RU Applications Up 9.5%
- Thread starter bigmatt718
- Start date
I'm not sure if this is an apples-to-apples comparison (though it might be)
The actual state appropriation to Rutgers is approximately 9.7% of the university budget. The bulk of the remainder, to reach the ~22%, are fringe-benefits that the state provides to Rutgers employees. While those state fringe benefits are important, and saves Rutgers from paying benefits cost out of its operating budget, the fringe benefit support is not money that Rutgers can directly spend elsewhere. (There is also a small percentage of state support that is for restricted state-sponsored research or for state programs that Rutgers is charged with administering.)
Not sure but the amount Pitt receives from the state is only about $150 million.
Penn State receives proportionaly more because of the increased student body size.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
On this board, we've done a deep financial analysis of this OOS conversation. NJ.com put out a very informative article comparing the OOS of each Big Ten school and broke it down into all sorts of demographics. Rutgers, by far, had the smallest % of OOS compared to any other B1G school. That results in tens of millions of dollars a year in lost revenue. That's revenue that could be used to improve the campus, hire the best faculty, etc. So by forgoing that extra revenue, Rutgers is not best serving NJ students .. or anyone for that matter. They just keep falling further and further behind its peers.
Penn St accepts a ridiculous amount of OOS which gives them something like another $150m/year in revenue compared to Rutgers. Multiply that over 20 years and you can build a lot of extra pretty things, dorms, buildings, programs, scholarships, etc! Then all of a sudden one school gets ranked higher than the other and can become more selective and rises in the rankings. In other words .. its a big deal ! And RU should be targeting to get to 70% cap of in-state. There's no reason they can't start doing that ASAP.
Here's that thread I referenced - its a really really good read for anyone interested in this important topic:
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/threads/rutgers-in-state-reputation.140732/page-2#post-3197625
Last edited:
There may not be a policy reason, but there is a political reason: the NJ state legislature would go berserk. Legislators would hear from parents back home who are upset that Rutgers admitted an OOS student (whose parents, by definition, can't vote in NJ elections) instead of little Johnny or Janie. This was a problem for Cal-Berkeley when it tried to admit a lot of OOS students to raise its revenues.
The complaints would be especially high here because of the relatively small number of college seats compared to the number of high school graduates. California, in fact, is having the same issue; I read today in the Sacramento Bee that an increasing number of California high school grads are leaving the state to go to college because U.Cal and Cal. State U. has gotten so expensive and so hard to get into.
Now you may wonder if it matters if the NJ state legislature is upset. It does. That 9.7% of the budget that NJ supplies is one of the few sources of funding that can be used to pay for the costs of instructing students.
I acknowledge this is a reality and likely the exact pressure RU has been under and relented to over the years. But Rutgers, the state, and anyone that cares needs to wake up and realize this is slowly burying Rutgers. You can't operate with hundreds of millions less than your competitors. This would take very strong leadership to confront this issue, but it needs to be tackled and dealt with in a way that stops RU from sliding financially (and therefore in every other facet like we have over the past 3 decades on a relative basis)
Yes, RU needs money -- a lot of it. The state legislature has been hypocritical. On the one hand, it won't give Rutgers sufficient financial support -- I think we're still at about 1995 levels when inflation is taken into account. On the other, it probably won't let Rutgers seek that support on its own by admitting a lot of OOS students.
The only way for Rutgers to cope is to raise a lot of non-state money that can be used for the costs of instruction. But Rutgers does not seem to have much in the way of alumni willing to contribute. (This is a problem for all state universities --the alumni aren't accustomed to the idea that the university can't rely on state support and so needs alumni support -- but I think it is worse here.) The last fund-raising drive went well, but what Rutgers needs is annual contributions from alums that it can rely on in planning the budget.
Otherwise, tuition will have to go up and up until the state legislature eventually bans tuition increases. Unless that ban is accompanied by an increase in state financial support, Rutgers would suffer terribly. That makes alumni contributions all the more important. End of rant.
The only way for Rutgers to cope is to raise a lot of non-state money that can be used for the costs of instruction. But Rutgers does not seem to have much in the way of alumni willing to contribute. (This is a problem for all state universities --the alumni aren't accustomed to the idea that the university can't rely on state support and so needs alumni support -- but I think it is worse here.) The last fund-raising drive went well, but what Rutgers needs is annual contributions from alums that it can rely on in planning the budget.
Otherwise, tuition will have to go up and up until the state legislature eventually bans tuition increases. Unless that ban is accompanied by an increase in state financial support, Rutgers would suffer terribly. That makes alumni contributions all the more important. End of rant.
I think RU needs to start planning for and get the leadership to make its case that they ARE increasing the OOS population to increase revenue. That leadership will obviously need to include some shrewd political connections, because from the sounds of it -- the state has basically threatened to reduce funding if Rutgers did this. Essentially holding Rutgers hostage, while the school continues to be short funded.
I would in fact bet these are the same politicians who feel like Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Mich St, or even Delaware, James Madison, etc. are all schools far more worthy of their children's attendance and their tuition money than Rutgers is. The facts are simply .. Rutgers has to do something about this. Again, Penn State is receiving an estimated $164m more than RU each year in revenue from out of state students alone! They make up only just slightly more than 50% of Pennsylvania students. Yet their state (and half of our state) treats them like a gem.
Rutgers has so many more natural advantages, its crazy. But our own state is the one holding us back in this particular instance! Frustrating and mind boggling. Need a strong leader to end this nonsense.
No, there are sources of non-state money other than OOS tuition: I named one, which is alumni support.
I think you'd find that Pennsylvania has a much higher proportion of in-state college seats in relation to the number of college-bound students in the state. Think about all the campuses that Penn State has, as well as other state institutions (e.g. Kutztown). So admitting out-of-state students is more acceptable there.
You bring up a separate problem: the tendency of New Jerseyans to think of Rutgers as a "safe school" rather than the first choice for higher education. The increase in applications shows that this problem is less than it used to be, but it is still very significant. It's also, of course, a problem in recruiting the state's best high school athletes.
This is a good topic and I enjoy getting into the details of it with you @camdenlawprof .
I just did some quick searches on wikipedia to find the following:
PA public colleges & universities (4 year institutions): ~228k enrollment
PA population: ~12.8m
Approximately 1 seat for every 56 people of state population
NJ public colleges & universities (4 year institutions): ~187k enrollment
NJ population: ~9m
Approximately 1 seats for every 48 people of state population
Recognize the state population doesn't represent the number of students entering college, but its an indicator of the direction. And based on this, you would say that NJ is in fact doing a much better job at providing college seats for its population.
So I think it goes back to the theory .. this is all politics .
Essentially, the legislature can eliminate any revenue advantage RU would get from OOS students. There is no way we can use OOS students to entirely substitute for state funding, at least not within a huge boost in tuition or private (i.e. alumni) support.
In 2016 the state of NJ contributed $394m to Rutgers operating budget. That number stayed flat in 2017 & 2018 (aka we're not even getting bumps for inflation anymore)
If Rutgers changed the mix of students from approx 84% NJ today .. to approx 60% NJ (similar to Penn State who is only 56% PA residents). Then ...
- 42,000 undergrads at RU-NB alone
- Going from ~80% to 60% NJ residents - That's an incremental 11k out-of-state tuitions vs what we receive today
- 11k more OOS students x $15k per student (the difference of OOS vs in-state tuition)
EQUALS $164m A YEAR IN INCREMENTAL REVENUE !
So the state of NJ would have to cut Rutgers funding by about 40% to make this move not pay out.
So here's where the politics come in... Would the state of NJ really cut our budget that much just to react to us simply becoming more in-line with our peers and attempting to improve our funding ?! I'm sure they could also make RU admin's lives a lot harder and painful in other ways which make the move risky.
But the fact that we have to talk about operating a University (or anything in this state) under this Hollywood like style of politics is the sad part and what truly has to change.
We have discussed in the past the OOS penalty charged to Rutgers by the state. I wonder if the same treatment was applied to all of the other public colleges across the state.
Let's consider the following from a current FAQ on the CNJ website and I have to wonder how they can openly advertise that they are pursuing a policy to double their OOS enrollment. Interesting to note, here, is CNJ stating they actually exercise more (not less) flexibility in reviewing OOS applications (in an explicitedly stated effort to increase geographic diversity) whereas typically it is assumed and expected that OOS admission requires a stronger profile on average versus in-state students.
If the policy is to discourage OOS enrollment and each public college or university to do its duty to serve NJ and its college-bound demand, how does this square, and how is the state allowing this at one of their colleges?
https://admissions.tcnj.edu/resources-for/outofstateapplicants/faq/
"We certainly haven’t thought of everything you might want to know, but here are the most common questions we get from out-of-state students and their families:
How many students at TCNJ are from outside New Jersey?
A little over 7%, and we have plans to double that number over the next few years! Right now is actually the best time to apply to The College of New Jersey as an out-of-state student… keep reading to find out why.
Is it harder to get into TCNJ as an out-of-state student?
No! The College of New Jersey is a highly selective institution, but because we are trying to bring more geographic diversity to our campus, we are a bit more flexible with out-of-state applicants during the admissions process."
Let's consider the following from a current FAQ on the CNJ website and I have to wonder how they can openly advertise that they are pursuing a policy to double their OOS enrollment. Interesting to note, here, is CNJ stating they actually exercise more (not less) flexibility in reviewing OOS applications (in an explicitedly stated effort to increase geographic diversity) whereas typically it is assumed and expected that OOS admission requires a stronger profile on average versus in-state students.
If the policy is to discourage OOS enrollment and each public college or university to do its duty to serve NJ and its college-bound demand, how does this square, and how is the state allowing this at one of their colleges?
https://admissions.tcnj.edu/resources-for/outofstateapplicants/faq/
"We certainly haven’t thought of everything you might want to know, but here are the most common questions we get from out-of-state students and their families:
How many students at TCNJ are from outside New Jersey?
A little over 7%, and we have plans to double that number over the next few years! Right now is actually the best time to apply to The College of New Jersey as an out-of-state student… keep reading to find out why.
Is it harder to get into TCNJ as an out-of-state student?
No! The College of New Jersey is a highly selective institution, but because we are trying to bring more geographic diversity to our campus, we are a bit more flexible with out-of-state applicants during the admissions process."
Last edited:
I don't recall seeing the conversation on the "OOS penalty charged to Rutgers by the state". Did someone come forth with what the consequences would actually be (or have threatened to be)? Or just conversational speculation on what levers the state could hypothetically pull on RU?
The state used to have an explicit policy of taking away any extra money Rutgers earned through admitting OOS students. That was repealed a couple of years ago. It could, of course, come back at any time.
(I don't think my post got through).
Thanks for letting us know about this . I don't know what Rutgers' undergrad OOS enrollment is now. My guess is that it's more than 7%, but not much more. Interesting that TCNJ is trying to use the same admission standard for OOS students. Of course, if they can do this, Rutgers ought to be able to do the same if it wants to.
I think someone shared that RU's OOS enrollment is around 20%, but most are international not from the US.
And it is correct that international students pay OOS fees.
And it is correct that international students pay OOS fees.
I'd say that's a good guess for domestic OOS, even for just NB/flagship on its own. I'd assume less than 10%. Newark and Camden may be 5% or lower each.
I didn't read "flexibility" as using the same admission standard for OOS, but rather as a slightly lower standard than in-state admissions. I could be wrong.
Last edited:
If this is true then wow. I think the time has more than passed for Rutgers to get strong and influential leadership in Trenton. It has to be a priority (I’m sure it already has been).
In the meantime , Rutgers should be working it’s face off to prove the business case on this topic and doing a road show to politicians simply using the facts we’ve presented on this board here today.
Not exactly, it's a little lower than that, and it also depends on the numbers broken down further with respect to undergrad/grad and across campuses (not all of this info is readily available).
Further up this thread, there were some posts discussing this in greater detail between camdenlawprof and I. Anyway, the in-state % universitywide (all three campuses at all levels - undergrad & post-baccalaureate, incl. the overlapping RBHS division which exists across 2 of the 3 campuses) is 82.6%. So the balance of 17.4% is between domestic OOS and international. Not sure the exact breakdown but I think a reasonable guess is that it's not too far off 50:50 (8.7%+/- each). In recent years, it may lean just a bit heavier toward foreign/int'l so maybe that's closer to 9+% and domestic OOS may be closer to <=8.5%.
Last edited:
I've heard from a faculty member who works with international students that RU is a much easier sell to foreign, mostly Asian student because of it's proximity to NYC. They target mostly wealthy Asian students.
I doubt these are the types who are likely to donate back to the university. Wealthy out of staters are probably more likely to. But Rutgers doesn't have as much to sell to these students. We don't particularly have a beautiful campus although it's getting better. Our athletic department is bad. We don't really have any signature academic programs to sell besides being very well rounded.
I doubt these are the types who are likely to donate back to the university. Wealthy out of staters are probably more likely to. But Rutgers doesn't have as much to sell to these students. We don't particularly have a beautiful campus although it's getting better. Our athletic department is bad. We don't really have any signature academic programs to sell besides being very well rounded.
Not surprising to hear that.
Random anecdote. Going back to 2007 or so, a friend and I were hanging out at a bar in Manhattan and two Asian girls come over and start talking to us. Turns out they are international students (one from China, one from Taiwan) at Rutgers, specifically full-time masters students in the fine arts at Mason Gross. They actually lived in an apartment in Manhattan and commuted to NB, taking the NEC train down and back everyday. Proximity to NYC (and relative ease of access between NYC and Rutgers NB) may very well have been a factor that attracted them to come half way across the world to attend Mason Gross.
It's easy to forget that Mason Gross is an example of a program that is excellent and that few other schools have. I would guess that Mason Gross is attractive to OOS as well as foreign students.
Agreed, and it wouldn't surprise me if MGSA-specific enrollment figures showed a breakdown of in-state vs OOS to be much more balanced than any other academic unit across the university. MGSA has quite a reputation so that's more of a niche case.
I also just found it somewhat interesting that they decided to rent in Manhattan rather than live closer to or in NB. But they may have wanted to access to one or more of the social life, cultural attractions, arts venues, etc or even perhaps just the perceived prestige that comes with telling friends and family back home that they live in NYC.
Last edited:
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but just wondering why you think this? Children of well-to-do international students are unlikely to donate? Cultural thing maybe?
My guess is that it's mostly a cultural thing, especially among the Asian subset versus European.
http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/culture-behind-asian-donations-u-s-universities/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hong-kong-tops-list-of-donors-to-u-s-schools-1411401637
I would think donations would be even higher but Chinese were not freely allowed in the country before 1965 until the immigration act was changed and the Chinese wealth has only grown substantially in the last 15 years.
Last edited:
I guess I would draw a distinction between donations received from generationally wealthy families and/or billionaires versus more typical affluent/well-to-do families who might be able to afford a US education for their sons/daughters relatively easily but otherwise may not care to, nor be in position to, open their relatively smaller purse strings for US schools versus other priorities, incl. possibly other charitable causes.
Here's some 2015-16 data for NB undergrad but it does not specify domestic OOS %. The foreign/int'l is 7.2%. I don't believe the domestic OOS is quite 12.8%, however, so the total OOS is not likely as high as 20%.
https://newbrunswick.rutgers.edu/about/we-are-diverse
Diversity Statistics
Rutgers University–New Brunswick (including RBHS)
2015-2016 school year.
Undergraduate enrollment:
- Male, 50 percent; Female, 50 percent
- African American: 7.5 percent
- Asian: 26 percent
- International: 7.2 percent
- Latino: 13 percent
- Other: 5.2 percent
- White: 41.5 percent
These numbers do not jibe with the images I see in Rutgers publications that frequent my inbox and mailbox.
Any numbers in particular, or all of them? When you say "jibe with the images" do you think Rutgers marketing folks are trying to stage students in images that are in alignment with these percentages, or trying to depict more or less diversity than the above numbers indicate?
Much more on the diversity angle.
I’m around campus enough to know your numbers are closer to what Rutgers really looks like compared to what is shown online, mail and other media.
