This is very true. NYU and Columbia should not be treated as not-for-profit because they’re not. And they also take money from sovereign and let them influence research and curriculum. They do not deliver the value even remotely commensurate with tax savings they enjoy. Especially NYU. Only schools of value at NYU is medical, law, and film. So roughly 3,000 students. They enjoy billions in tax savings and not even remotely close to what’s returned by those 3,000 students remaining in NYC after graduation.

> Only schools of value at NYU is medical, law, and film. So roughly 3,000 students.

NYU has 26,000 undergraduate students--is this not of value? Seems like a very broad brush with which to paint the largest university in New York.

NYU is run like a business and for-profit. Undergraduate is mediocre at best for underperforming students.

NYU is literally a non-profit. What do you mean by "run like a for-profit"?

It's eye wateringly expensive because the mortgages is paying off mortgages for buying skyscrapers in downtown Manhattan in the 90s, despite have pretty crappy dorms and student facilities and they've been pushing BS cow master degrees that are in the $140-170k range for 2 years while diluting traditionally strong like Stern. And the exit opportunities aren't that impressive unless you attended Stern undergrad.

I've had plenty of friends attend there for grad and undergrad, and I also had the choice to attend for undergrad years ago, but decided against for the reasons above.

You'd be better off attending a regional program that is specialized in your disciple than NYU.

You're allowed to not like the school, but I don't think any of that amounts to operating like a for-profit organization.

I agree it is not a for-profit institution, but I assume the commentator is using "for profit" in the colloquial manner for "non-profit that is charging exorbitant amounts".

Pedantry and HN - name a more classic combo

I think the distinction is relevant if we're discussing whether they deserve non-profit tax breaks.

"Their tuition is expensive" isn't a good reason to exclude them from the tax break. "They are abusing their non-profit status to basically operate as a for-profit corporation" would be a good reason, but I don't think it's true.

"Their tuition is expensive" – i.e. their fee structure excludes most American families from even having the university in their child's consideration set – is a valid reason to have them pay taxes, actually.

Uh, Courant?

And most of NYU CAS (which Courant is a part of) for grad school for that matter.

I knew I’d get this response and that’s very fair. It’s a great school for quants but it’s also very small.

> BUT, I think it's absolutely fair to keep tax breaks only for buildings used primarily for educational/research and related activities (like dorm rooms and student centers and research labs).

According to https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/nyregion/columbia-univers...

>> Universities, including Columbia, pay tax on properties they own that are not used for educational purposes.

So I don't think they're able to just become tax-free real-estate investors, although I don't know where the dividing line is?

Thanks for that link/explanation.

So then I'm even more confused -- it doesn't seem like Columbia/NYU are taking up all that much land then?

It's just that their college campuses are in Manhattan which has some of the most expensive real estate in the country.

But the whole point of tax exemptions is to be able to place things like universities on land that would otherwise get turned into office buildings and Starbucks.

The size of those exemptions in absolute dollar terms doesn't seem relevant at all, as long as the total amount of land being used is reasonable for a university campus, which it seems like it is.

I mean what's next -- are we going to start asking about the property taxes that New York Public Library real estate could otherwise generate, especially with its majestic building on 5th Ave?

Um...reading the article, the proposed change would apply to all universities, museums, and other non-profits. (See 4th paragraph.) Columbia and NYU are merely a couple click-baity names, and currently "earning" the most $$$ by taking advantage of the long-running exemption.

That's not true (paragraph 12):

"The legislation would only apply to Columbia and N.Y.U. and not other large private universities that own significant land, such as Cornell University in Ithaca. Lawmakers said that other universities would be excluded because their tax breaks are far lower than those of Columbia’s and N.Y.U.’s; the annual real estate tax exemption threshold would be $100 million."

Sure sounds to me like the other institutions are only "excluded" because they aren't currently making enough money to qualify for the tax. Kinda like I was "excluded" from itemizing deductions on my 1040 last year, due to insufficient mortgage and medical expenses. But my cousin Sam was not excluded. Same tax law applies to both of us.

Fair enough. We would need to wait and see the actual piece of legislation and I assume they wouldn't single out these institutions otherwise it would be too easy to contest at the state supreme court.

Here's the text to the amendment and, for now, it's just about allowing the state government to start taxing private institutions of higher education (not museums nor other non-profits though): https://www.nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=S...