Rutgers Campus in Lawrenceville--Should/Will Rutgers look into it ?

[HeavenUniv.]

After reading the other day about Rider University in Lawrenceville/Princeton losing students, running into financial issues, and cutting classes, should/will Rutgers look into acquiring the school ? Yes, I know Rutgers is STILL waiting for the $600 million check from the state for the medical school merger,and no, I don't know if Rider governing board is interested and what the costs would be ? IF it were too happen, I assume the campus would go from Division 1 sports to Division 3 and join the NJAC with Newark,Camden, and the other New Jersey state colleges.I have been on the main Rider campus in Lawrenceville, and while the buildings are not spectacular,the 250 acre campus is beautiful with a small lake in the middle. This setting would certainly attract students who want to go to Rutgers,but do not want to go to school in a city ( Camden and Newark) and do not want to go to a campus with over 30,000 students and a HUGE campus ( Piscataway/New Brunswick ). The worst thing that could happen is for a Mercer County version of Sweeney/Norcross trying to start a new state college and siphoning off zillions of New Jersey tax dollars for himself and his political friends. What are your thoughts and what interest do you think there is from Rutgers ?

 

[retired711]

I don't think that area would be a priority for Rutgers -- the main campus is too close. I think there is much more interest at Rutgers in Monmouth County and other areas with no good access to any of the campuses. By the way, I think your central point -- that Rutgers needs a small nonurban campus -- is very well taken.

 

[RU MAN]

Heaven, I just don't see that happening. Yes, Rider is downsizing their majors and faculty, but they're not going to sell off their campus. Rider started way back when in Trenton and it was a big coup for them to find and build their campus in Lawrenceville. They're not going anywhere unless the entire school goes under.

 

[Scarlet Jerry]

Westminster Choir College in Princeton, which was taken over by Rider and serves as their music school, would be worth acquiring. It's a beautiful little campus in a great location. I can't believe that Princeton U didn't grab when it was available.

-Scarlet Jerry

 

[Leonard23]

Terrible idea. Spend that $ on making the flagship NB campus better, like building the new quad.

 

[BigRnj]

I believe Rider property actually abuts TCNJ property. Could be a future option to let TCNJ grow (campus is close to fully developed)

 

[derleider]

After reading the other day about Rider University in Lawrenceville/Princeton losing students, running into financial issues, and cutting classes, should/will Rutgers look into acquiring the school ? Yes, I know Rutgers is STILL waiting for the $600 million check from the state for the medical school merger,and no, I don't know if Rider governing board is interested and what the costs would be ? IF it were too happen, I assume the campus would go from Division 1 sports to Division 3 and join the NJAC with Newark,Camden, and the other New Jersey state colleges.I have been on the main Rider campus in Lawrenceville, and while the buildings are not spectacular,the 250 acre campus is beautiful with a small lake in the middle. This setting would certainly attract students who want to go to Rutgers,but do not want to go to school in a city ( Camden and Newark) and do not want to go to a campus with over 30,000 students and a HUGE campus ( Piscataway/New Brunswick ). The worst thing that could happen is for a Mercer County version of Sweeney/Norcross trying to start a new state college and siphoning off zillions of New Jersey tax dollars for himself and his political friends. What are your thoughts and what interest do you think there is from Rutgers ?

Mercer County already has a state college you know. TCNJ is close to Rider, but doesnt abut it I dont think. I guess it could be another branch of TCNJ, if they wanted to expand.

Or it could become a Mercer CC branch - but at 15 minutes away, its pretty close to the existing one.

There is no reason for RU to do this. What would RU get out of it? Better students? Probably not - in fact in all likelihood the small campus would steal kids from the main campus - thats not good for RU.

 

[retired711]

Let me nitpick: Your last sentence assumes we judge what is good for RU solely by what is good for the NB campus -- that's not the only test. The university has more than one campus.

 

[mal359]

A Rutgers branch or a TCNJ extension in Lawrence makes little-to-no sense.

 

[derleider]

Let me nitpick: Your last sentence assumes we judge what is good for RU solely by what is good for the NB campus -- that's not the only test. The university has more than one campus.

Well there is nothing to suggest it would help Camden or Newark either, but I think as a whole - does it help or hurt the main campus is an important question and should be a primary concern for Rutgers. If it hurts the main campus - the campus which gives value to the Rutgers degree (you will disagree I think, but to me if the main campus suffers, then the other campuses do too), then there would have to be a MAJOR benefit to either the people or future students of NJ or the Camden and Newark campuses.

I guess you could argue thhat it would keep some extra elite students in state - but I think that would be a small amount. As I said - it would mostly draw people from TCNJ and RU-NB - people who didnt want to go to either of those schools in the first place, probably are going out of state either way - and thus would mostly end up just keeping more lower end students NJ - not a strong enough reason for RU to go with this plan.

 

[retired711]

Well there is nothing to suggest it would help Camden or Newark either, but I think as a whole - does it help or hurt the main campus is an important question and should be a primary concern for Rutgers. If it hurts the main campus - the campus which gives value to the Rutgers degree (you will disagree I think, but to me if the main campus suffers, then the other campuses do too), then there would have to be a MAJOR benefit to either the people or future students of NJ or the Camden and Newark campuses.

I guess you could argue thhat it would keep some extra elite students in state - but I think that would be a small amount. As I said - it would mostly draw people from TCNJ and RU-NB - people who didnt want to go to either of those schools in the first place, probably are going out of state either way - and thus would mostly end up just keeping more lower end students NJ - not a strong enough reason for RU to go with this plan.

I think you've conceded my point. It is an important test, but not the only one. The University is also supposed to think about how Camden or Newark would be helped or hurt. As for Lawrenceville, we both agree that a campus in Lawrenceville, even if feasible, is not a good idea from RU's standpoint. As I mentioned, if RU is going to grow, it ought to be in areas that have little access to the three present campuses.

 

[derleider]

I think you've conceded my point. It is an important test, but not the only one. The University is also supposed to think about how Camden or Newark would be helped or hurt. As for Lawrenceville, we both agree that a campus in Lawrenceville, even if feasible, is not a good idea from RU's standpoint. As I mentioned, if RU is going to grow, it ought to be in areas that have little access to the three present campuses.

Yes. I did concede your point, although I think you and I would probably give different weight to how important a test it is.

Yes - the only places RU should really consider adding a major presence would be down in the central and southern Shore areas. Northwest Jersey is too sparsely populated to really be worthwhile, and the rest of NJ is pretty close to an existing RU campus (basically the entire state is within a 30 mi radius of one of the three campuses except those areas and the southern part of sparsely populated Cumberland county.)

 

[retired711]

Yes. I did concede your point, although I think you and I would probably give different weight to how important a test it is.

Yes - the only places RU should really consider adding a major presence would be down in the central and southern Shore areas. Northwest Jersey is too sparsely populated to really be worthwhile, and the rest of NJ is pretty close to an existing RU campus (basically the entire state is within a 30 mi radius of one of the three campuses except those areas and the southern part of sparsely populated Cumberland county.)

My understanding is that the university has looked at Monmouth County, which satisfies your criterion. But I think it will be many years before the university adds a fourth campus. It would need a big bond issue -- unless it somehow took over an existing institution -- and my guess would be that the university would think it has more pressing priorities.

 

[rufancoe00]

Is Monmouth County out of the way for NB ? My wife lived in Howell and it took me under an hour from NB to her place back in the day. Same as to my hometown in Mercer Co.

 

[derleider]

Is Monmouth County out of the way for NB ? My wife lived in Howell and it took me under an hour from NB to her place back in the day. Same as to my hometown in Mercer Co.

Like I said - there are only a few places in NJ that are more than 30 miles from an RU campus - basically Warren and Sussex counties, and the entire shoreline from Asbury Park on down. That covers the dense NE corridor areas. But there is another densely populated area along the Monmouth shore and the Route 9 corridor - and alot of that area is more than 45 minutes drive (what is kind of the reasonable commuting distance for most people.)

So its not so much that all of Monmouth is out of the way. Quite alot of it is relatively nearby. But southern Monmouth is not that close (as you said - an hour drive) and Ocean County, which has alot of people IS out of the way. Put it in Howell and you are setting up for people on the Shore from Long Branch down to Toms River.

Then the only major population center left out is AC and thats just not that many people. Black are existing campuses 30 mile radius - gray is a theoretical Howell campus. You could even move it North to the area of the former Fort Monmouth south of Red Bank and still cover Toms River - which is kind of the tail end of the population in that area.

In the theme of this whole post - the Catholic church is falling on hard times. Private schools might be falling out favor. Maybe we can buy up the Georgian Court campus.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

I think if the state is looking for a new location for a college Sussex County would be a good spot. Full disclosure I'm in Sussex county but in the sourthern end near Morris and not out in the country. The closest state schools are Rampao, WPU and MSU.

Does the state need more colleges? I don't know and obviously need/cost would drive those decisions. But a small state college in the Newton area would be great for the region and it would be a good setting for students. They have the county college in that area so perhaps the need is filled by that.

 

[retired711]

Like I said - there are only a few places in NJ that are more than 30 miles from an RU campus - basically Warren and Sussex counties, and the entire shoreline from Asbury Park on down. That covers the dense NE corridor areas. But there is another densely populated area along the Monmouth shore and the Route 9 corridor - and alot of that area is more than 45 minutes drive (what is kind of the reasonable commuting distance for most people.)

So its not so much that all of Monmouth is out of the way. Quite alot of it is relatively nearby. But southern Monmouth is not that close (as you said - an hour drive) and Ocean County, which has alot of people IS out of the way. Put it in Howell and you are setting up for people on the Shore from Long Branch down to Toms River.

Then the only major population center left out is AC and thats just not that many people. Black are existing campuses 30 mile radius - gray is a theoretical Howell campus. You could even move it North to the area of the former Fort Monmouth south of Red Bank and still cover Toms River - which is kind of the tail end of the population in that area.

In the theme of this whole post - the Catholic church is falling on hard times. Private schools might be falling out favor. Maybe we can buy up the Georgian Court campus.

It would be just like New Jersey to found a campus in Atlantic City as a way of "reviving" the town. But Atlantic City is a doable commute to Camden; we have many law students who live on the shore. I think, though, that few of them are in Monmouth County, so Howell would seem like a pretty good choice.

 

[derleider]

One thing is for sure - Montmouth and Ocean need a public 4 year college. Either would be among the top 10 or so population counties without one. Among other things - it cant help with brain drain. If you have to live away from home to go to a state school or go to an expensive private school, it increases the chances that you will decide to go out of state any way.

Should that school be an RU campus? It would probably help RU - which could use some support in that populous area, but I dont think its nearly as important politically as the existing campuses.

Sussex and Warren could use one too - although the lower population probablt means you can get away with whatever CCs they have their.

 

[Leonard23]

Tons of students from Monmouth & Ocean go to Rutgers & live on campus. So this would be for commuters? We don't need a 4th campus. Improve the NB flagship. Elite students can go to the Honors College in NB. If we have to, build another Honors College dorm & classroom nearby on or just off College Ave & George Street.

 

[RobertG]

Fort Monmouth is still mostly abandoned. He main area of the campus use to house the West Point Prep School complete with a dorm etc. (they recently auctioned all of the furniture in the dorms) There are many buildings that can be used for class rooms etc.

I was told that most RU along with Monmouth and Brookdale inquired about the property when BRAC was announced.

 

[retired711]

Thanks for the info, Robert. My hunch is that Rutgers will decide that supporting the three existing campuses is more important than acquiring a fourth.

 

[srru86]

Fort Monmouth is still mostly abandoned. He main area of the campus use to house the West Point Prep School complete with a dorm etc. (they recently auctioned all of the furniture in the dorms) There are many buildings that can be used for class rooms etc.

I was told that most RU along with Monmouth and Brookdale inquired about the property when BRAC was announced.

They could also expand on courses they offer along with Brookdale at the former Camp Evans satellite post in Wall. It is more convenient to Ocean County and has better highway access than the main post.

 

[retired711]

I think, srru86, that is a likely path for the University to follow. Rutgers is trying harder to work with the community colleges despite the historic tensions in the relationship.

 

[RUMBA-JK]

Start a large school in the most remote portion of the state ... isn't that how UCONN did it?

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Start a large school in the most remote portion of the state ... isn't that how UCONN did it?

No UConn started as an agricultural school. The Storrs family donated land to the state in the late 1800s for that purpose. Not surprisingly it was in a rural part of the state.

 

[RUMBA-JK]

No UConn started as an agricultural school. The Storrs family donated land to the state in the late 1800s for that purpose. Not surprisingly it was in a rural part of the state.

No doubt, just about every school has some quirks to the way in which it evolved. While the historical sequence of events is understandable, it often seems peculiar that Connecticut's state university is so remotely located from the bulk of the state's population.

UCONN is a bit of an enigma - when it comes to geography and sports - (basketball in particular) the NYC media cover it like it is located in Stamford - yet it is 140+ miles away - almost 3 hours ... actually far closer to Boston.

 

[retired711]

The New York media follow winners. Beside, many people in Connecticut consider themselves part of the NYC metropolitan area, so it makes sense for the Times, for instance, to cover UConn when it does well. If RU did well in major sports, we'd be covered too. (For instance we were covered in NYC when the football team challenged for a place in the BCS.) As things stand, we are now covered only when something stupid happens here, as with Rice and "emailgate."

 

[rutgersnyc]

As has become painfully obvious, Rutgers is a very poor university. There is no money here and no wealthy sugar daddies with millions. Getting College Ave up to B1G standards should be the priority.

 

[retired711]

I wish I could believe that College Avenue is going to be made as attractive as the midwest B1G campuses are -- at least the ones I've seen. Unfortunately, we have a damn street running through the campus and no one has figured out a way to get rid of it.

 

[Leonard23]

I wish I could believe that College Avenue is going to be made as attractive as the midwest B1G campuses are -- at least the ones I've seen. Unfortunately, we have a damn street running through the campus and no one has figured out a way to get rid of it.

They should close it & green it but we know that isn't happening. Penn St has streets running through its campus & it's very nice. Same for Michigan. All concrete sidewalks should be pavers, maybe even make the street pavers. Get rid of the rest of the houses & build more nice buildings. We need the new quad, more greening & put new roof lines on & reface some old buildings like Scott Hall.

 

[derleider]

No doubt, just about every school has some quirks to the way in which it evolved. While the historical sequence of events is understandable, it often seems peculiar that Connecticut's state university is so remotely located from the bulk of the state's population.

UCONN is a bit of an enigma - when it comes to geography and sports - (basketball in particular) the NYC media cover it like it is located in Stamford - yet it is 140+ miles away - almost 3 hours ... actually far closer to Boston.

Its not peculiar - its the norm.

State schools mostly started as ag schools, which meant that they mostly didnt start in cities and often started for political reasons near the center of the state. Occasionally thats not hte case - OSU and Minnesota come to mind, Cal (but in that day I would guess that Berkeley was about as far into the hinterlands as anyone would go to go to college in California.) UMCP is in the DC suburbs but in the 1800s that was all farmland - similar to NJ - there was alot of farmlands between the two major cities in the region

but there is nothing particularly unique about UConn, any more than PSU or Iowa or Florida being out in the boonies.

Even RU is partially a product of that. Yes it was founded in a small city, but its the state school because of the ag school, not because of the mens college - if RU had been founded in the small city of Hoboken instead, chances are Princeton or TCNJ would be the state school now - something further removed from the bulk of the states population.

 

[derleider]

I wish I could believe that College Avenue is going to be made as attractive as the midwest B1G campuses are -- at least the ones I've seen. Unfortunately, we have a damn street running through the campus and no one has figured out a way to get rid of it.

Its not the street. Illinois is squarely in the middle of town with major streets running everywhere. Its how the street is designed and used, as well as the surrounding buildings, most of which are not what one would call traditional college buildings (lots of houses.)

 

[RUMBA-JK]

Its not peculiar - its the norm.

State schools mostly started as ag schools, which meant that they mostly didnt start in cities and often started for political reasons near the center of the state. Occasionally thats not hte case - OSU and Minnesota come to mind, Cal (but in that day I would guess that Berkeley was about as far into the hinterlands as anyone would go to go to college in California.) UMCP is in the DC suburbs but in the 1800s that was all farmland - similar to NJ - there was alot of farmlands between the two major cities in the region

but there is nothing particularly unique about UConn, any more than PSU or Iowa or Florida being out in the boonies.

Even RU is partially a product of that. Yes it was founded in a small city, but its the state school because of the ag school, not because of the mens college - if RU had been founded in the small city of Hoboken instead, chances are Princeton or TCNJ would be the state school now - something further removed from the bulk of the states population.

"near the center of the state" - would have made more sense for UCONN - but as seen in lots of cases - the evolution of state universities rarely follows along the lines of "planned development" - - and the impact of state politics can often be huge .

Suspect that if RU had been located right next to Stevens - or in some other land limited area, some other institution would have been selected - or if the political connections were such that RU was destined to be the cornerstone for the State University - the whole thing would have been transplanted to some more spacious bucolic site with abundant room for expansion - - in much the same way as many other schools managed to gain a migratory location history - - some schools even actually moved entire buildings many ,many miles to new campuses.

 

[retired711]

Derleider, I must be misunderstanding your point because what you say seems so far off-base, and that's not like you.

There was much agriculture in the hinterlands of California (e.g. the Central Valley) even as the San Francisco bay area (where Berkeley is) was starting to develop. Berkeley has many buildings originally built to support B.A. programs in agriculture, but Berkeley has never been a farming area.

The University of Minnesota is located in St.Paul and Minneapolis, which developed from small towns into the major population centers of Minnesota. It's hard to imagine a more urbanized location in that state.

Ohio State is located in Columbus, the state capitol. Also not a rural school. University of Wisconsin is located in Madison, also the state capital.

These schools were land-grant colleges, and so had agriculture programs, but they never were located in famlands, but rather in towns.

I agree there are schools that were deliberately located in the hinterlands, but there were reasons for that other than agricultural programs. University of Illinois, for instance, is probably where it is because of the need for a central location. The same is also probably true of the University of Florida, also located in the central part of the state. Ohio put its capitol in Columbus as a central location between Cleveland and Cincinnati, and probably the same logic worked for siting the state university. Keep in mind also that the land grants were of agricultural land, and it may often have seemed cheaper and convenient to locate there than to sell the land for a more urban location.

 

[derleider]

Derleider, I must be misunderstanding your point because what you say seems so far off-base, and that's not like you.

There was much agriculture in the hinterlands of California (e.g. the Central Valley) even as the San Francisco bay area (where Berkeley is) was starting to develop. Berkeley has many buildings originally built to support B.A. programs in agriculture, but Berkeley has never been a farming area.

The University of Minnesota is located in St.Paul and Minneapolis, which developed from small towns into the major population centers of Minnesota. It's hard to imagine a more urbanized location in that state.

Ohio State is located in Columbus, the state capitol. Also not a rural school. University of Wisconsin is located in Madison, also the state capital.

These schools were land-grant colleges, and so had agriculture programs, but they never were located in famlands, but rather in towns.

I agree there are schools that were deliberately located in the hinterlands, but there were reasons for that other than agricultural programs. University of Illinois, for instance, is probably where it is because of the need for a central location. The same is also probably true of the University of Florida, also located in the central part of the state. Ohio put its capitol in Columbus as a central location between Cleveland and Cincinnati, and probably the same logic worked for siting the state university. Keep in mind also that the land grants were of agricultural land, and it may often have seemed cheaper and convenient to locate there than to sell the land for a more urban location.

I think you are misunderstanding me - I was holding out them out as counter examples of the normal center of the state, farmland locales that alot of state schools end up in (including RU and MD in fact.)

I was speculating about Cal, but it seems that my speculation was wrong - Cal was founded later than I thought, and California was thus more developed than I thought by that time.

 

[retired711]

I think you are misunderstanding me - I was holding out them out as counter examples of the normal center of the state, farmland locales that alot of state schools end up in (including RU and MD in fact.)

I was speculating about Cal, but it seems that my speculation was wrong - Cal was founded later than I thought, and California was thus more developed than I thought by that time.

Sorry for misunderstanding your point. I don't think there are *that* many schools that were located outside the center of the state because of agriculture. Cal-Berkeley is not in the middle of the state geographically, but it was near San Francisco, then California's leading city, and population was thin in Southern California until much later. (UCLA was founded in about 1919). Rutgers' location as you say, comes from being just about equidistant between the Philadelphia and NYC areas.

As I recall my history, California became a state in 1850; the Spanish and then the Mexicans had developed it somewhat, and there was certainly a Spanish-speaking population. (That's one reason California is a community property state -- California inherited it from the Spanish). There was an educational institution in Oakland as early as 1849, but the University of California itself was founded in 1868.

Apropos of nothing, I remember that a picture of the University as of 1868 was posted once in the Berkeley campus Public Information office. The picture showed the area as entirely without buildings. A reporter had contributed a caption: "Boy, when Reagan said he was going to restore Berkeley to its former glory, we didn't take him seriously enough!"

 

[derleider]

Sorry for misunderstanding your point. I don't think there are *that* many schools that were located outside the center of the state because of agriculture. Cal-Berkeley is not in the middle of the state geographically, but it was near San Francisco, then California's leading city, and population was thin in Southern California until much later. (UCLA was founded in about 1919). Rutgers' location as you say, comes from being just about equidistant between the Philadelphia and NYC areas.

As I recall my history, California became a state in 1850; the Spanish and then the Mexicans had developed it somewhat, and there was certainly a Spanish-speaking population. (That's one reason California is a community property state -- California inherited it from the Spanish). There was an educational institution in Oakland as early as 1849, but the University of California itself was founded in 1868.

Apropos of nothing, I remember that a picture of the University as of 1868 was posted once in the Berkeley campus Public Information office. The picture showed the area as entirely without buildings. A reporter had contributed a caption: "Boy, when Reagan said he was going to restore Berkeley to its former glory, we didn't take him seriously enough!"

Yes, I was thinking of the 1849 date - which is basically right at the gold rush - before that California had fewer than 10,000 Europeans, in 1870 it had over half a million, so what would have been hinterlands in 1849 (Oakland) was presumably fairly developed in 1868.

 

[retired711]

Yes, I was thinking of the 1849 date - which is basically right at the gold rush - before that California had fewer than 10,000 Europeans, in 1870 it had over half a million, so what would have been hinterlands in 1849 (Oakland) was presumably fairly developed in 1868.

Oakland does not appear to ever have been farmland. It was forest. Its development as an urban center began in 1852, according to Wilkipedia. So it was fairly developed, as you say, by 1868.