Private Schools: Overpriced with Minimal Real Value

Recently, I came across a striking table highlighting the skyrocketing expenses associated with private schools in New York City. The data was eye-opening, revealing just how rapidly these costs have escalated over recent years. Genes Drive Success More Than Schooling To put this in perspective, the

Recently, I came across a striking table highlighting the skyrocketing expenses associated with private schools in New York City. The data was eye-opening, revealing just how rapidly these costs have escalated over recent years.

Genes Drive Success More Than Schooling

To put this in perspective, the yearly tuition at Harvard University stands at $59,320 for the 2025-2026 academic year, which is more than $3,000 below the price tag of the least expensive private high school featured in that list. This raises serious questions: how can high schools possibly demand higher fees than one of the world's most elite universities? The answer lies in the persuasive marketing that private institutions have directed toward America's wealthiest families, convincing them that such premiums are justified.

However, the reality paints a different picture. Private education represents one of the priciest ineffective remedies available in the country today. Substantial evidence supports this claim, drawing from rigorous scientific analysis.

Experts examining the factors influencing children's long-term achievements typically divide them into three key categories: genetic inheritance, shared environmental influences, and unique individual experiences. Genetic factors refer to the inherited DNA passed down from parents and ancestors. Shared environments encompass elements common to siblings, such as family upbringing, household dynamics, and the schools they attend together. Non-shared environments include personal differences like individual friendships, specific teachers encountered, or unique life events.

Researchers quantify these elements by contrasting outcomes between identical twins, who share 100% of their genes, and fraternal twins, who share about 50%. This comparison isolates the genetic contribution from environmental ones. For identical twins, any variations in results must stem from non-shared environments since they experience identical genetics and shared settings. For fraternal twins, differences arise from a mix of genetics and non-shared factors.

Behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin detailed this methodology in his influential book, Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are. Analyzing extensive datasets on educational performance, Plomin reached a compelling insight: the heritability of school achievement hovers around 60% throughout the schooling period, surpassing even the 40% heritability typically attributed to intelligence itself.

Thus, genetic differences account for 60% of variations in academic success among children. The remaining 40% splits between shared and non-shared environments. Studies indicate that roughly half of this portion—about 20% overall—comes from shared factors like family life and school attendance. Plomin elaborated that elements such as growing up in the same household or attending identical institutions explain just 20% of variance in K-12 achievement, dropping to under 10% for university-level performance.

Consider the implications: every moment spent parenting, every decision on child-rearing, every choice of educational institution—these collectively influence only 20% of scholastic results. While not insignificant, this portion hardly warrants the massive financial outlay demanded by elite private schools.

Moreover, direct assessments of school quality reveal even smaller impacts. In the UK, Plomin's research showed that school caliber accounts for less than 2% of test score differences once prior achievements are factored in. Essentially, top-tier schools do not elevate student performance; they simply admit those already predisposed to excel.

This dynamic underscores a fundamental truth: students shape the reputation of their schools far more than schools shape their students.

Elite Schools Select Winners, They Don't Create Them

One might counter that while average schools show limited effects, highly selective ones provide a clear edge. Yet, empirical studies consistently refute this notion. Researchers employ regression discontinuity designs, which involve scrutinizing outcomes for students just barely qualifying for admission versus those just missing the mark.

Take New York's competitive high schools, for instance, which rely on strict entrance exam thresholds. Those scoring marginally above gain entry, while those slightly below do not. This setup allows comparisons between students of virtually identical aptitude, differing only by a question or two on the test that dictates their next four years of education.

If selective institutions truly transformed lives, those barely admitted should dramatically outperform their counterparts. However, data from the National Bureau of Economic Research reveals no such disparity, even among the highest-potential candidates near the cutoff. Selective exam schools yield negligible boosts in achievement.

In short, these schools post impressive results because they cherry-pick talent already on track for success. School selection certainly plays a role, but opting for a strong public option over a costly private one shows no substantial long-term benefit. A 2006 study from the American Educational Research Association confirmed this after adjusting for demographics: any apparent private school edge vanished, sometimes flipping negative.

Similar patterns emerge in voucher initiatives, where public school students received opportunities to switch to private ones. Evaluations, including those from multiple years of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, found no meaningful gains in test scores—and in some instances, declines.

Networking Benefits Favor the Outsiders

Some parents prioritize not the curriculum but the peers and connections their children will form. They argue that the real value of private school lies in the network of high-achieving classmates. Intriguingly, evidence partially validates this view, though with a crucial caveat: such networks prove most beneficial to those starting from the periphery.

A study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics analyzed college selectivity's impact. Students at more elite institutions generally earned comparable incomes to similar-ability peers at less prestigious ones. However, low-income students saw significant earnings uplifts from attending selective colleges.

The paradox is stark: affluent families, who can foot private school bills, already possess robust networks through professional circles, neighborhoods, and social ties. They gain little extra from elite schooling. Conversely, disadvantaged families stand to benefit immensely but lack the resources to access it.

This aligns with logic and personal anecdotes. I attended a underperforming high school where 89% of students, including myself, qualified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. Leadership roles often went unfulfilled, and elite connections were absent.

My admission to Stanford changed that trajectory. The access to influential peers and faculty provided pivotal support during and after my studies. Without it, my current achievements would be unattainable.

For families bereft of such networks, investing in entry can pay dividends. Yet for high earners, diverting funds to tuition squanders potential. That quarter-million dollars in skipped payments, wisely invested, could grow to $400,000 in today's dollars—enough for a home down payment when your child reaches 30. They'll appreciate the foresight someday.