely an even higher %age of those buildings. Trump says that more than 50% of the buyers in his buildings are non-residents.

I can't believe that you don't think a meaningful percentage of buyers in 2000-2007 were 2nd home purchasers. Are we likely to see that going forward - i don't think so, but it helps to understand what happened.

let's talk about kspeak while she is sleeping.

I personally don't care for her tone on this message board... it's always blah blah blah blah... "i'm sincere in wanting to learn something."...... blah blah blah $2MM townhouse on 125th Street is the BOMB!........ blah blah blah... we may lose 15% or more, maybe even see my junior analyst buy the same townhouse a few doors down for $1MM in 2 yrs... but it's okay.... blah blah blah... 25% off peak tulip price.... blah blah blah.... I, for one buy tulips for aesthetics.... but let me show you my graph and charts that show 25% off peak is an "AWESOME buy Signal." blah blah blah....

And seriously, she needs to cut her nose hair a little more often... .it's just disgusting....

Oh, thnx Nada... it's getting so so tiresome to deal with lemmings whose $2MM townhouse, the direct result of $4MM 3bdrms on CPW re bubble... beg and pray the CPW units holds at $3MM... cause if it hits $2MM.... then their th is worth $.75MM, at best?

kspeak.. FWIW, for 25 yrs of my life you could've picked up any townhouse in harlem for the tax lien..... but NO NO NO, yourz will stay at $2MM -15%! Excellent analysis... can someone tell me where DJIA and Euro end today? thnks

printer, i think the whole second home thing was part of the global real estate run up. and i think many will rethink their purchases. particularly corporations. who bought a few apartments for whatever reason. i'm seeing a sell-off in those.

but will there be demand for all those additional apartments that are out there? some yes, some not so much.

goddammmmmittttttttt!!!!!!!!!!! 2nd homes are nothing more than and was nothing more that artificial housing formations that resulted directly from EASY CREDIT!!!!!! ergo.... no more easy credit... BYE BYE fake housing formations...

think of it as the water filled wonder bra.... ALL show no GO!

BTW,
what will make the population of the city grow now? The creation of new jobs? Will the new 'sex in the city' movie convince the last few American spinsters that the city still holds shoes and, happiness for those whose expiration date has already past? Mr. Big always wants to marry the mouse faced grandma. Will those finishing up college and grad school come here bravely on the off chance they will find a job...anyway? We have been in very cold water. Don't look down but, I think there may be some shrinkage. I also think that the days of the multikid family sticking it out in Manhattan are also coming to a close (that's pure spec).

w67th ... was working not sleeping ....

anyway my grandparents had a second home ....and they certainly weren't rich enough to pass anything down to my parents or us so there goes your theory.

didn't happen for you on thursday did it?

going to go braid my armpit hair now..good thing my husband likes the natural look!

Kspeak: I really hope you are considering sending your kids to private school because being in D3 but not zoned for a good school is NOT helpful. I know you know of neighbors who have availed themselves of a variety of educational options but the landscape 5 years ago or even 2+ years go is far different from the situation today.

Putting it simply:
1) D3 G&T - 99 doesn't get you into PS9 G&T anymore unless you're a sib, and you may have difficulty getting into 163 or 166 G&T. Anderson is a city-wide, not a D3 school.
2) Lottery schools - most, if not all of the schools so. of 96th are full or getting there.
3) No. of 96th, the public schools are getting shoved out by charters. And it ain't easy getting into a charter.
4) Parochials - there are a couple, ditto Jewish day schools. I don't know much about them except that the parocials are inexpensive, and the day schools are not.

So we have the interesting situation where the overall pop. may have decreased but the pop. younger than 10 has exploded.

I'd be curious to hear from W81 and alanhart. No new public schools have been built on the UWS so. of 96th since the 60s. The UWS has lost a couple of privates (YMCA Boys' school + Walden). Given how organized the Upper West Side is politically, why do you think that we've not been able to get a new public school built.

Thinking ahead, the population in Westchester school districts is flattening or decreasing. I think in a few years, they might start taking paying students from the Upper West Side :)

W81: Hope you got good news in the envelope today.

NYC10023, you're right that the many of the G&T programs are getting crowded, but it's still a marginal advantage to be in D3 vs. D5 (esp. for families that moved from the UWS who can keep their kids at schools at least for now - a lot of these families BTW). I realize this is getting tough though ..

Anyway - failing public schools in Harlem are getting pushed out by charters. Good schools are not. PS 180 is getting a lot of attention now and a bunch of CLC parents are sending their kids to PS 125 this year on Morningside which is a trilingual school being modeled after CPE. Corpus Christi (parochial) is adding to its classes at the lower grades to accomodate demand. Columbia Secondary school for Math & Science is a new public middle school and soon to be high school. I could go on, but the progress is remarkable. Every dedicated parent I have met - even the ones who can't afford $35k private - have found a great option.

That said, we have the $$$ set aside for private. I'm committed to improving the area, but not at the expense of sending my kid to a faiing gened school ...

One thing is true - if you are are a dedicated parent, your kid would be okay. But I can't help feel, when I go to these meetings (CEC, CB7 et al.) that all that dedication and intensity could be better used if the system weren't so broken. Know what I mean?

10023, i am always amazed, shocked, really, by parents of babies/toddlers who are so ignorant of the school situation in manhattan. i am even more disturbed when people dismiss any concerns others may express by saying they can afford private school, as if the abilty to afford it is all it takes to get your kid into a decent one. if one can't be bothered to actually do their homework, they should at least spend some time on urbanbaby. let those nutty bitches scare some reality into them.

That's a I interesting concept 10023. Paying to send your kids to excellent public schools in other places (Westchester, Long Island, NJ????). The cost, while significant, would be less than NYC private schools and the admission process a little more manageable (from what I've heard about private school). But how many parents do you think would allow their kids to make a "reverse commute"? I have suburban friends who won't take jobs in the city because they don't want to be "across a river" from their children in case of emergency. I suspect they are not alone.)

Lucille: yeah, BUT it shouldn't be this difficult and we shouldn't be so smug. Think of all the smarts, self-motivation of UWSers alone. It's hard to live in this city (okay, I know we're wimps compared to the natives) and it appalls me that so much energy is dedicated to working the system. And of course, the myopia. For a long, long, long time, it has been possible to ignore overall conditions if one has managed to find a way out (Hunter, privates, G&T, good zoned/what have you). And now, we're all crashing and burning at the same time.

I wouldn't be surprised if we went the private governess route at 6th grade.

Lizyank: there are many Manhattan parents who send their kids to Riverdale schools. Qns parents who send their kids to Bx Sci/Stuy (more Stuy). Bk parents, you get the drift. Not to mention all the kids who get bussed to summer camps. I would certainly look into it for a 5th grader.

As a survival strategy (not that I'm advocating it), I know of several families who escaped total extinction in WWII because their kids happened to be at boarding schools.

The system has its flaws, but I know some stressed parents in suburban schools too ...

Lucille - the nuts on urbanbaby think there are only 7-8 private schools worth their salt. There are a ton of great other schools that may not be "top tier" but work out great for many families. I assure you I have done my homework ...

Snort, that's putting it mildly. Stressed :) NYC DOE is the enviable or unenviable position of having to educate the children of highly educated, driven, neurotic NYCers and the children of children living in East New York. Yeah, stressed.

10023, but at what point does it become TOO hard? what you're describing sounds like a nightmare to me. at what point do you throw in the towel and start seriously looking at the many lovely and diverse towns in the ny metro area?

Everyone has their breaking point. We're not moving to the suburbs. Period. So we'll just find a way to make it work.

One of my best friends just went through the process. She said it sucked a@* but a year of stress was better than the daily stress of commuting for the next 12 years. This is a two parent working family so I get it ...

kspeak, i think the issue is not a school being worth someone salt, but being worth 35K per year. if the kid is not getting into a GOOD private school, does it not make one kind of a sucker for paying 35K per year? everything has a price, but not everything is worth it's asking price.

Fair enough ... depends on your definition of "good" I guess. When some people think the only "good" schools are trinity, dalton, etc. I get annoyed, but I can see the argument that it's more worth it for these schools because of the name. I think it comes down to whether one has the money, much like for college. I mean I know people whose parents stretched to send their kids to Bates or Middlebury, and those are great schools, don't get me wrong, but one of these people was from Michigan and the other Virginia and both got accepted to their state school.

People do what works for them and their families, though, I try not to judge. The value of that $35k depends on who the family is. But local activism is what has made various NYC schools go from bad to good so it's hard to argue families of means shouldn't put their time and $$$ into fixing schools. As I said before, though, nobody is an idealist with their own kids. I certainly am not.

absulutely, the value depends on the family and their values. imho, the only value in sending a child to a bad or even average private school is to physically separate them from the "diversity" of their neighborhoods. so i ask again, what's the point? why not just go live among rich white people in the burbs? because if we really get into it, it sounds a lot like people wanting to appreiciate their "diversity' from a far, and congratulate themselves on their progressive liberalism, without actually mixing with the yucky locals.

lucille (i'm a huge fan btw) - is it worth it? is anything in this city worth what one pays??????? if you have the $$$ you may pay for private (top tier or not), you BUY real estate (lemming or not). value doesn't really matter as much when you have $$$.

In reply to nyc10023:

The UWS and the UES have lost jillions of private schools (among them McBurney, Bentley, Anglo-American, Rhodes, New Lincoln, Walden, Franklin) [apologies if some of these aren't actually extinct; I don't keep exact track]. PS 166 was at one point slated for shut-down, and probably others too, maybe successfully. Schools undoubtedly closed for a number of reasons, but more than anything it was the change in the neighborhood from families (townhouses and Classic X apts.) to chopped-up buildings serving primarily singles, retirees, determinedly childless couples, and The Gays.

Understandably, local government can't predict social/population trends regarding who will or won't have children, how many, who will bolt for the 'burbs when the first kid hits 5 yo, etc. ... and can't predict whether a baby boom will die down as suddenly. Add to the high cost of building and starting up a new school the fact that finding a site is really difficult -- although of course the obvious solution would have been to get the lower floors of new buildings in exchange for allowing more built area to the developer; outdoor space for elem & middle would be problematic -- and you have a go-nowhere situation. Much worse for existing private schools facing the same issues, and impossible for anyone seeking to start a new private school.

I'm surprised we don't have Bible Belt evangelists trying to open here, though. There's always somebody willing to throw tons of inherited money to "civilize" the heathens.

I think depends on how the "average" school compares to the public school option. If it's a good public, then it seems silly, but if it's that or a failing gen ed, I get it. I get not wanting to be a martyr to prove a point, when it comes to your kids. That said, a lot of the parochial school options I mentioned - I don't consider these private, but some people lump them in there - are like 85% non-white. So you're not really hiding from diversity. But the mediocre $35k schools are lilly white ...

But yes, I think in general there is a lot of progressive liberalism from afar, but not in practice. Short-sighted because white people will not ba a majority in this country for much longer ...

Alanhart: that's what I thought. I only know about the schools on the West Side that have closed bcs of my interest in bits of real estate.

Lucille: can't generalize that much. It's not about people not appreciating diversity or people wanting to be among other "rich" white people. It's about the tragic failure of our society in not addressing the growing(?) number of an urban underclass that is dominated by single-mother families and teen parents. Sonia Sotomayor may have been the daughter of a single mother living in subsidized housing, but those were different times, and I'm not sure if people are able to escape their circumstances in quite the same way today.

uwsmom, i can't speak for everyone, but of course value matters. my husband and i are of the much maligned trustfund kid subculture. you would not believe how cheap we are. i've actually always believed that people who earn their own living have a much healthier relationship with money than people whose lifestyles are subsidized by dead relatives. the former can, in theory, make that money again. but the latter know in their bones that once it's gone, it's gone forever. lots of rich people are cheap.

Lucille: having grown up with many of the trustfund kid subculture, I absolutely agree. It's a weirder relationship with $, for sure. Kinda freeing to grow up with no backup money.

you asked if a non top-tier private was worth 35K/year. i'm not sure Trinity is worth 35k/year. my husband is one of 5 kids, raised in the middle of nowhere, HHI <35k/year, crappy grade school, high school and college. top ivy law firm and 2 years away from partner decision at a top 3 firm. i think there are an infinite number of paths to the same point (you just need to figure out what your point is). life in NYC is kinda warped. i think if you have money for nyc privates you basically have money to flush down the toilet (and there's a small chance i could be paying for private school some day). anyway. worth it? who the fu@k knows. its the price you pay to live in this city. you have to have $$$ to have flexibility and options here, educational opportunites included.

i got chopped!

you asked if a non top-tier private was worth 35K/year. i'm not sure Trinity is worth 35k/year. my husband is one of 5 kids, raised in the middle of nowhere, HHI < 35k/year, crappy grade school, crappy high school and college, top ivy law school and is now 2 years away from partner decision at a top 3 firm. it's quite possible there are an infinite number of ways to get to the same point (some more costly than others). I think if you have money for private school you basically have money to flush down the toilet (and there's a small chance i could be paying for private school some day). anyway. worth it? who the fu@k knows. its the price you pay to live in this city. you have to have $$$ to have flexibility and options here, educational opportunities included.

how about this, i think that only the top tiers are worth this insane price. they are a high quality product.

i completely agree with you. a person who has what it takes will get there.

sorry, uwsmom, lucillebluth, i don't agree. my husband and i both improved our situations tremendously, but i had numerous friends who were just as smart and talented who went nowhere (or worse), and i don't see it as being due to their lack of effort.

there are different personalities, and they are a function of both genetics and environment. some kids are hard-wired for a high likelihood of success, others need more assistance.

for what it's worth, our kid is in a top tier and will be for the entire 13 years. my second choice school was not a top tier, and we would have selected it over the other two top tiers that were available to us. i understand that the admissions process is pretty awful now, it didn't seem that bad when we did it, although everyone claimed it was horrible then too.

at the lower school level, unless it were a school i really liked, i don't think in an ideal world i'd select most private schools over a good public option. but middle school is another matter. i'd take a second tier private over all but a tiny handful of public middle school options. and getting into middle school, both public and private, is already a fright, i can't imagine what it will be like in 3-7 years.

i always said that, short of having to live in the park, i would give up all comforts and luxuries necessary to allow me to pay for the best schools my kids wanted to and could get into--from pre school through grad school--many would call me nuts

and ive been lucky to be able to provide this without huge duress--aint exactly been stress-tested--tho i have had to endure flying coach!!

basically i put my kids' education in a different economy as i make choices with my money---and my kids will not (so far) inherit money such that they wont need to work

Wbottom, it's true that education and love are the only things you can really give your kids to prepare them for the world.

It's great that people do this but sometimes I think this goes to far - probably not in your case as you can do it without undue duress. But, onecan send your kids to Horace Mann and still not guarantee they get into Harvard; once can even send one's kids to Horace Mann and Harvard and still not guarantee they'll be a "success" professionally and/or financially. I think as long as it's done with understanding that your kids will have their own temperments, dreams, goals, and abilities you can't go wrong. And if it's done with the understanding that a good education is valuable in and of itself, regardless of where one ultimately goes to college or does with their career.

But sometimes I think parents - not saying this is you - these days put themselves into a precarious financial situation for their kids education, and I'm not sure how worth it this is. It's one thing to buy or rent a smaller apartment and forgo flatscreen TVs and luxury vacations; it's quite another if the kids can hear sense their parents stress and overhear tense late night conversations over household finances. Again, don't think this is your case, but I have seen families do this.

way true all dat, kspeak

and it aint necesarily horace mann--might be putney--and it aint "success", it's happiness---and it aint what i want for my kids, it's what they want for themselves (with some guidance and, frankly, subtle manipulation)--but, whatever they want, and can achieve, i want to best support, and education is most of that--

and woe be unto those who pressure their kids to perform in the context of the sacrifices made to provide the venue for them; whether it be school, sports or any program supported with time and money by parents

The # of school age children on the UWS, UES & downtown has increased in the last 5 years. Without a doubt. Most of those kids are destined for public school, which is why you have now (finally, after many years of warnings by local pols & activists) the issue of catchment kids not being able to attend their local school.
Whether that translates into greater difficulty in the private school admissions process, I don't know. Maybe somewhat - the number of applicants to private schools has increased, but not by as much as the number of kids going to public school.

The child who gets multiple offers to private schools is rare today. There are always a handful per preschool, but most people don't get multiple offers and often have to work waitlists.

As for "value" - it means different things to different people. The "value" provided by a top-tier school derives largely from the peer group and the luxury that the admissions people have in shaping their parent body. A "lesser" private school spends the same $ on the same things (maybe a little less endowment $), so from that point it provides the same "value" per dollar spent. But you just don't get the same student body.

it also depends on the child and his/her temperment. some children do much better being at the top of the heap, and will feel less secure in a highly competitive environment. some will thrive anywhere. sadly, even if you have a very close relationship with your young child, these things aren't that apparent at the age of 4 or 5, which is why reassessing a child's educational situation is so valuable, and one of the many reasons our system is less than ideal, because there isn't a great deal of room for flexibility and change.

10023, there are still kids getting multiple offers. not as many, certainly, but there are.

there are parents at our kid's school who are fairly unhappy with their situations. and others, like us, who are overjoyed to be where we are. if i were among the former group rather than the latter i'd suspect i'd think the value was a great deal less. for me a great deal of the value comes from the teachers, who are magnificent, and the administration, who i've always felt had an in-depth understanding of our daughter and has always been 100% supportive of her, even to the point of adapting a writing curriculum for her to maximize her productivity (she hated writing, they came up with a very novel solution that they now use regularly for the second and third grade classes). everything, soup to nuts, is included in the curriculum, swimming, dance, instrumentals, photography, etc., eliminating the need for after school activities for those who, like us, don't want to do them.

Sure, but a few kids getting multiple offers doesn't change the anxiety-ridden process for the majority. Just from a # of total spots available/applicants perspective, it is "harder" today. There are very few kids who are truly shut out of private school entirely (the whole tier issue).

of course it's worse. that's what we've been harping on for years. too many kids, not enough development of school spots. and sadly, you're right in the thick of it. over the next however many years things should rebalance with the addition of a few new schools and some migration toward suburban schools. hopefully by the time your kids hit middle school that will have been accomplished, but it's stunning how slowly these things progress. if the rebalancing doesn't occur i don't see how there won't be a huge number of children shut out of private school entirely down the road.

i'd say that even worse than the situation for current seekers of elementary school spots is those looking for middle school spots during the next couple of years. the middle schools draw from much larger communities, obviously, and were much less capable of being improved by local parent groups.

Governesses are lookin' pretty good, right?

From my point of view (housewife), the public school day is unnecessarily long. I would love it if school ended at 12:30pm. Pick up the kids and have them eat lunch at home, and off we trot to some after-school thing. Matt, don't respond.

12:30?
You have to be kidding me.
If your not on top of your child's school work plus augmenting it with after school programs that enhance their education (physical and mental) you're going to have an under stimulated, under educated adult on your hands. We live in a world that rewards those most capable and most able. If you leave that to the school and don't take an active role through involvement and enrichment...keep your expectations low.
Children follow the example set by their parents. If your asleep at the wheel don't expect to get very far.

ar....stanford.....go figure

if you're saying what i think you're saying, wbottom, congrats. i think our kid would be miserable if she went there because we'd likely follow her to the area!

10023, you have SOO much more stamina than i do. of course, you drop off and pick up in the neighborhood. during K if i used public transportation it took me well over an hour door to door for each drop off and pick up. and she had fewer hours than she did in our local preschool. i was very put out, i must say, even though it was all my own fault.

a governess might be a superb option for you with your three.

"...has there ever been a 20-year period in real estate history that didn't present the patient buyer with a very attractive (define however you like) opportunity? I am genuinely curious. If not, please tell me why "this time is different"."

The mistake you are making it counting just off the top of a bubble.

At the top of a bubble, EVERY MOMENT before looks like an opportunity. In the tech bubble, EVERY dip in the decades before was an "opportunity".

But most actually weren't.

You are making the mistake of "this time its different"... in expecting this bubble to hold, when they never have.

i would like to see data on what various private school products do after college. does it exist? that would be far more interesting and informative than exmissions numbers.

I've only seen average salaries X years after graduation by quartile, and its college-based. Yale wins, Princeton is second.

Falco: I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There is no need for a child (esp. under 10) to be in public school for more than 4 hours a day. The academics could easily be taught/learned in 4 hours. The extra-curriculars/art/music/sports are virtually non-existent for most NYC publics. "Middle-class" parents such as myself who have time would benefit if we could get our kids home earlier so that they can be schlepped for activities. Very, very few people have a school-home commute as short as we do, and it's a struggle to motivate a child to then go and have an "enrichment" activity. We try to keep weekends free of scheduled stuff.

there's a great malcolm gladwell article from the ny'er a few years back that seeks to deal with this--tough to measure--how to quantify "success"?--certainly isn't all about $$

and where $$ are concerned, the children of parents wealthy enough to send them to private schools benefit from a legacy effect that is much more powerful as kids enter the workforce, as it is for college admissions--a legacy without at least decent grades aint going to harvard--that same kid can get a job at goldman out of a lesser school based on serious business brought by daddy

uwsmom, i agree - would love to see stats on what private school products do after college. that is, if you look at Ivy League schools, do the private school grads do better or the public school grads.

Anecdotally - my husband and I went to Ivy League schools so have good perpsective probably as most others's do - it seems to me that the private schools kids from my college may have on the whole better done financially. This isn't suprising because they know how to play the game better from the outset and are better connected, and private schools emphasis well roundedness almost to a fault, and this goes a long way in business. The public schools kids tend to be more variable - more of them have done exceptionally well financially or started their own companies, mayben but the average or medium is lower ... certainly more of them are doing more jobs that are good for the world - engineers, teachers, doctors, etc. I also totally believe that Yale and Princeton have higher salaries than Harvard - they tend to look for well-rounded people whereas Harvard looks for a well-rounded class. But I bet Harvard has more outliers, more mega-successes ...

I have a major college reunion coming up this weekend so will look to see if this is still true because I haven't been back in 5 years.

AR and I disagree about a lot of things but I get her liking that private schools come packaged with after school activities. It's not that you don't want to think through stimulating your kids, but it makes logistics so much easier, especially when both parents work.

Yep, the schlepping to afterschool after a long day is hard, even when you have super-short commutes like me between school, home & afterschool stuff.

How about we cut the school day by 1/3 and teachers' pay by 1/4?

Malcolm Gladwell - product of the Canadian public school system :)

yes. if i recall correctly from Outliers, kids from wealthy families also have the added benefit of increased self-confidence, self-worth, and assertiveness that serves them well in the classroom and workplace.

"success" is terribly hard to quantify. my husband always says he doesn't wish his career on our children.

everyone i know who has an "interesting" job is the product of private school. judges, restaurant owners, editors of major intellectual publications, writers, etc. i know plenty of private school grads (and public) who went on to high paying jobs but i know few public school grads who went on to the quirkier careers.

it may have changed but back in my day harvard was known for selecting valedictorians.

uwsmom, i agree with your husband. my husband wanted to go into not-for-profit law. there was no way we could afford that. if our daughter wanted to do not-for-profit law, she'd be able to.

partner in a law firm? not-for-profit attorney? which is more successful?

"I also totally believe that Yale and Princeton have higher salaries than Harvard - they tend to look for well-rounded people whereas Harvard looks for a well-rounded class. But I bet Harvard has more outliers, more mega-successes ..."

Yale won in the top 25% too... handily. If you want billionaires... seems like the ticket is to drop out of Harvard.

If your parents can afford private school comfortably -> then you probably have the choice of a less well-paid career or be able to take risks.

Though, if the trust fund/inheritance isn't big enough, you end up coming full circle - 1st gen sends 2nd gen off to private school. 2nd gen takes less lucrative career path and ends up regretting it because they can't give the 3rd gen the same lifestyle they had (I know a few of these too).

"Malcolm Gladwell - product of the Canadian public school system :)"

Malcolm Gladwell is full of shit.

Go back to drooling over formica countertops :) I hope you don't read Vanity Fair...

hahaha Matt. i kinda had the same feeling about him.

"I also totally believe that Yale and Princeton have higher salaries than Harvard - they tend to look for well-rounded people whereas Harvard looks for a well-rounded class."

I also think your estimation is false. I think all the schools look for the outliers, the olympian, the world-class musician, whatever. Nobody is turning they down. And the admissions committee at Yale isn't looking for the folks int he middle.

I think Yale just does a better job of looking at the potential side, versus Harvard looking for the kids who already have the resume. Harvard gets more kids who are impressive going in, Yale seems to do a better job of getting kids with the potential that flowers later.

and its also self-selecting. Harvard has the unfortunate problem of getting more of the people who are going because it is harvard (or yale or princeton). The folks who are picking by ranking. Much like much of NYC. I was always surprised to hear the number of Yalies who never applied to Harvard. The kids who are picking the school for the school (and if you are picking Yale for the school itself, you probably don't like harvard).

> Malcolm Gladwell is full of shit.

Most of Gladwell's ideas are not his own. He's a good author and speaker, but the insight is often borrowed (and he'll admit it).

I'm in the curious position of sending my kids to a school that is by almost every metric worse than the (private) school I attended. It's a weird feeling.

I thought he made some excellent points in the health care debate (with the other Canadian Adam Gopnik).

>> I also think your estimation is false. I think all the schools look for the outliers, the olympian, the world-class musician, whatever. Nobody is turning they down. And the admissions committee at Yale isn't looking for the folks int he middle.

Nobody's turning a world-class musician or an Olympian down if they have decent grades. But my experience is, given equal grades, Harvard is more likely to take the kid who is REALLY good at music and Princeton will take the kid who has the same grades and was in the school play and who captains the lacrosse team but wouldn't necessarily be able to act or play sports professionally. My quote "Harvard looks for a well rounded class, we look for well-rounded people" is actually a quote from a friend in Princeton admissions.

>> Yale won in the top 25% too... handily. If you want billionaires... seems like the ticket is to drop out of Harvard.

Yes, but by definition the top 25% of the class is not outliers. I'm talking about the real outliers - people who start companies .. many of them are dropouts but this doesn't disprove the point.

It's definitely self-selecting to some extent. Harvard's in a city and has huge grad schools, Princeton is an undergrad focused school with a state-school like social life (only eatings clubs instead of "fraternities").