Latest U.S. News Rankings Released:
- Thread starter cyrock3
- Start date
Certainly Rutgers has more of everything because it is bigger. But even if there are not official restrictions, there are defacto restrictions. An engineering major is going to have a tough time getting to direct a student play when there he is competing against a ton of theater majors vying for the same opportunity.
My point was in response to NIRH's claim that people go to small schools because they can't hack it in big schools. I was trying to offer anecdotal evidence that there are advantages of small schools that have nothing to do with whether you can hack it in a big school, or not. Likewise, there are different advantages to a big school (like having more of everything to give you more choices).
I think we should try to claim the rankings, but that will have near-zero effect on the mom in the Shop Rite line. New Jerseyans will be obsessed with OOS schools because they are obsessed with perceived status and/or Catholic education.
RU can be ranked 50 next year, win the B1G, and College Ave can be transformed to make Rumson Road look like Camden. And I would guarantee that applications to TTFP, UDel, Drexel, and usual Catholic suspects would not change. What would change is more OOS applications and potentially more nods from actual top students. We will never defeat that mentality. The goal needs to be lure people who value education and actual offerings instead of upping their neighbors.
RU can be ranked 50 next year, win the B1G, and College Ave can be transformed to make Rumson Road look like Camden. And I would guarantee that applications to TTFP, UDel, Drexel, and usual Catholic suspects would not change. What would change is more OOS applications and potentially more nods from actual top students. We will never defeat that mentality. The goal needs to be lure people who value education and actual offerings instead of upping their neighbors.
Newark, DE is pretty bland. I don't really recall it being nice one way or the other. But academically it certainly doesn't compare.
Do you really think it's just a matter of rebranding (as important as that is)? Easton Avenue and the George Street commercial strip, not to mention the residential portions of New Brunswick, will strike a lot of suburban kids as gritty. And (thanks to George Street running through the College Avenue campus) there is not that same feeling of protection from the outside that one feels on many other campuses. (Of course, the Cook/Douglas and Piscataway campuses have a different feel to them, but I would think that a lot of kids anticipate being on the College Avenue campus.)
Ha that might be true.
I did notice how TTFP all were pretty generic white people.
The diversity at RU is awesome- and the real world in this part of the country.
And makes for a much more attractive campus in other ways.
I did notice how TTFP all were pretty generic white people.
The diversity at RU is awesome- and the real world in this part of the country.
And makes for a much more attractive campus in other ways.
What is we boost applications by lowering or eliminating the application fee. Sure, it will cost money and be an artificial stat adjustment... but if it boosts us 10 spots (we'd have to do the math to get a good guess as to how much impact acceptance rate has).. is it worth it?
I would hope that everyone would agree that Rutgers ought to try to advance on the merits, not through gimmicks. A school that uses gimmicks invariably gets caught, and the result is a loss of reputation. I don't have any great ideas on how to get better students other than to have more scholarship money and an improved look and feel to the campus. I think more relatively small schools (like SEBS, the Honors Program and engineering) would help. Maybe there is a way to revive the "college" feeling in the liberal arts other than through the former system of "independent" colleges.
This post was edited on 9/17 11:10 AM by camdenlawprof
Again - this gets to my point. Lets say somehow this one change would move us up 10 spots (in won't, but say it did), are people really going to flock to RU at #60 but not #70 if there are no substantive changes within the university? I doubt it. More people might look, just as they would with any good ad campaign - but would they choose RU? Are there alot of great students who are rejecting RU out of hand because of our modest ranking who, if they came to campus, would pick RU?
Proof? Have their SATs scores increased at better than say a regional average for similar schools (so mid-sized publics in the fast growing South?) Has it helped them draw OOS students of higher quality, so they can make more money without giving up prestige?
Outside of bragging points for their alumni, how has it helped?
Isnt it likely that like UConn (or BC concurrent with Flutie), Clemson got better rankings because they spent more money. Or like Alabama because their potential student base is growing faster than the school (the opposite of RU)?
The population of Alabama is expanding?
The reason more schools don't do it is because the academics in charge don't want to get involved.
The problems occur mostly at placed where non-academics rule the school (ahem) and frankly I think you can make the argument that not one scandal, academic or athletic, in the past 5 years or so, has been seriously punished by anyone anywhere.
Things have moved towards media lynch mob punishments, as we know all too well. And the results of that us cut both ways, as I see it. So I see both sides of the coin.
I'd rather see RU work on OOS recruitment, that will change the dynamic much faster- more applications, lower acceptance- it's not our SAT and GPA as those are better than TTFP.
The reason more schools don't do it is because the academics in charge don't want to get involved.
The problems occur mostly at placed where non-academics rule the school (ahem) and frankly I think you can make the argument that not one scandal, academic or athletic, in the past 5 years or so, has been seriously punished by anyone anywhere.
Things have moved towards media lynch mob punishments, as we know all too well. And the results of that us cut both ways, as I see it. So I see both sides of the coin.
I'd rather see RU work on OOS recruitment, that will change the dynamic much faster- more applications, lower acceptance- it's not our SAT and GPA as those are better than TTFP.
1. They were ranked around the same as USCe before their rankings rise. Now they are the clear #1 option in South Carolina. Their SAT scores are similar to the SAT scores we have at Rutgers. Keep in mind they started their rise in 2001, when they were ranked around #38 in the public sector on U.S. News, which is nowhere close to where Rutgers was in 2001 (Top 20-25 public, with better SAT scores than them) Now they are a Top 20 public, and their SAT scores correspond to being a Top 20 public. (Recent: http://www.clemson.edu/about/rankings.html) (2001: http://www.clemson.edu/oirweb1/fb/factbook/CommonDataSet01.pdf). There is a notable difference between 2001 & 2014.
2. It helps in terms of positioning themselves to get better students. Better students tend to go on and perform better in the real world than students who aren't as top caliber. It also helps to attract better faculty.
3. Yes, they spent more money. Money they gained by hiking up tuition. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/03/rankings It's a little different from the UConn system where they got increased support from the state. A lot of what Clemson did, is what needs to be done at Rutgers (smaller classrooms, paying careful attention to SAT scores, getting those donations however you can). Instead, we're playing this game like USCe (at least on the educational front, they are Clemson's vanquished rival), and focusing on some broad mission about educating the entire populace.
That type of mission shouldn't be Rutgers' job. Not for the flagship university of a state. Our mission should be simple: Produce the best minds that can help drive the economic engine of the state of New Jersey forward. In order to do that, you need to attract & teach the best talent. Much of the strategies used to game the U.S. News Rankings also help in that regard.
This post was edited on 9/17 3:05 PM by cyrock3
If you look at the census numbers, you'll find that Alabama's population increased by 7.5 % between 2000 and 2010; New Jersey's by only 4.5 %
I'm surprised that this has not been already mentioned, but the new
Honors Residential College should help to make the honors program more
attractive to top students from NJ and beyond.
On the family
front, my niece (previously mentioned) has been on campus recently as
her older sister has lived on College Ave for the past two academic
years. So she's not basing her judgements on the NB of the past.
And
I was surprised that my nephew (cousin to the niece above), who's
looking for a good business school has suddenly added RU to his list
(which also includes Indiana and U of Texas). At the same time as the
RU-TTFP game.
Coincidence? Maybe not.
Honors Residential College should help to make the honors program more
attractive to top students from NJ and beyond.
On the family
front, my niece (previously mentioned) has been on campus recently as
her older sister has lived on College Ave for the past two academic
years. So she's not basing her judgements on the NB of the past.
And
I was surprised that my nephew (cousin to the niece above), who's
looking for a good business school has suddenly added RU to his list
(which also includes Indiana and U of Texas). At the same time as the
RU-TTFP game.
Coincidence? Maybe not.
I sneaked in a reference in my posting, but it was hidden in a lot of words. I think the idea of an honors residential college sounds great. The link describes the existing SAS honors program; is this going to be enhanced in some way other than by giving these students their own residence? The better this program is, the more students, in-state and out-of-state, it will attract. My niece, who lives in Ohio, would never have gone to Ohio State were it not for their honors college, which she liked very much.
sas honors college.
sas honors college.
Interesting.
So in that time Alabama's population only grew by 332,636, but NJ's grew by 377,544. Go NJ!!!
I don't think RU has changed its mission to catering to the populace.
Also, have applications to USCe increased, and what are their SAT/GPA in comparison?
Way too much is being made of the competitive admissions argument- we have higher numbers than the Cult, who is #48.
Furthermore, in terms of smaller classes, are we supposed to believe that these other schools that supposedly leaped us have smaller classes than we do?
Look I'm all for playing the rankings game but let's stick to what the issues are here, these seem to be non issues.
Also, have applications to USCe increased, and what are their SAT/GPA in comparison?
Way too much is being made of the competitive admissions argument- we have higher numbers than the Cult, who is #48.
Furthermore, in terms of smaller classes, are we supposed to believe that these other schools that supposedly leaped us have smaller classes than we do?
Look I'm all for playing the rankings game but let's stick to what the issues are here, these seem to be non issues.
Wow - that is clearly screwing over some students for no good reason.
FWIW, I'm impressed with the USCe pharmacy school. I don't believe professional schools necessarily reflect the undergraduate programs, but their school is really stellar - probably top 10.
I would doubt it for lack of resources. OTOH, the Camden law school has had some sections of first year classes with enrollments well below 50. It depends on how many faculty are interested in, and qualified to, teach a certain course, and whether the administration is willing to accept few upper-class courses from those faculty. For us, the easiest first-year course to offer in small sections is Torts, which is considered fun to teach. In addition, of course, our legal writing courses are at about 22. But of course what a law school can do to reduce enrollment in basic courses is far more than can be done in introductory sections in math and science courses.
p.s. guess what? Clemson is a land-grant school..
This post was edited on 9/26 4:47 PM by camdenlawprof
I can't give you an authoritative answer, but I can tell you that we in law school debate that. At what point does the size of the class no longer matter? I would say the difference between 49 and 199 is significant in terms of, for instance, the amount of contract the student can reasonably expect to have with the professor (a TA is no longer enough given that many of them don't seem to speak English well).. Less tangibly, there is a difference between sitting in a medium-sized auditorium and a giant one. For me as a professor, an increase in size almost always matters; it makes a difference in how often I can call upon a student to help cover the material. But, as I mentioned above, there are tradeoffs in putting so much emphasis on trying to reduce class sizes in elementary courses.
USCe isn't their land grant? Interesting.
I personally think class size is irrelevant but USNWR report disagrees. We're not talking about high school here. I think it's completely reasonable that 18-21+ year olds not get individualized attention in 101 level classes like Intro to Psych or whatnot.
Law school is a different ball of wax, but I had plenty of bigger classes and it doesn't make a difference because typically the professors will include some kind of participation portion towards your grade and/or will call on you at random. It would be hard to sneak by without them knowing you...and I wasn't an overeager participator, either. I found that in law school like college there will be typically be a handful of people who will try to monopolize the discussion in larger classes. In law school it's probably a fairer comparison when you have most law schools not being terribly different in size. Fordham was one of the ten biggest and I think there were less than 1500 JD students. Comparing Ohio State and Michigan with Wake Forest and William and Mary as undergrad institutions- well seems to me you're not starting at a fair point with that metric.
I do think though when you have a very intense topic this changes. I took American Race Relations, and there were probably at least 100 people in that class, and discussions were incredibly intense and I'm sure most everyone participated at some point and the professor knew most everyone.
I went to office hours for large and small classes as well.
Again just my $0.02 but I don't think small classes really make a difference.
I personally think class size is irrelevant but USNWR report disagrees. We're not talking about high school here. I think it's completely reasonable that 18-21+ year olds not get individualized attention in 101 level classes like Intro to Psych or whatnot.
Law school is a different ball of wax, but I had plenty of bigger classes and it doesn't make a difference because typically the professors will include some kind of participation portion towards your grade and/or will call on you at random. It would be hard to sneak by without them knowing you...and I wasn't an overeager participator, either. I found that in law school like college there will be typically be a handful of people who will try to monopolize the discussion in larger classes. In law school it's probably a fairer comparison when you have most law schools not being terribly different in size. Fordham was one of the ten biggest and I think there were less than 1500 JD students. Comparing Ohio State and Michigan with Wake Forest and William and Mary as undergrad institutions- well seems to me you're not starting at a fair point with that metric.
I do think though when you have a very intense topic this changes. I took American Race Relations, and there were probably at least 100 people in that class, and discussions were incredibly intense and I'm sure most everyone participated at some point and the professor knew most everyone.
I went to office hours for large and small classes as well.
Again just my $0.02 but I don't think small classes really make a difference.
In any institution other than a tiny one, there will be issues of how many students should be in a basic course. We had all 120 first-year day students in a single Criminal Law section last Spring, and of course it was a trade-off. The professor is a very talented teacher, and so it went all right. I've taught classes of over 90, but rarely. Except for having more exams to grade, the large class is no problem for me except the students who haven't got a clue are harder to to detect, and therefore are harder to help. I don't think as a parent I'd be enthused about my child having more than one or two large freshman classes especially in these days when TAs are often unhelpful for lack of fluency in English. Some professors make up for this by being readily accessible by e-mail, but I don't know how good a substitute that is, especially for the student who feels overwhelmed.
Just curious why you found that interesting? I would have found the reverse to be more interesting.
The USC campus is in Columbia which is more of an urban center and the state capital whereas Clemson is out in the sticks of western SC....easier to provide land for agricultural research at Clemson than USC.
In Texas the LG school is not UT-Austin, but Texas A&M in College Station as it was founded on the basis of the Morrill Act land grant. Nowadays it's a pretty large town (about 100K pop'n) but the campus is much larger at ~2,500 acres compared to only ~300 acres for UT. There's probably a similar disparity in campus size between Clemson and USC.
Other random examples...Purdue is the LG school for Indiana, not IU. Virginia Tech is a LG school, not UVa. However, UGa is a LG school, not Georgia Tech.
Wow - you are kind of way off for the whole country. In the northeast its was originally about half privet schools - MIT, Yale, Rutgers, Vermont, Cornell, Brown.
In Maine, Delaware, WV and New Hampshire its the U, but those are small states with basically no other colleges (WV and Delaware State are HBCUs).
In the rest of the country a fair number of xSU are the land grant school - Alabama, Iowa, Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington all have the 2nd major state school as the land grant.
Pennsy. Louisiana, and Ohio have schools that end in State, but ended up being the major school in the state.
The resut state name U are the flagship.
Larger in terms of enrollment? Not going to hold true in several cases. The Northeast is somewhat unique in that most states do not have two (or more) Tier 1 or 'flagship'-type public institutions so there aren't many similar comparisons to USC/Clemson.
