Other experts, including Lester Thurow, the prominent MIT economist and author, predicted less drastic results, but all agreed that the argument used by the administration and conservative legislators--that lower taxes will aid all aspects of the economy--will probably not make up for the universities' losses.

"The offset lactor of people having more money in their packets to give is not a very powerful effect--not even worth mentioning." Auerbach said.

Depreciation Acceleration

Corporations will have less incentive to make tax-free contributions to universities because the Reagan plan will reduce their taxable income as they are allowed to accelerate write-offs for equipment and facilities depreciation. Companies are allowed to give a certain percentage of their taxable income to charity without paying federal levies on it.

Coddington cited studies conducted by Thurow and Martin S. Feldstein, professor of Economics at Harvard and director of the NBER, that predict that the government could eventually eliminate those taxes on profits and thereby end any incentive for corporations to contribute to universities.

Bad Precedents

The Harvard lobbyist also said two secondary aspects of the tax bill--the establishment of income ceilings for certain benefits and the introduction of specific time limits for other new rules, a practice known as "sunsetting"--will set long-term precedents greatly feared by university development officers.

If expanded in the coming years, these restrictions could hurt Harvard's efforts to cultivate contributions from very wealthy supporters who either would not qualify under the income ceilings or might be hesitant to undertake long-term estate donations under federal guidelines which could change after expiring.

On the positive side, Coddington said Harvard and other schools had won only minimal victories in creating certain incentives for industrial support of campus research, which he said "will not stimulate very much new investment.