Endowment tax proposal harms schools with more international students
Because the legislation excludes international students from student population counts, schools with more foreign students will have higher calculated ratios of endowment per student, which could subject them to higher tax rates on their endowments.
Baala Shakya, Photography Editor
A Republican budget proposal advanced by the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday could disadvantage universities with large international student populations.
The legislation, called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” establishes a tiered system for school endowment taxes, composed of five levels. The rate is determined by the student-adjusted endowment — a term which encapsulates the ratio between the total endowment and full-time student population. Under the current proposal, international students are excluded from the student population.
According to Harvard Law lecturer Elizabeth King LAW ’18, the definition “disadvantages” universities with significant international student populations.
Lauren Libby GRD ’29, a doctoral candidate at Yale Law School, echoed these remarks. She pointed to Harvard University as a hypothetical example. During the 2024-25 academic year, international students accounted for around 27 percent of Harvard’s total student enrollment.
She noted that under the bill’s definition, the student population recognized in the tax legislation is smaller than Harvard’s actual student population, which increases its student-adjusted endowment. The calculation that excludes international students causes the amount of Harvard’s assets per student to appear to increase.
“It makes them essentially seem wealthier as in terms of an asset to student ratio,” Libby told the News. In this way, the legislation “only cares about how much money you have in your endowment that could be spent on U.S. citizens.”
A Yale webpage claims that international students account for 28 percent of the University’s total enrollment.
Eric Kelderman, a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education, told the News that he did not believe the proposed legislation would discourage universities from accepting international students because many international students pay full tuition.
Rather, Kelderman noted, the proposed legislation seems to encourage the expansion of domestic students’ enrollment. He believes that institutions may attempt to alter the size of their student population to change the student-adjusted endowment ratio and receive a lower tax rate.
“The thinking is for some of these schools, there might be a trade off. They might enroll more domestic students to avoid the tax,” Kelderman said.
If schools wanted to preserve their current class sizes, Kelderman acknowledged that enrolling more domestic students would mean admitting fewer international students.
Jennifer Berkshire, a Yale education studies professor, told the News that it remains to be seen whether institutions will be discouraged from enrolling international students. She also noted that funding challenges for universities will impact financial aid and schools will thus be incentivized to enroll full-tuition paying students.
Yale College’s need-blind admissions policy — in which ability to pay tuition does not affect admission — applies to both domestic and international applicants.
The budget proposal’s advancement through Congress occurred while the Trump administration moved to revoke Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students.
On Friday, Harvard filed a lawsuit in response, and within hours, a federal judge halted the executive order and will hear arguments during the upcoming week.