> And for another, in the process of seeking to maximize its gain from technologies discovered in its labs, the University of Chicago now does more than participate in licensing. It actively invests in start-ups by its faculty, millions of dollars in dozens of investments. Quite apart from the fact that these investments have mostly been a bust, the practice raises serious questions. Can a university make rational decisions about the value of a given employee when it co-invests in commercial ventures with that employee?
> And more seriously, where does the money come from? Is the university driving down what it spends to educate its own students so that it can use unrestricted funds to invest in startups? Or is the university functioning as a kind of tax-free pass-through organization? Does it receive third-party money that it invests as a tax-free enterprise, to the benefit of other investors in the same start-up?
> Spending as little tuition as possible on educating students, and (instead) investing in start-ups ... This is why I say the University of Chicago’s leadership and trustees run it as a tax-free technology incubator. All of which raises the question, whether an operation of this kind deserves the status of 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
dskrvk•5mo ago
> And more seriously, where does the money come from? Is the university driving down what it spends to educate its own students so that it can use unrestricted funds to invest in startups? Or is the university functioning as a kind of tax-free pass-through organization? Does it receive third-party money that it invests as a tax-free enterprise, to the benefit of other investors in the same start-up?
> Spending as little tuition as possible on educating students, and (instead) investing in start-ups ... This is why I say the University of Chicago’s leadership and trustees run it as a tax-free technology incubator. All of which raises the question, whether an operation of this kind deserves the status of 501(c)(3) charitable organization.