"completely ignores that public universities ALSO have endowments which are also not taxed, and should also be factored into the equation" About 2/3rds of the

"completely ignores that public universities ALSO have endowments which are also not taxed, and should also be factored into the equation" About 2/3rds of the way through the first page, the author addresses not only that topic, but even references the endowment of the University of Texas system. I quote: > More substantively, Schneider and Klor de Alva’s report probably exaggerates the overall subsidy gap between elite private and state colleges to a degree. For instance, it doesn’t count the tax savings that some large state institutions enjoy on their own endowments—the University of Texas at Austin, for instance, is part of a nine-school system with a $25.4 billion endowment, while Rutgers has more than $900 million to its name. The study also doesn’t consider subsidies from the federal Pell grant program, which mostly benefit lower- and middle-income students at public institutions. And, perhaps most importantly, it probably overstates how much money colleges are saving thanks to their nonprofit status each year, because it treats all increases in the value of their endowments as taxable income, whether or not they were actually realized.