I was on the Cal football board -- I'm a double alum, after all -- and I came across an item forwarding a memo from the Berkeley chancellor to faculty and staff. It said that Berkeley had admitted 23% OOS students for the upcoming freshman class. This is an increase from the former 20% goal. The Chancellor was *quite* candid -- he said one purpose was to increase geographical diversity, but the big purpose was to raise revenue. All this is a change for Berkeley, which used to have far fewer undergrad OOS students.
OOS students at Berkeley
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
I think the UC (and Cal State) system could get away with that number in the past and the higher one now since:
1. The instate pool is larger than NJ to begin with.
2. California has quite a few more options than NJ for public/state schools.
3. And I'm guessing there are not as many complaints about this from Sacramento as there would be from Trenton.
*so are you considered a "Platinum Bear" now? LOL
no such luck; instead, I am a "double blue" (Berkeley's colors are blue and gold.) Reminds me of the Steely Dan song: "They call Alabama the Crimson Tide/ Call me deacon blue."
I think that you are right, but it would also require a policy change by the BOG. I think the university's current regulations confine the OOS undergraduate admittees to 11% or so. I do expect more emphasis on OOS students from the Barchi administration, which is motivated, just like Berkeley, by the desires for diversity and for income.
If Barchi is sincere about wanting more OOS students, he should be. I would expect that he would ask BOG for approval of the new approach, and ask them to amend the regulations accordingly.
While I want RU to increase its OOS enrollment (20% or more would be beyond my wildest dreams) I think that it is easier for the UC system to do so. If you want a world renowned Public research university education in New Jersey you choice is RU-NB and ...... while in California you have Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Irvine, Davis (did I miss any) all AAU very respected Research institutions.
The other undergrad campuses are at Merced (the newest campus), Riverside and Santa Cruz -- don't know if any are AAU, but they are good. California, I think, has a higher proportion of college seats compared to the high school graduating class than New Jerseydoes.
RU is respected, but it's not in a "sexy" location like Santa Barbara, and not as close to NYC as Westwood is to LA and Berkeley to SF. That's a big difference.
If RU was in Hoboken we'd be Michigan by now.
If RU was in Hoboken we'd be Michigan by now.
not talking about locations, but amount of seats available at AAU state schools. California has about 5x the population so rightfully so they should have alot of seats, but they ave 6 seperate AAU schools, all large research universitiies. So if UC-Berkeley gets a little tougher to get into that kid will end up at San Diego or Irvine etc. It helps down the line of all the UC schools.
Same if RU-NB were to accept less NJ kids, they would roll down the line to RU-N, TCNJ, Rowan etc, its just that no other NJ state school is comparable to RU-NB, be it for school prestige, size, academic diversity etc.
OK. I took it more to mean location- which is a factor. Someone from California applying to RU likely needs the explanation of where NB is all about, and the explainer may need to work through some stereotypes to get there. Versus Berkeley or UCLA, which are in known, desired locations. It's certainly an easy enough barrier to break, but it's there.
Camdenlaw, I live in California and the newer schools are not part of the AAU and right now UCLA and Berkeley are extremely difficult to get into with UCLA getting the most applications of any school in the US: over 86,000 applications accepting only 17%. The average GPA weighted is 4.15. I believe Berkeley had 77,000 applications and accepted 16.3%.
What many of us in California are concerned about is how the UC schools are letting in more OOS making it harder to get into UCLA, BERKELEY and SAN DIEGO. I know the state wants the higher revenue but its making it even harder to get into your first choice of a UC school. If you graduate in the top 9% of your HS class or rank in the top 9% statewide, you're guaranteed a spot at a UC school, but you have no way of knowing if you have a shot at the big three UC schools (Berkeley, UCLA and San Diego). Last year the UC schools admitted over 18,000 from OOS and country or 23%.
Rutgers on the other hand needs to up their OOS enrollment to 20% making it harder for in-state citizens so that Rutgers becomes a destination school like UCLA and Berkeley and not a safety school for someone applying to a private school OOS. Someone above mentioned that Rutgers lets in 11% but I believe it may be closer to 8% but I may be mistaken.
And I find it galling that there are NJ kids who would prefer to go to Delaware, Penn State and Maryland over Rutgers. In California if you passed up an opportunity to go to a UC school, it means you were rejected and had to go OOS, because you didn't want to go to a Cal State school. There's nothing wrong with getting away from Mommy and Daddy, but going to a similar state school or one that is not as good? I will never understand why kids in NJ want to leave so badly. Maybe because it's small and there are so many other schools outside of NJ within 4 hours of home? Still, there is no reason to see Rutgers slip into mediocrity and I don't think that slide will continue to happen with the merger of the medical schools and Barchi promising to up the OOS enrollment.
I know one thing; it's *very* unlikely that my high school credentials would get me into Berkeley today! I can well understand your concern. But the UC schools are financially strapped, as you know better than I, and are doing everything possible to increase revenues, including by taking OOS and foreign students.
As for NJ's OOs problem, frankly, Rutgers has not yet accumulated the prestige sufficient to persuade NJ parents that it is a better choice than an out-of-state school. I may be wrong, but I think that Rutgers has a reputation of not being a pleasant place to be an undergraduate. But I could well be wrong.
Camden, you're right CA is cash strapped, but I'm really concerned as my son starts HS in the fall. Throughout middle school he has a 3.9 unweighted average which I believe would be around a 4.2 or 4.3 weighted average in HS. He takes a majority of honors classes and he plans to take as many AP courses in HS. Unfortunately, even if he does as well in HS, he may not have a shot at the big 3 schools, but rather have to go to Davis, Santa Barbara or Irvine. Now, all three of those schools are really, really good, but I would like to see him have a shot at Berkeley, UCLA and/or San Diego.
As for Rutgers, when I attended in the late 70's there was a different vibe back then as to the prestige of the school. We were still considered to be more of a smaller, individualized school than a behemoth state university and the prestige was there. In fact Rutgers use to be ranked in US News far ahead of Penn State, UC Irvine, UC Davis and UC San Diego. In fact I chose Rutgers over Cornell, because the Rutgers program was a better program.
Unfortunately, it appears as if times have really changed in the last thirty years at Rutgers where diversity and enrollment took precedence over top quality students. I don't care what ethnicity a prospective student is at Rutgers, I just want to see it be more selective. When I was at Rutgers Bloustein was the president. The school was much more difficult to get into back then, because you had Rutgers College, and specialty schools like Mason Gross School of the Arts, Pharmacy and Engineering. Livingston was NOT an extension of Rutgers College. It was where those who didn't get into Rutgers College, Douglas College or Cook College went if they wanted to go to NB. Busch was an extension of Rutgers College because of all of the sciences.
I knew two kids back then from my HS who went to Delaware because they were rejected at Rutgers-NB and did not want to go to Newark. Rutgers was their first choice not Delaware. In addition, my younger sister was rejected at Rutgers College, but was accepted to and graduated from U of Michigan. Go figure.
I think if Rutgers can start allowing more OOS kids in (20%) should be the goal, then selectivity will skyrocket in-state where if a kid doesn't get into the flagship school in NB they can go to Newark, Camden, Rowan or some of the other small state schools or OOS.
Rutgers has a rare opportunity to turn this around as we enter the B1G. I just hope the present BOG understands that and thinks nationally and not provincially.
This post was edited on 4/29 5:27 PM by RU MAN
As for Rutgers, when I attended in the late 70's there was a different vibe back then as to the prestige of the school. We were still considered to be more of a smaller, individualized school than a behemoth state university and the prestige was there. In fact Rutgers use to be ranked in US News far ahead of Penn State, UC Irvine, UC Davis and UC San Diego. In fact I chose Rutgers over Cornell, because the Rutgers program was a better program.
Unfortunately, it appears as if times have really changed in the last thirty years at Rutgers where diversity and enrollment took precedence over top quality students. I don't care what ethnicity a prospective student is at Rutgers, I just want to see it be more selective. When I was at Rutgers Bloustein was the president. The school was much more difficult to get into back then, because you had Rutgers College, and specialty schools like Mason Gross School of the Arts, Pharmacy and Engineering. Livingston was NOT an extension of Rutgers College. It was where those who didn't get into Rutgers College, Douglas College or Cook College went if they wanted to go to NB. Busch was an extension of Rutgers College because of all of the sciences.
I knew two kids back then from my HS who went to Delaware because they were rejected at Rutgers-NB and did not want to go to Newark. Rutgers was their first choice not Delaware. In addition, my younger sister was rejected at Rutgers College, but was accepted to and graduated from U of Michigan. Go figure.
I think if Rutgers can start allowing more OOS kids in (20%) should be the goal, then selectivity will skyrocket in-state where if a kid doesn't get into the flagship school in NB they can go to Newark, Camden, Rowan or some of the other small state schools or OOS.
Rutgers has a rare opportunity to turn this around as we enter the B1G. I just hope the present BOG understands that and thinks nationally and not provincially.
This post was edited on 4/29 5:27 PM by RU MAN
The numbers bear out RU being superior to Maryland, PSU and especially Delaware in many regards. Delaware is actually closer to home for people from South Jersey which only adds to the irony.
It's not like most OOS students are going to prestigious schools- in terms of the ones most NJ kids go to, outside of NYU, they are all on par or worse.
It's not like most OOS students are going to prestigious schools- in terms of the ones most NJ kids go to, outside of NYU, they are all on par or worse.
RU may be "better" in some abstract sense, but my feeling is that places like PSU, Md. and Delaware are regarded as giving more desirable undergraduate experiences. I think the RU campus is one of the big problems, and there's no easy way to solve that.
There are so many things that I think are wrong about what you wrote, but the most important one is this: Rutgers badly needed to get rid of the "separate liberal arts colleges" model and move to the more modern model it uses now. That's one thing we can thank McCormick for. The Rutgers College snobbery towards the other undergraduate colleges didn't benefit RU and I don't think its reputation for excellence went far outside the bounds of the University. It was confusing to applicants and encouraged the provinciality within RU that we so often complain about the rest of NJ displaying.
FWIW, Temple has declared the same interest in increasing OOS students as California and for the same reason. Actually I heard the other day that the School of Pharmacy has actually decreased OOS tuition over the past few years while increasing in-state tuition (the source was a student, but a PO'd in-state student who might be right). The state funding is so poor now that there is a contingency plan to become a private university, which just blows me away. One of the positive aspects that administration used to sell us on that idea was that it would be easier to attract OOS students as an inexpensive private university than an expensive public one.
jcg, sorry, but I completely disagree with your assessment. Rutgers individual colleges was more like Oxford colleges and I don't know where you're from, but Rutgers was not as provincial then as it appears to be now. Personally, I'm glad we moved away from the individual colleges, but with that we allowed the diversity of the school and the bigness of the school to lose sight of being a top notch undergraduate school. Lawrence left behind the undergraduate programs for graduate programs and Rutgers former great reputation went down hill.
As for "snobbery" as you stated, is wasn't a snob factor, it was an accomplish factor that many of us worked hard in HS and got accepted at an exceptional program at Rutgers.
I'm all for moving to the B1G and I love that the school is finally accepting the fact that it ISN'T some small private college, but Rutgers was much more prestigious back then and I want to see it back and beyond.
As for "snobbery" as you stated, is wasn't a snob factor, it was an accomplish factor that many of us worked hard in HS and got accepted at an exceptional program at Rutgers.
I'm all for moving to the B1G and I love that the school is finally accepting the fact that it ISN'T some small private college, but Rutgers was much more prestigious back then and I want to see it back and beyond.
The BOG and BOT discussion about OOS has been going on for at least 30 years. The "original" target number of OOS in the 1970's was no more than 7-9% with the actual number being somewhere between 5-6%. During the late 1980's and through most of the 1990's, the target percentage was raised to 15% with the actual being somewhere around 8-11%. Currently the target is at 16-18% with the actual being 14%. I have heard comments that there are targets being discussed between 20-25%. Will that become reality? At some point, yes. Right now? I don't think anyone can say for certain.
Regarding the issue of the Oxford college model, please remember that concept was established at the founding of Rutgers and was allowed to continue as the individual schools were cobbled onto the University structure. Problematic issues included the addition of the Rutgers Scientific School which was originally both the School of Engineering and the land grant division of the University. Also, the forced integration of the New Jersey College for Women (renamed Douglass), and subsequent shifting of existing professional schools like the College of Pharmacy from Newark to New Brunswick, the splitting of College of Engineering and the Ag School, and the political machinations that went on with the Rutgers Medical School all left the University poorer as an institution, not stronger.
Mason Gross (the President, not the School) added to this debacle by not working with the BOT during the mid-1950's when Rutgers was transformed to a public university. The BOT saw the value prior to the 1956 conversion to use that event as a way to redefine the structure and form of the University. It was their intent at that time to merge the liberal arts colleges (RC and NJCW), departments, labs, etc. into singular departments under one academic dean. However, Gross was insistent that the so-called Oxford model would be more conducive to the way Rutgers was currently built. In this model, each college held its own faculty, it's own administration, and its own grounds. Each college was then overseen by a dean who would then report to a council of deans to hash out issues affecting all the colleges. As such, the renaming of the College for Women to Douglass College took place and each school then had to fight amongst themselves for limited resources in order to fund duplicative departments.
Because of the political pressure brought to bear on the University regarding the "exclusivity" that was perceived on the New Brunswick Campus, Livingston College was brought into existence in 1968. Stupidly, this push only ended up in shifting the EOF students and other admits who didn't hit the marks needed to make it into Rutgers College, Douglass College or one of the professional schools into Livingston.
When Edward Bloustein came on board in 1972, he came from a very small college at Bennington. Still, he recognized the value of a merger of faculty and schools into a cohesive unit for the purposes of budgets as well as faculty efficiency. However, by that point, the faculty was so entrenched in the duplicative departments at each of the schools, that the establishment of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1981 could best be described as birth by abortion which left no real fight in the administration to close the deal of merging the academic aspects of the schools (Rutgers College, Douglass College, and Livingston College) into the School of Arts and Sciences until 2006-2007.
I whole-heartedly agree with Jason that the Oxford model was dead in the 1950's. The multiple liberal arts colleges confused the hell out of applicants, whether in-state or OOS, even more so international students. Rutgers would be lightyears ahead in so many areas, not the least of which would be student support, had there been an effort to move into the 21st Century in the mid-20th Century.
This post was edited on 4/30 10:35 AM by mkollar
Regarding the issue of the Oxford college model, please remember that concept was established at the founding of Rutgers and was allowed to continue as the individual schools were cobbled onto the University structure. Problematic issues included the addition of the Rutgers Scientific School which was originally both the School of Engineering and the land grant division of the University. Also, the forced integration of the New Jersey College for Women (renamed Douglass), and subsequent shifting of existing professional schools like the College of Pharmacy from Newark to New Brunswick, the splitting of College of Engineering and the Ag School, and the political machinations that went on with the Rutgers Medical School all left the University poorer as an institution, not stronger.
Mason Gross (the President, not the School) added to this debacle by not working with the BOT during the mid-1950's when Rutgers was transformed to a public university. The BOT saw the value prior to the 1956 conversion to use that event as a way to redefine the structure and form of the University. It was their intent at that time to merge the liberal arts colleges (RC and NJCW), departments, labs, etc. into singular departments under one academic dean. However, Gross was insistent that the so-called Oxford model would be more conducive to the way Rutgers was currently built. In this model, each college held its own faculty, it's own administration, and its own grounds. Each college was then overseen by a dean who would then report to a council of deans to hash out issues affecting all the colleges. As such, the renaming of the College for Women to Douglass College took place and each school then had to fight amongst themselves for limited resources in order to fund duplicative departments.
Because of the political pressure brought to bear on the University regarding the "exclusivity" that was perceived on the New Brunswick Campus, Livingston College was brought into existence in 1968. Stupidly, this push only ended up in shifting the EOF students and other admits who didn't hit the marks needed to make it into Rutgers College, Douglass College or one of the professional schools into Livingston.
When Edward Bloustein came on board in 1972, he came from a very small college at Bennington. Still, he recognized the value of a merger of faculty and schools into a cohesive unit for the purposes of budgets as well as faculty efficiency. However, by that point, the faculty was so entrenched in the duplicative departments at each of the schools, that the establishment of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1981 could best be described as birth by abortion which left no real fight in the administration to close the deal of merging the academic aspects of the schools (Rutgers College, Douglass College, and Livingston College) into the School of Arts and Sciences until 2006-2007.
I whole-heartedly agree with Jason that the Oxford model was dead in the 1950's. The multiple liberal arts colleges confused the hell out of applicants, whether in-state or OOS, even more so international students. Rutgers would be lightyears ahead in so many areas, not the least of which would be student support, had there been an effort to move into the 21st Century in the mid-20th Century.
This post was edited on 4/30 10:35 AM by mkollar
mkollar
Thank you for that analysis. Even 14% (where have you seen this number?) is a marked improvement, and if true is great news.
Re: student experience and campus, compared to other big Northeast colleges, I don't think RU is much different. Maryland giving is line with ours. PSU has better giving historically because of football but who knows now. I have been to PSU and UDel campuses and I don't think they are particularly nice or better than ours. I don't know about Maryland but I did hear tailgaiting there is in a parking garage.
Basically, not like we are going up against Cornell or something. It's more IMO, the attitude that was recently published that only 28% of NJ residents think NJ is the best state.
Thank you for that analysis. Even 14% (where have you seen this number?) is a marked improvement, and if true is great news.
Re: student experience and campus, compared to other big Northeast colleges, I don't think RU is much different. Maryland giving is line with ours. PSU has better giving historically because of football but who knows now. I have been to PSU and UDel campuses and I don't think they are particularly nice or better than ours. I don't know about Maryland but I did hear tailgaiting there is in a parking garage.
Basically, not like we are going up against Cornell or something. It's more IMO, the attitude that was recently published that only 28% of NJ residents think NJ is the best state.
NIRH,
The 14% number was put out this past Fall on the Facts & Figures page. That can be found at:
http://www.rutgers.edu/about-rutgers/facts-figures
The 14% number was put out this past Fall on the Facts & Figures page. That can be found at:
http://www.rutgers.edu/about-rutgers/facts-figures
mkollar, very good post by you, but toward the end when you agreed with Jason, you contradicted your own history. The problem based on YOUR post is that Rutgers WAS set up too much like the Oxford model and that didn't go away until the mid 2000's. I can assure you it was alive and kicking back in the late 70's and early 80's when I was there. I think that's part of the RU Screw most people talk about especially when it came time to sign up for classes between schools and graduation specifics within each school. It definitely did not work if Rutgers was to become this large public university.
So on the one hand I agree wholeheartedly with the majority of your post and the history of a small private college growing into a behemoth state university, but I still stand at the prestige we once enjoyed at Rutgers-NB is longer school-wide, but thankfully many of the professional programs have not only continued to be strong but some have gotten even stronger.
It is my hope that with more incoming OOS and OOC students (20-25%) the selectivity will get even tougher for top in-state kids and Rutgers will then become their destination school instead of their safety school.
In any case I'm agreeing with you and Jason that the change needed to be made, but unfortunately, it did hurt the prestige of the university and it has lost that prestige over the last thirty years and needs to regain it over the next ten to fifteen years. With the right leadership (gulp) that can be obtained.
So on the one hand I agree wholeheartedly with the majority of your post and the history of a small private college growing into a behemoth state university, but I still stand at the prestige we once enjoyed at Rutgers-NB is longer school-wide, but thankfully many of the professional programs have not only continued to be strong but some have gotten even stronger.
It is my hope that with more incoming OOS and OOC students (20-25%) the selectivity will get even tougher for top in-state kids and Rutgers will then become their destination school instead of their safety school.
In any case I'm agreeing with you and Jason that the change needed to be made, but unfortunately, it did hurt the prestige of the university and it has lost that prestige over the last thirty years and needs to regain it over the next ten to fifteen years. With the right leadership (gulp) that can be obtained.
Thanks- this is for all campuses, which includes the law schools and other grad programs that have more OOS- my guess is the NB undergrad number is closer to 10-12%.
Interestingly, my understanding is the med school is 95%+ NJ residents, which is standard for public medical schools, give that they take about 12% of applicants.
I guess in my mind that prestige was false in the first place. Someone who graduated from RC was really getting a degree from Rutgers University. Few people outside of Rutgers University would recognize it as anything but that. So let's say the number admitted at RC was 40% of 1000 applicants and the admissions at all the other undergrad schools combined were 60% of 1000 applicants, then the admission rate for the university's undergraduate programs was 50%. I heard plenty of "I go to Rutgers College" when I was there and I was in the pharmacy school myself where in-school snobbery/pride was loud-and-proud. I just think it isn't valid. If the University needs to improve its standards and standing, it needs to do that on the whole and the separate liberal arts colleges did not help that.
Either way it's really a moot point. The University has moved forward with its "one liberal arts school and faculty" model and needs to improve from there. I personally don't think it fundamentally changes anything for the worse.
Gee, I'm amazed that even 28% of the state thinks NJ is the best state. Would you say that? I wouldn't, having lived other places. And I wonder if the percentage would be any different in Pa., Del, or Md. I agree there is a "conspicuous consumption" factor at work: "gee, look at me, I can afford to send Tammy out-of-state." But that factor is no stronger here than in other states. I'm inclined to think that RU simply has not developed a prestige level consistent with the abstract measures of quality. Rutgers has a way of shooting itself or being shot in the foot. The Tyler Clementi affair didn't help us; nor does our continual stream of missteps on athletic issues. I also wonder if student satisfaction is as high here as at, say Md.; could it be that the "Rutgers Screw" is still perceived as being in operation?
It actually is similar in the rest of the NE. A study today showed 41% of both NJ and NY residents would leave if they could, but we were bested by CT and IL where half the state could leave if they could.
I think there is a conspicuous consumption at work- particularly when you look at NY, it's not much different- especially in the places compared with NJ's wealth. CT and MD, same thing- the two other states that send the most people out of state. Those schools have not had the same misteps.
But look at PSU- people in PA still want to go there. Even some people in NJ do- with the biggest mistep in the history of sports. I think it has to do with- for the PA people- most of them, particularly in Central PA, don't have the money to spend on OOS schools. And they value their culture (whatever we think about it aside).
Whereas people in NJ don't value NJ culture- we have New York culture, Philly culture, Shore culture, various ethnic cultures, and few outside of that 28% stop and think about the culture we all share that blends all of those.
Count me as someone who thinks NJ is the best state. If I'm living in America, I'd want to be here. But at 17, I didn't. I had no sense that the rest of the state was different than the bubble that was my HS- and picked RU in some part because most people at my HS shunned it. Well, fast forward a decade and now they want to go there for, my guess, some confluence of improved party culture, football, and their parents won't pay OOS tuition in this economy. At 17, I didn't know what I know about a lot of other parts of America that I learned from traveling that made me sometimes want to kiss the ground when I land at Newark.
I personally don't think RU has a screw. I was never locked out of a class I needed or given a runaround or anything. I can really think of only one instance- a professor who wouldn't look at an exam a TA graded- and that professor was known to be a jerk and TAs are at every big school.
The thing is RU isn't making the case- it's the stuff I learned after- how RU really does have a non-stifiling culture, it's full of mostly great professors, bright students, New Brunswick is cool, there's a huge breadth of classes and majors and types of people, you have access to the city, nearly all your friends will be local and easy to stay in touch with...naughty things like no minus grades and mixed gender floor dorms, or stats like grad school placement. RU lets the SL make the narrative, the SL and the mom in the Shop Rite line who thinks her kid is a rocket scientist because she pays an extra 15k for him to go to a school that covered up a pedophile for over a decade.
I think there is a conspicuous consumption at work- particularly when you look at NY, it's not much different- especially in the places compared with NJ's wealth. CT and MD, same thing- the two other states that send the most people out of state. Those schools have not had the same misteps.
But look at PSU- people in PA still want to go there. Even some people in NJ do- with the biggest mistep in the history of sports. I think it has to do with- for the PA people- most of them, particularly in Central PA, don't have the money to spend on OOS schools. And they value their culture (whatever we think about it aside).
Whereas people in NJ don't value NJ culture- we have New York culture, Philly culture, Shore culture, various ethnic cultures, and few outside of that 28% stop and think about the culture we all share that blends all of those.
Count me as someone who thinks NJ is the best state. If I'm living in America, I'd want to be here. But at 17, I didn't. I had no sense that the rest of the state was different than the bubble that was my HS- and picked RU in some part because most people at my HS shunned it. Well, fast forward a decade and now they want to go there for, my guess, some confluence of improved party culture, football, and their parents won't pay OOS tuition in this economy. At 17, I didn't know what I know about a lot of other parts of America that I learned from traveling that made me sometimes want to kiss the ground when I land at Newark.
I personally don't think RU has a screw. I was never locked out of a class I needed or given a runaround or anything. I can really think of only one instance- a professor who wouldn't look at an exam a TA graded- and that professor was known to be a jerk and TAs are at every big school.
The thing is RU isn't making the case- it's the stuff I learned after- how RU really does have a non-stifiling culture, it's full of mostly great professors, bright students, New Brunswick is cool, there's a huge breadth of classes and majors and types of people, you have access to the city, nearly all your friends will be local and easy to stay in touch with...naughty things like no minus grades and mixed gender floor dorms, or stats like grad school placement. RU lets the SL make the narrative, the SL and the mom in the Shop Rite line who thinks her kid is a rocket scientist because she pays an extra 15k for him to go to a school that covered up a pedophile for over a decade.
Jason, stop that self-loathing shit okay? LOL! There still is a prestige at Rutgers and there was back then. You are mistaken if you think that someone that stated they went to Rutgers College wasn't important or for that matter your school of pharmacy. It was. I know. Many recruiters back in the day always asked prospective graduates if they graduated from Rutgers College on the NB campus. Also, it mattered when time to apply to graduate schools. Oh and you know how difficult your school was to get into. I graduated from MGSA and on a whole they ONLY accept around 19-20% in areas, with the theatre program accepting less than 8 or 9%. Everyone still has Rutgers University on their diploma, but don't kid yourself that grad schools and employers don't know or care which school at Rutgers you graduated from. It was a big deal especially when one went to NYC or OOS for employment or school.
As for today, I am glad that Arts and Sciences have been consolidated and I think as a whole Rutgers needs to up its selectivity and ONLY accept 35-40% in New Brunswick. Raising the OOS and OOC to 20-25% will go a long way to achieving that, while upping the standards in-state.
As for today, I am glad that Arts and Sciences have been consolidated and I think as a whole Rutgers needs to up its selectivity and ONLY accept 35-40% in New Brunswick. Raising the OOS and OOC to 20-25% will go a long way to achieving that, while upping the standards in-state.
Ha ha, point taken. To clarify, I am quite proud of my Rutgers education as anyone who works around me (and half of our students) know. I just have grown to look at it differently over time. Trust me, I had plenty of RU pharmacy snobbery back when I was in school. "You go to PCPS? Oh..." I'll even admit that nowadays I give RU graduates a "+1" by default about their knowledge base when I interview them for my residency program.
At my freshmen orientation (Rutgers College Class of 1976) the dean told us
that for all public colleges in the U.S. our class would rank only behind Berkeley.
Rutgers College was very well respected back in the day.
The farther you were from New Jersey the more the Rutgers name was valued.
My grad school classmates thought of Rutgers as Ivy like.
I'll bet the farther you got, the less likely they were to have any idea that Rutgers College and Rutgers University were different things.
I think most deans have the gift of hyperbole. Ours routinely tells us that he'd be happy to compare Temple Pharmacy against any school in the nation.
FWIW, I think the "farther you go" belief still holds true.
Still true- but I think some people still think we are in NY or PA. And the football definitely confuses the ivy league status!
Similar threads
