Penn State is not raising in-state tuition

[retired711]

This is a decided contrast to Rutgers. The big reason this happened? The Pennsylvania legislature increased the state's aid to the university by 3%. When was the last time the NJ legislature did the same for Rutgers? Not recently, I know that!

http://www.philly.com/philly/education/its-official-penn-state-freezing-tuition-20180720.html

 

[NotInRHouse]

I believe their in-state tuition is already higher than ours though.

Goes without saying, NJ has among the most pathetic funding of higher ed in the country- pretty sure we've been bottom 10 for decades.

 

[RUnTeX]

Did they provide the same funding increase for Pitt and Temple? All three are classified as state-related institutions in the commonwealth.

EDIT: Nvm, answering my own question... apparently the PA legislature did approve a 3% funding boost to all three. Temple since decided that it needed to bump tuition up 2% for in-state while Pitt has yet to announce their upcomimg academic year tuition rates.

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Did they provide the same funding increase for Pitt and Temple? All three are classified as state-related institutions in the commonwealth.

EDIT: Nvm, answering my own question... apparently the PA legislature did approve a 3% funding boost to all three. Temple since decided that it needed to bump tuition up 2% for in-state while Pitt has yet to announce their upcomimg academic year tuition rates.

Pitt announced that they have frozen tuition for in state students for this academic year.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[RUnTeX]

Pitt announced that they have frozen tuition for in state students for this academic year.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

Thanks for info Panther. So is Pitt's in-state tuition & fees total with the freeze north of Penn St (17.4k), south of Temple (16.1k), or somewhere in between?

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Thanks for info Panther. So is Pitt's in-state tuition & fees total with the freeze north of Penn St (17.4k), south of Temple (16.1k), or somewhere in between?

It is closer to Penn State.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[RUnTeX]

It is closer to Penn State.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

Looked it up...almost 2k above PSU at 19.1k. 3k higher than Temple.

NJIT and CNJ are both higher than Rutgers in NJ, by about $1,000-2,500.

 

[e5fdny]

Looked it up...almost 2k above PSU at 19.1k. 3k higher than Temple.

NJIT and CNJ are both higher than Rutgers in NJ, by about $1,500.

Are you sure?

It certainly looked like (without any financial aid from any of those three btw) NJIT would have been a lot less expensive for my son if he chose to go there.

 

[RUnTeX]

Are you sure?

It certainly looked like (without any financial aid from any of those three btw) NJIT would have been a lot less expensive for my son if he chose to go there.

Just going by tuition and fees for the upcoming academic year, full time undergrad.

NJIT will be $17,300.
http://www.njit.edu/bursar/fallspring-tuition-fees/

Rutgers/SAS will be $14,970. Engineering, Pharmacy, and SEBS always have higher tuition than SAS and they apparently will be about $16,300. That's still a grand less than NJIT esp. if comparing engineering major at Rutgers to NJIT to be more apples to apples. Also, RBS is a few hundred more than SAS but not as much as the other three.

Not sure how it would be much less expensive at NJIT unless it was not an apples to apples comparison such as commuting to NJIT vs. living on campus at Rutgers, hence a room & board cost differential. Are you sure it wasn't just a single semester cost for NJIT that you were looking at (instead of the full year) which would double the NJIT number?

Ultimately, total cost of attendance numbers may paint a slightly different picture with variations in estimated costs for room & board, books, other fees, etc. but those are not likely to differ all that much between NJIT and Rutgers, I would think.

 

[S_Janowski]

That’s what happens when the pols continue to increase the funding for kindergarten while slashing the budget for higher ed.

 

[bigmatt718]

That’s what happens when the pols continue to increase the funding for kindergarten while slashing the budget for higher ed.

And they wonder why NJ residents leave after HS and don't come back.

 

[retired711]

That’s what happens when the pols continue to increase the funding for kindergarten while slashing the budget for higher ed.

K and pre-K are not the reason why Rutgers gets so little money.

 

[S_Janowski]

K and pre-K are not the reason why Rutgers gets so little money.

So you’re telling me that

- None of the additional $58 million they put into pre-kindergarten budget this year couldn’t have gone to higher ed?
- None of the additional $350 million they put in K-12 budget this year couldn’t have gone to higher ed?
or
- Either of these increases were at least part of the reason for the decline in higher ed funding this year (and all of the years dating back to the late 1990’s)?

I don’t think you can say any of these for a fact.

I’m curious as to what your reasoning is for reducing higher ed funding over the past 15-20 years then.

 

[retired711]

On the other hand, you have no proof of a connection, and the burden is on you, the proponent. to present that proof;. I see no reason to think that the budget for little kids has anything to do with the budget for state colleges and universities. The fact they're both "education" does not show a link.

 

[S_Janowski]

On the other hand, you have no proof of a connection, and the burden is on you, the proponent. to present that proof;. I see no reason to think that the budget for little kids has anything to do with the budget for state colleges and universities. The fact they're both "education" does not show a link.

Lol okay. I’ll use my common sense, Mr. lawyer.

There’s only so much money to go around. It’s not rocket science.

You also didn’t answer any of my questions.

 

[retired711]

Lol okay. I’ll use my common sense, Mr. lawyer.

There’s only so much money to go around. It’s not rocket science.

You also didn’t answer any of my questions.

You have now contradicted your original argument -- don't you see that? You started out blaming K and pre-K for the Rutgers budget. Now your argument is "there's only so much money to go around." But that argument applies to *all* items in the budget, not just K and pre-K. So this argument is counter to your original argument that K and pre-K funding are somehow particularly responsible. You have still presented not the slightest bit of evidence for that

 

[S_Janowski]

You have now contradicted your original argument -- don't you see that? You started out blaming K and pre-K for the Rutgers budget. Now your argument is "there's only so much money to go around." But that argument applies to *all* items in the budget, not just K and pre-K. So this argument is counter to your original argument that K and pre-K funding are somehow particularly responsible. You have still presented not the slightest bit of evidence for that

Okay I’m done. You’re impossible to have a conversation with. This is a message board for crying out loud, not a court room.

I never said that was the *ONLY reason. So no, I did not contradict anything.

You just sound like an annoying lawyer and have provided nothing to the conversation, other than being annoying.

 

[e5fdny]

I’ll try and answer...

If the Education budget in NJ is

A + B + C = Y

And A is pre-K, B is K-12 and C is College with Y being the total.

If the numbers show A and B are getting a lot more than C can we say the preference seems to be more skewed towards pre-K thru 12 vs. Higher Ed?

 

[S_Janowski]

I’ll try and answer...

If the Education budget in NJ is

A + B + C = Y

And A is pre-K, B is K-12 and C is College with Y being the total.

If the numbers show A and B are getting a lot more than C can we say the preference seems to be more skewed towards pre-K thru 12 vs. Higher Ed?

Wow, thought I was losing it for a second.

Excellent math.

 

[retired711]

I’ll try and answer...

If the Education budget in NJ is

A + B + C = Y

And A is pre-K, B is K-12 and C is College with Y being the total.

If the numbers show A and B are getting a lot more than C can we say the preference seems to be more skewed towards pre-K thru 12 vs. Higher Ed?

Actually, no. You're assuming there's a fixed money of money that can be spent only on A, B, or C, and that an extra dollar spent on A means a dollar less spent on C.

Think of it this way. Suppose not an additional dime had gone to say, pre-K. Do you think that Sweeney and Murphy would have allocated more money to Rutgers? Isn't it much more likely that Sweeney and Murphy would simply have cut the tax increase, and that Rutgers wouldn't have received a penny more? It's not as though either Sweeney or Murphy have been big fans of Rutgers.

 

[Knight Shift]

Actually, no. You're assuming there's a fixed money of money that can be spent only on A, B, or C, and that an extra dollar spent on A means a dollar less spent on C.

Think of it this way. Suppose not an additional dime had gone to say, pre-K. Do you think that Sweeney and Murphy would have allocated more money to Rutgers? Isn't it much more likely that Sweeney and Murphy would simply have cut the tax increase, and that Rutgers wouldn't have received a penny more? It's not as though either Sweeney or Murphy have been big fans of Rutgers.

Actually, when Murphy was floating his trial balloons, pre-K, K-12 and college education funding were all talked about as "investing in NJ's future".
https://www.insidernj.com/murphy-lays-budget-priorities-part-37-4-billion-document/

Think of it this way. There are education dollars, transportation dollars, state pension dollars, environmental dollars, etc.

Also, college presidents in NJ were concerned when Murphy was laying out his agenda, including universal pre-K and free community college tuition, some worried he was creating a de facto K-14 system.
http://www.philly.com/philly/educat...vernor-phil-murphy-pennsylvania-20180416.html
Yes, I am blending that all together, but it was all discussed in the same breath under "education."

Murphy had argued that for every dollar poured into pre-K, seven dollars comes back to society. Well, similar studies apply to college education:
http://www.ntcc.edu/ourblog/economic-impact-study-shows-value-of-higher-education-in-texas/

 

[e5fdny]

Actually, no. You're assuming there's a fixed money of money that can be spent only on A, B, or C, and that an extra dollar spent on A means a dollar less spent on C.

Think of it this way. Suppose not an additional dime had gone to say, pre-K. Do you think that Sweeney and Murphy would have allocated more money to Rutgers? Isn't it much more likely that Sweeney and Murphy would simply have cut the tax increase, and that Rutgers wouldn't have received a penny more? It's not as though either Sweeney or Murphy have been big fans of Rutgers.

Isn’t that what you do when you put together a budget (for anything)....there is a total figure to work with and you go from there. Usually each part is allotted a certain amount, no?

So if you play with the formula from what you initially started with does not some part get more and some get less?

As to the additional dime in the scenario, while I would love for Rutgers to get all of it I know TCNJ, Rowan and the others have their hands out too. So I’ll settle for maybe $.03 out of that dime every time.

 

[retired711]

Isn’t that what you do when you put together a budget (for anything)....there is a total figure to work with and you go from there. Usually each part is allotted a certain amount, no?

So if you play with the formula from what you initially started with does not some part get more and some get less?

As to the additional dime in the scenario, while I would love for Rutgers to get all of it I know TCNJ, Rowan and the others have their hands out too. So I’ll settle for maybe $.03 out of that dime every time.

I don't think NJ has traditionally followed that path with higher education and, say K-12 being considered part of a common lump. Frankly, it's even worse than you depict: there's "education" and then a runt called "higher education;" The politics of the two issues are different,e.g. Sweeney cares about pre-K through 12, but doesn't care anything after that unless it's for his precious Rowan.

Yes, it would be three cents we'd get and I'd welcome even that. But I can't believe that we would have had as substantial a tax increase were it not for the political popularity of pre-K on its own. Take away pre-K, and I don't think RU gets even a penny more. Can you envision the state legislature increasing taxes to help Rutgers and other institutions of higher learning? I can't. The whole reason why higher education dropped out of the supposed investment in the middle class is that New Jerseyans, no matter what they may think of pre-K through 12, just don't seem to care much about higher education. Our problem is not a one-year jump in pre-K; we've been starved since the 1990s no matter where the rest of the budget went.

 

[e5fdny]

@S_Janowski can attest to what’s going on down at Rowan better than me but what I saw in my few visits (Open House, special Engineering tour, lacrosse games) to check out Engineering for my son it was impressive to see how much room they have to build.

Took a peek at their mastet plan and IMO we should be concerned in even getting the $.03 once they really get rolling in Gloucester County.

 

[retired711]

@S_Janowski can attest to what’s going on down at Rowan better than me but what I saw in my few visits (Open House, special Engineering tour, lacrosse games) to check out Engineering for my son it was impressive to see how much room they have to build.

Took a peek at their mastet plan and IMO we should be concerned in even getting the $.03 once they really get rolling in Gloucester County.

Rowan is in particular a threat to Rutgers-Camden. This is in part because of Sweeney (who hates Rutgers-Camden) and in part because the Rowan leadership shows much more willingness to be aggressive, financially and otherwise, in promoting their institution. Rowan also has the advantage of not having "Camden" in the title (even though Rowan now has facilities in Camden) I should add that Rutgers-Camden seems to be a low priority to the lords and masters in New Brunswick.

But to remain with the topic we were discussing, I just can't see how pre-K funding in particular is a problem for Rutgers. In contrast, Rowan is, and I'm glad you've referred to it. Rowan has more political friends than Rutgers ever has had.

 

[S_Janowski]

I don't think NJ has traditionally followed that path with higher education and, say K-12 being considered part of a common lump. Frankly, it's even worse than you depict: there's "education" and then a runt called "higher education;" The politics of the two issues are different,e.g. Sweeney cares about pre-K through 12, but doesn't care anything after that unless it's for his precious Rowan.

So what you’re saying is the Pols care more about pre-K through 12 funding than higher education funding.

This is essentially the point I was trying to make in my original post in this thread which you disagreed with.

Let me re-phrase my point so it’s clear:

Rutgers has to raise in state tuition because the budget for higher ed continues to shrink meanwhile funding for pre-K through 12 continues to increase. The politicians in NJ care more about funding for the latter.

 

[retired711]

So what you’re saying is the Pols care more about pre-K through 12 funding than higher education funding.

This is essentially the point I was trying to make in my original post in this thread which you disagreed with.

Let me re-phrase my point so it’s clear:

Rutgers has to raise in state tuition because the budget for higher ed continues to shrink meanwhile funding for pre-K through 12 continues to increase. The politicians in NJ care more about funding for the latter.

I just don't think there's any causal relationship between the two phenomona (however you spell that) that you identify in your last paragraph. Rutgers would get squat no matter what other programs were competing with it. We just don't have the support. It's not as though someone says, "we were going to give more money to Rutgers, but we have to spend it on K-12 or pre-K instead."

 

[e5fdny]

I just don't think there's any causal relationship between the two phenomona (however you spell that) that you identify in your last paragraph. Rutgers would get squat no matter what other programs were competing with it. We just don't have the support. It's not as though someone says, "we were going to give more money to Rutgers, but we have to spend it on K-12 or pre-K instead."

Isn't that’s kinda what is says in some of the links @Knight Shift mentioned?

Maybe have to it not the right phrase (chose is better) but replace “Rutgers” with “Higher Education” and it sure sounds similar to what is coming from the Governors office.

And I have no problem with Rowan becoming a Michigan State to our Michigan. But not at our expense.

 

[retired711]

Isn't that’s kinda what is says in some of the links @Knight Shift mentioned?

Maybe have to it not the right phrase (chose is better) but replace “Rutgers” with “Higher Education” and it sure sounds similar to what is coming from the Governors office.

And I have no problem with Rowan becoming a Michigan State to our Michigan. But not at our expense.

Your last sentence shows the problem. RU gets so little money for the state that another higher education competitor would be the end.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Isn't that’s kinda what is says in some of the links @Knight Shift mentioned?

Maybe have to it not the right phrase (chose is better) but replace “Rutgers” with “Higher Education” and it sure sounds similar to what is coming from the Governors office.

And I have no problem with Rowan becoming a Michigan State to our Michigan. But not at our expense.

Do other states who fund full day kindergarten or more extensive pre school also so poorly fund higher education? What was the excuse when Christie lowered the budget to 90s levels? Was it because he was expanding pre-K funding?

The answer is absolutely not. NY is one example of where the opposite is actually occurring. NYC has full day pre K across the board funded by the state. Yet, they also recently implemented zero tuition for families under 125k (a policy which was heavily criticized by some board members here, ironically).

As @derleider used to point out all the time, the state legislature's attitude towards higher ed in NJ stems from the allegiance to private higher education you see from throughout the NE. Further RU in particular is not well represented in the legislature. There are just not many alums in state politics.

The logic is simple. Every NJ student at 4 or 5 will go to kindergarten. Most 17 or 18 year olds will not attend a state university. And while I would argue that RU supporters are an increasingly growing constituency- Murphy made it a point to say he will always back RU athletics- it's a not a tipping point, versus say the last PA gov that lost election in part because the Cult thought he back stabbed JoePa.

Most states increase tuition regularly at public colleges. I absolutely agree our funding is unacceptable, but our alumni do not put in the effort to change it. Blaming it on full day kindergarten is farcical at best. Make our pols as scared of our alumni as Wolf is of the Cult in PA, then we can talk.

 

[RUnTeX]

Make our pols as scared of our alumni as Wolf is of the Cult in PA, then we can talk.

I'd have to agree that Rutgers alumni are not galvanized in a way that you might see elsewhere. It would be nice if it were assumed that one would be committing political suicide to go against Rutgers but that just isn't the case. Not sure it'll ever get to that point in the state of NJ.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I'd have to agree that Rutgers alumni are not galvanized in a way that you might see elsewhere. It would be nice if it were assumed that one would be committing political suicide to go against Rutgers but that just isn't the case. Not sure it'll ever get to that point in the state of NJ.

Back when we were afraid we'd be stuck on the Island of Misfit Toys, I remember filling out a form that sent emails to all my reps stating my concern.

I don't see anything like this on tuition. Which is really emblematic of the problem at hand here, because let's say we have 40-50k hardcore football fans, we have what, 150k alums?

 

[RUnTeX]

let's say we have 40-50k hardcore football fans, we have what, 150k alums?

Well, the hardcore football fanbase may be closer to 25-35K (proxy being season tickets sold). Regardless and more to the point, total alumni is much higher than 150k, though. Most estimates put it in the 450-500k ballpark. Even a NB-only number would probably be in the 350k +/- range, I'd think.

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Looked it up...almost 2k above PSU at 19.1k. 3k higher than Temple.

NJIT and CNJ are both higher than Rutgers in NJ, by about $1,000-2,500.

Tex

Tuition and Fees at Pitt total $19,080. (Tuition $18,130. and Fees $950.)

Tuition and Fees at Penn State (Main) total $18,436.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[RUnTeX]

Tuition and Fees at Penn State (Main) $18,436.

Thanks. In the linked article in the OP, I went back and read it again more carefully and realized the cost indicated there for PSU-Univ Park is tuition only, so mandatory fees are not included in the 17.4k figure. Based on 18.4k total, only 1k in fees seems on the lower side but maybe PSU pushes more into the tuition figure. Anyway, Pitt and PSU about on par in terms of cost.

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Thanks. In the linked article in the OP, I went back and read it again more carefully and realized the cost indicated there for PSU-Univ Park is tuition only, so mandatory fees are not included in the 17.4k figure. Based on 18.4k total, only 1k in fees seems on the lower side but maybe PSU pushes more into the tuition figure. Anyway, Pitt and PSU about on par in terms of cost.

As high as those costs are when compared to a private school like Carnegie Mellon, they do not seem so bad. However, when you add Room And Board Costs, its no wonder many students are awash in student loans.

Carnegie Mellon University Tuition and Fees total $55,465. (Tuition $54,244 and Fees $1221).

I am sure most/many of their students probably receive significant scholarship money to mitigate the listed sticker price tuition.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[RUnTeX]

@e5fdny

Just curious if you were able to figure out how NJIT was seemingly costing much less for your son.

NJIT has historically had slightly higher tuition & fees than Rutgers. My brother almost went to NJIT until he got off the waitlist for Rutgers (this was in 1990). NJIT was a little bit costlier so my dad saved a few bucks with him going to RU in the end.

 

[rutgersdave]

And they wonder why NJ residents leave after HS and don't come back.

Any college out of state is about 30-40% higher than NJ so I guess 3% increase doesn’t matter to them. The state can’t afford anything anymore and everybody wants the standards to be raised, in most cases, familes of student that would have gone out of state can afford the 3%. You don’t think all that new building construction doesn’t cost money and who should pay?

NJIT looks to be more expensive but everybody isn’t offered the same rates.

 

[bigmatt718]

Any college out of state is about 30-40% higher than NJ so I guess 3% increase doesn’t matter to them. The state can’t afford anything anymore.

NJIT looks to be more expensive but everybody isn’t offered the same rates.

That's why I never understood why parents allowed kids to go to inferior colleges academically OOS like Temple or Delaware if they get into RU, or even schools on par with RU like PSU or Pitt unless their major was significantly better there than at RU. Is it a status thing? Putting your kids in debt twice as hard just to say you can?

 

[NotInRHouse]

That's why I never understood why parents allowed kids to go to inferior colleges academically OOS like Temple or Delaware if they get into RU, or even schools on par with RU like PSU or Pitt unless their major was significantly better there than at RU. Is it a status thing? Putting your kids in debt twice as hard just to say you can?

As I have often said it's all about the Shop Rite line and how much $ you can advertise about spending. It's why I think RU has so many first generation Americans and first generation to go to college- the parents look at the costs and what's on offer and quickly realize RU makes so much more sense.