plant gene discovery at Rutgers-Camden

[retired711]

This is mentioned in the new issue of Rutgers Today. Their link didn't work -- natch -- and so I got the S-L story. It does show that research does go on at Rutgers-Camden despite erroneous statements to the contrary on this board.

Note that one of the students who worked on the project (and who I would therefore assume is smart) has New Brunswick as her home town. I wonder why she went to Camden; it would seem unlikely that such an accomplished student could have been bad enough not to be able to go to New Brunswick. Maybe she just wanted to get away from home and live instead in the dorms down here. But I guess it's just speculation.

This post was edited on 4/18 10:56 AM by camdenlawprof

plant gene discovery

 

[Upstream]

Feeling a little defensive, LawProf?

Other than one poster (whose Name Is Redacted Here), just about everyone else on this board recognizes the value of Rutgers-Camden and the important work that happens there. That is why there was such strong objection to giving Camden to Rowen.


Nonetheless, thanks for the link. It is certainly an interesting discovery.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by Upstream:
Feeling a little defensive, LawProf?

Other than one poster (whose Name Is Redacted Here), just about everyone else on this board recognizes the value of Rutgers-Camden and the important work that happens there. That is why there was such strong objection to giving Camden to Rowen.


Nonetheless, thanks for the link. It is certainly an interesting discovery.

Point well taken. But it was not just NIRH. It was another very prominent (and usually very perceptive) observer, whom I will allow to remain anonymous who contended that there is no research at Camden.

 

[TonyLieske]

Originally posted by Upstream:

...(whose Name Is Redacted Here)...

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by Upstream:
Feeling a little defensive, LawProf?

Other than one poster (whose Name Is Redacted Here), just about everyone else on this board recognizes the value of Rutgers-Camden and the important work that happens there. That is why there was such strong objection to giving Camden to Rowen.


Nonetheless, thanks for the link. It is certainly an interesting discovery.

Point well taken. But it was not just NIRH. It was another very prominent (and usually very perceptive) observer, whom I will allow to remain anonymous who contended that there is no research at Camden.

I get there are things being done down there of importance and there is value in RU-Newark. But I don't consider them equal just as I assume you don't consider Berkley the same as (insert UC-wherever school here).

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by Upstream:
Feeling a little defensive, LawProf?

Other than one poster (whose Name Is Redacted Here), just about everyone else on this board recognizes the value of Rutgers-Camden and the important work that happens there. That is why there was such strong objection to giving Camden to Rowen.


Nonetheless, thanks for the link. It is certainly an interesting discovery.

Point well taken. But it was not just NIRH. It was another very prominent (and usually very perceptive) observer, whom I will allow to remain anonymous who contended that there is no research at Camden.

I get there are things being done down there of importance and there is value in RU-Newark. But I don't consider them equal just as I assume you don't consider Berkley the same as (insert UC-wherever school here).

oh no, I would never suggest Camden and Newark are the same as New Brunswick. That would be absurd as things stand. On the other hand, there is an intermediate ground between being totally worthless and being equivalent to New Brunswick, and that is something that I think some of our fellow posters miss.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by Upstream:
Feeling a little defensive, LawProf?

Other than one poster (whose Name Is Redacted Here), just about everyone else on this board recognizes the value of Rutgers-Camden and the important work that happens there. That is why there was such strong objection to giving Camden to Rowen.


Nonetheless, thanks for the link. It is certainly an interesting discovery.

Point well taken. But it was not just NIRH. It was another very prominent (and usually very perceptive) observer, whom I will allow to remain anonymous who contended that there is no research at Camden.

I get there are things being done down there of importance and there is value in RU-Newark. But I don't consider them equal just as I assume you don't consider Berkley the same as (insert UC-wherever school here).

oh no, I would never suggest Camden and Newark are the same as New Brunswick. That would be absurd as things stand. On the other hand, there is an intermediate ground between being totally worthless and being equivalent to New Brunswick, and that is something that I think some of our fellow posters miss.

"...as things stand." Interesting.

Do you see or think down the road this could change?

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by Upstream:
Feeling a little defensive, LawProf?

Other than one poster (whose Name Is Redacted Here), just about everyone else on this board recognizes the value of Rutgers-Camden and the important work that happens there. That is why there was such strong objection to giving Camden to Rowen.


Nonetheless, thanks for the link. It is certainly an interesting discovery.

Point well taken. But it was not just NIRH. It was another very prominent (and usually very perceptive) observer, whom I will allow to remain anonymous who contended that there is no research at Camden.

I get there are things being done down there of importance and there is value in RU-Newark. But I don't consider them equal just as I assume you don't consider Berkley the same as (insert UC-wherever school here).

oh no, I would never suggest Camden and Newark are the same as New Brunswick. That would be absurd as things stand. On the other hand, there is an intermediate ground between being totally worthless and being equivalent to New Brunswick, and that is something that I think some of our fellow posters miss.

"...as things stand." Interesting.

Do you see or think down the road this could change?

certainly not in my lifetime, and almost certainly not in the life of the youngest person on this list. I think an investment of money could do remarkable things for Camden -- the same is true for Newark -- but I see no signs that would happen, and anyway it certainly wouldn't make Camden equivalent to New Brunswick. Sorry I didn't express myself better.

 

[jcg878]

I am South Jersey-biased, but to me RU-Camden is a great asset for the University. The area obviously thinks so as well - I was very impressed with the groundswell of support to keep it when the Christie/Sweeney/Norcross group tried to excise it from the University (in fact, I still see bumper stickers and occasionally lawn signs to "Keep Rutgers in Camden" and "R Camden" stickers).

I do think it's weird that any of the professional schools are based outside of New Brunswick, but I don't think that's a fatal mistake worth reorganizing them over. To me, RU-Camden and RU-Newark are satellite campuses to the main campus, and that's just fine. The apparent issue that they get confused with RU-New Brunswick is one that Rutgers needs to fix itself.

I'll admit that I often said that I went to "Rutgers- New Brunswick" when I was in school, because I was a snotty college student who thought I needed to show that off. Now that I'm older I see what a stupid concern that was/is, and I'm sure a Penn State-State College (University Park) student who lives in Erie, PA has the same "issue".