Can we afford to live in the city and raise a family? (Chicago: transfer, middle schools)

[rparz]

Originally Posted by hindukid

You can trust Chet or you can trust US News. Fact is that US News ranks every high school in the state and the top 4 schools are all in the city of Chicago.

Fact is also that Northside Prep and Walter Payton have higher ACT scores than any public high school in the suburbs including New Trier and Stevenson. Its not just "weak Illinois tests" but also the college entrance exam.

Also this does not take into account that attending a CPS magnet school your child will be exposed to a wealth of socio-economic and racial diversity that just is not going to happen in the burbs.

That's all well and fine. (and true)

The only issue is that the competition for these slots is beyond fierce and extremely limited.

Approx # of students from families able to move to burbs: 18,000
# of seats available at schools mentioned: 3,000
New CPS changes raise bar even higher for many North Side students - Chicago Tribune

So, what about the other 84% of families?
You tout the prestige of the best schools in CPS, but the number of families actually able to attend is slightly larger than a rounding error.

[Ace Rothstein]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

True for High Schools, but not for elemetary schools. There are plenty of good CPS non-magnet elementary schools.

Agreed but most people don't have an extra $40-60k to spend on putting their kids through high school and then even more to assist with college tuition. Who wants to take the chance that your kid doesn't get one of those coveted spots if you can't afford private school tuition?

[Aleking]

Remember, Chet is a real estate agent with a financial interest in driving people to his favorite ctrl-v suburbs.

[chet everett]

No. No "financial interest" is steering anyone anywhere whatsoever. Just trying my best to help folks. Honestly. I'll post my 1040 and that clearly shows I make plenty of money but not from real estate.

[hindukid]

Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein

Nobody is doubting the best schools in the state aren't in CPS. It is just VERY difficult to get into those schools. Lots of applications, very few accepted.

Actually that post was written because Chet directly stated that the best schools in the city were not as good as the best schools in the burbs.

[Ace Rothstein]

Originally Posted by hindukid

Actually that post was written because Chet directly stated that the best schools in the city were not as good as the best schools in the burbs.

Well there is a reason a Chicago magnet is going to test better than suburban schools. Suburban schools have to take every student within the district. I doubt there is any difference amongst the top schools in the best suburban districts compared to the city magnets.

[hindukid]

Originally Posted by rparz

That's all well and fine. (and true)

The only issue is that the competition for these slots is beyond fierce and extremely limited.

Approx # of students from families able to move to burbs: 18,000
# of seats available at schools mentioned: 3,000
New CPS changes raise bar even higher for many North Side students - Chicago Tribune

So, what about the other 84% of families?
You tout the prestige of the best schools in CPS, but the number of families actually able to attend is slightly larger than a rounding error.

Not saying that its easy to get into one of these selective schools but I don't think that is so difficult either. I'd give a kid a better chance of getting into one of the top 4 schools than I would getting into the Ivy league. And quite frankly I don't think its all that impossible to get into an ivy league school. Difficult yes but not impossible.

A lot of this depends on who you are and what you are used to. In my eyes top 16% has never really meant much as from an academic standpoint top 5% was generally easily achievable. I don't have a kid but kind of think that if I did top 16% would probably be not all that difficult. I'm pretty sure that with all the resources my brothers kids have only finishing top 16% would be not that great. Now I do fully realize that you can't expect your kids to be able to do everything you can, but I have some expectations. Really no relative of mine has really been close to placing outside the top 10% on a standardized exam and I don't really expect that to change anytime soon, but as we enter a new generation I suppose anything is possible.

Sorry if I am rambling, but all I am really trying to say is that I don't think its so difficult to get in and I would not leave the city until the time really comes to worry about it. Personally if I had a kid my plan would be to try and get them into one of the magnet elementary schools and if that didn't work out just send them to the local elementary knowing that isn't too bad.

Since that buys me ten years I can not worry about the high school issue until then. Hopefully in ten years the schools will be much better as we have had a lot of gentrification in the city. Even if the schools are not better there is a good chance they get into a selective high school, and if that fails then I will look into moving to the burbs or attending private school.

My overall point is that for most reading this discussion the real problems are not going to arise for another 6-10 years. I would rather just live where I want to now and deal with the problem when and if it comes, then make life sacrifices to avoid something that may never even be an issue.

[chet everett]

Check back with me after the pension funding crisis decimates more of the whole system...

The Myth of American Meritocracy | How corrupt are Ivy League admissions?

Originally Posted by hindukid

Not saying that its easy to get into one of these selective schools but I don't think that is so difficult either. I'd give a kid a better chance of getting into one of the top 4 schools than I would getting into the Ivy league. And quite frankly I don't think its all that impossible to get into an ivy league school. Difficult yes but not impossible.

A lot of this depends on who you are and what you are used to. In my eyes top 16% has never really meant much as from an academic standpoint top 5% was generally easily achievable. I don't have a kid but kind of think that if I did top 16% would probably be not all that difficult. I'm pretty sure that with all the resources my brothers kids have only finishing top 16% would be not that great. Now I do fully realize that you can't expect your kids to be able to do everything you can, but I have some expectations. Really no relative of mine has really been close to placing outside the top 10% on a standardized exam and I don't really expect that to change anytime soon, but as we enter a new generation I suppose anything is possible.

Sorry if I am rambling, but all I am really trying to say is that I don't think its so difficult to get in and I would not leave the city until the time really comes to worry about it. Personally if I had a kid my plan would be to try and get them into one of the magnet elementary schools and if that didn't work out just send them to the local elementary knowing that isn't too bad.

Since that buys me ten years I can not worry about the high school issue until then. Hopefully in ten years the schools will be much better as we have had a lot of gentrification in the city. Even if the schools are not better there is a good chance they get into a selective high school, and if that fails then I will look into moving to the burbs or attending private school.

My overall point is that for most reading this discussion the real problems are not going to arise for another 6-10 years. I would rather just live where I want to now and deal with the problem when and if it comes, then make life sacrifices to avoid something that may never even be an issue.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Check back with me after the pension funding crisis decimates more of the whole system...

I know, the suburbs are ****ed.

[key4lp]

Originally Posted by rparz

Simple fact is that 4br housing wasn't all that common until the last 15-20 years. It was 3 bd houses in the 60's and 70's, and before that, 2bd was common. What's the average age of the housing stock you're looking at?

Unless you find something with newer construction or take on the modifications yourself, you'll have to look to more recent developments.

Veering off a bit but I am curious why (not only the OP) so many home buyers who have no children or
one child need a 2000 sq. ft. home. Unless, they plan to have several kids. This bigger is better
(like the above quote) has been a trend for 20 years. Geez, even though we were able to afford
a large home, who wants to take care of all that space (not including the basement)?