Boston is the home to 27 colleges and over 100,000 undergraduate students. With a high number of those students residing off campus, it comes as no surprise to see an entire apartment building filled with a majority of undergraduate students. From Dexter Park in Brookline, Audubon Park in Audubon Circle, to the Atrium in Packard’s Corner, Boston University students especially, make up a good percentage of the residing population. BU’s tuition is priced at such a high level that it is no surprise that students who can afford the tuition can also afford to live in a luxury apartment building. The same goes for many of the other schools in the city. Why is it then that some landlords and apartment buildings chose not to allow undergraduates even when they can afford it?
Why Would Landlords not allow Students?
Of course there’s the perception that undergraduates will wreck the place with their parties and hooliganism. Moreover, when presented with tenants of equal financial stability, a landlord would rather not have to put up with the headaches that might come along with their undergraduate tenant if they don’t have to. Buildings like the Trilogy, Boylston 1330, and Church Park (to name a few) are some examples of these landlords. Since age is a protected class and cannot be used as discrimination when choosing tenants, even a 50 year old undergraduate student (who writes that they are such on their application) would be turned down from these buildings according to their “no undergraduate” policy. Student status is not a protected class, therefore landlords are able to discriminate based on a wide variety of criteria relating to students. For instance, certain apartments are known to expand their no undergraduate policy to include law school students. To these landlords, there’s nothing worse than a know-it-all law school student threatening to sue you as a class exercise. Again, law school students are also not protected in MA, and therefore, can legally be discriminated against when choosing tenants. Beyond law school students and undergraduates, the other most commonly, but legally, discriminated against class is the pet owner (see Pet Friendly Boston Apartments).
Ironically, many of the apartment buildings that allow pets do not allow undergraduates. Interpret that as you will. Some students have been able to bend the rules and work their way around these policies by having a parent sign for an apartment, however, this is not advised as it could result in eviction. The best advice I have is do the research to find out which apartments will allow undergraduates to live there before viewing an apartment.
Related Articles:
Tim Ryan 
To call it “discriminating” to not allow renters based on student status or pets is not appropriate when both are choices the individual makes. One doesn’t choose one’s own race, gender, or age and those should be never be the basis for hiring. However, owning a pet or being a student are both choices the individual makes and for you to write a blog post about how these are some sort of underprivalaged class is pretty silly and will only seek to annoy the various landlords or infuriate any students that may read this. Come on.
I disagree with Alan. Sexual orientation is a choice. Does that mean if a landlord choses not to rent to homosexuals is that not discrimination? Political party affiliation is also a choice. Can one chose to only rent to Republicans and not Democrats? I am sure there are countless more examples to why choice has nothing to do with this.
Seems to me that Alan’s argument is the one that is pretty silly.