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.