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.
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.
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".
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.
