Rutgers Veterinary School
- Thread starter rucook08
- Start date
Having a vet school, or any other units, is being studied by one of President Barchi's 100-day committees. There is no certainty it will happen.
If it happens I assume it is will be more about NJ based bio/pharma companies with animal science business units wanting to have research partners rather than giving the cat lady in the neighborhood another option for Fluffy's health issues.
I'm ok with that.
I'm ok with that.
On an unrelated but related note - I'm gonna write to tis commission and suggest RU start a broadcast meteorology program. TO be so close to so many big markets with little in the way of formal connection to them is a shame.
Not thats its stopped RU - we now have meteorologist on the Weather Channel. But given its location and the fact that it already has a meteorology program, it should be a go to place for that kind of training. And having RU with more representation in front of the cameras instead of behind the scenes in forecasting, research, and industry would be great for the school.
Not thats its stopped RU - we now have meteorologist on the Weather Channel. But given its location and the fact that it already has a meteorology program, it should be a go to place for that kind of training. And having RU with more representation in front of the cameras instead of behind the scenes in forecasting, research, and industry would be great for the school.
Is the theory that horse owners will come from Colts Neck etc up to NB for horse care? Not being facetious, I don't know anything about horse care. Is this what other states do? Like, my cow was cured at ISU so Go Cyclones here's donations?
Not to be harsh, but given the transitional state of the medical and business schools and disorderly state of the law schools, I'd like for us to have what should be our top donor pools in line before starting new ones,
Kind of like maybe we should have a basketball team go to the NCAAs before we have a hockey team. And I really want a hockey team.
Yes - thats the theory. It can't hurt. Right now how many rich guys in Colts Neck or out in Hunterdon County have any reason at all to give a damn about RU. The other thing would be what srru suggested (and its probably the bigger one) - pharm companies also do vet medicines. Thats big money.
I assume that at some point we have talked with Hartz,one of the largest pet food companies in the world,whose headquarters are right up the road in Secaucus. MAYBE they would be interested in donating money and we call it the Rutgers Hartz Vet School.
You mean we just acquired a medical school mainly for the purpose of enhancing medical research, largely in conjunction with local globally recognized pharmaceutical companies (who also make your cats medicine).
But I actually meant what can it hurt to seriously investigate the possibility, instead of dismissing it out of hand because vet don't make alot of money.
This post was edited on 2/27 1:03 PM by derleider
What difference does that make?
High salaries compared to whom? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the national average salary for Vets is about $84K. That is less than the average $113K for Lawyers, but more than the average $63K for Accountants, and pretty much in the same range as the $81K for Environmental Engineers or $85K for Biomedical Engineers or $89K for Electrical/Electronic Engineers.
Ok, I'll admit that I have absolutely no idea how much research veterinary schools generate. I can't imagine it's comparable to medical schools, but I really don't know and Google isn't helping me. I guess it can't hurt to explore so long as the resources involved with opening a new school (which are huge) do not take away from investment in the newly-intergrated components of UMDNJ.
Compared to JD, MBA, and MD. We need to fix those first.
Again- it's why we don't have a hockey team. Yes, hockey is popular in NJ. Yes, it would engage people. But it would cost a lot and most of our other sports are in bad shape.
We need to focus on the biggest revenue generators first.
I don't follow what the difference in average salary has to do with anything.
Are you thinking that Rutgers should invest in JD, MBA, and MD programs over DVM programs because doctors, lawyers, and business administrators make more money and are more likely to give back to Rutgers? Maybe vets are more charitable and therefore more willing to make donations the lawyers.
(also the average salary for DVMs is higher than the average salary for MBAs)
If J.Ds and M.D.s give back, it will generally be to the units they graduated from and not the university as a whole.
True and as a whole they don't have the reputation as big donors. They have a reputation/stereotype as having deep pockets and very short arms.
I think it depends on the school. My classmates from law school tend to be reasonably generous, although I don't know of any big-ticket donations.
Rutgers' essential problem is that students do not enjoy the experience here as much as at other colleges and universities. Hence they are reluctant givers.
Very real problem. Absolutely.
I think we can't discount the relatively lower soci-economic base line of our typical grad over those those with the family resources to send a kid to whatever nice eastern private school you care to name. We also don't have the State U. pride of our Midwestern friends.
I don't think socio-economic base is that big a factor. Yes, we can't expect huge donations from the majority of our alums. But it's not unreasonable to expect $100-$250 contributions from a lot more alums that are contributing now. If we increased our alumni giving rate from 10% to 15%, even those relatively small contributions would help a lot.
I have to agree with jcg. The Biomedical and Health Sciences division is like a former marathoner who decided training was only necessary when s/he felt like it. The rest of the time could be spent trying all the beers in the world. We - as a University and and alumni base - must see to the rigorous training of this division to the demanding standards that we have held for all our other schools, past and present. Once this mission critical component is set to rights, then we can look at further expansion.
That said, a veterinarian school is not a "bad" long term goal for any university to have... especially one that has actively retained and expanded its land grant school. However, it must be established with a strong foundation of support from the agricultural and industrial aspects of the state economy. Simply saying we need one because "everyone else has one" or because there is a perception that it will lead to large donations from either pharma or a few of the 85 BigAg companies is not a grounded approach.
Instead, I would urge the strategic planning sub-committees to draw in input from the existing animal farms in New Jersey to identify their needs vis a vis their wants for support from the existing School for Environmental and Biological Sciences. As ScarletPride, points out, we do have an Equine Science Center (http://www.esc.rutgers.edu) that was established in 1978. Separately, the Agricultural Experiment Stations (http://njaes.rutgers.edu) in the counties provide regional support. The question to have answered is: Is this sufficient? Likewise, there needs to be a survey of the companies to find out what values and needs they have in the way of veterinarians in addition to the array of 900+ graduates from SEBS and the newly formed Biomedical and Health Sciences division which is made up of multiple schools (http://rbhs.rutgers.edu/schools.shtml).
BUT this cannot be just about the current farmers and Pharma companies. This is equally about drawing in students who want to learn under the tutelage of world-class faculty and attain a degree from a school which is recognized for what it has accomplished going all the way back to 1864 when SEBS was the Rutgers Scientific School and to 1914 when the Smith-Lever Act established the Agricultural Extension Service, which located what was then known as the College of Agriculture faculty in each of the counties.
Ultimately, having a veterinarian school as part of Rutgers is an excellent proposal that should be fleshed out and attained. But it needs to be done in sequence with the other needs of the University.
This post was edited on 3/2 9:25 AM by mkollar
That said, a veterinarian school is not a "bad" long term goal for any university to have... especially one that has actively retained and expanded its land grant school. However, it must be established with a strong foundation of support from the agricultural and industrial aspects of the state economy. Simply saying we need one because "everyone else has one" or because there is a perception that it will lead to large donations from either pharma or a few of the 85 BigAg companies is not a grounded approach.
Instead, I would urge the strategic planning sub-committees to draw in input from the existing animal farms in New Jersey to identify their needs vis a vis their wants for support from the existing School for Environmental and Biological Sciences. As ScarletPride, points out, we do have an Equine Science Center (http://www.esc.rutgers.edu) that was established in 1978. Separately, the Agricultural Experiment Stations (http://njaes.rutgers.edu) in the counties provide regional support. The question to have answered is: Is this sufficient? Likewise, there needs to be a survey of the companies to find out what values and needs they have in the way of veterinarians in addition to the array of 900+ graduates from SEBS and the newly formed Biomedical and Health Sciences division which is made up of multiple schools (http://rbhs.rutgers.edu/schools.shtml).
BUT this cannot be just about the current farmers and Pharma companies. This is equally about drawing in students who want to learn under the tutelage of world-class faculty and attain a degree from a school which is recognized for what it has accomplished going all the way back to 1864 when SEBS was the Rutgers Scientific School and to 1914 when the Smith-Lever Act established the Agricultural Extension Service, which located what was then known as the College of Agriculture faculty in each of the counties.
Ultimately, having a veterinarian school as part of Rutgers is an excellent proposal that should be fleshed out and attained. But it needs to be done in sequence with the other needs of the University.
This post was edited on 3/2 9:25 AM by mkollar
400,000 alumni *0.05 (5% increase) *$250 = $5,000,000. Not a big help at all. The problem is and will continue to be the big donations. As we've discussed before, the main reason to focus on the small donations is that the factors that lead to more small donations also tend to help with getting the bigger donations and outside of that - you juts don't know which small donators will end up being rich enough to be big donators down the line.
That's the trouble with you math-and-science folks: you actually sit down and calculate the numbers! :))
I agree that RU needs a higher giving rate, but a 15% alumni giving rate is VERY high for a State U (as compared to a small private colleges which have much higher rates). I think the average is less than 9% if my memory serves from the last time I got the stats from the RU Foundation. RU has improved the student experience over the past 10 years or so and also the outreach to recent alumni to keep them in touch and more likely to donate. Of course, much more improvement is needed. But, the track record for outreach, etc. by RU was abysmal when I graduated in the 1980s. It is hard to build bridges with earlier classes for that reason.
Could you give us a source for (a) the alumni giving rate: and (b) the giving rate at other state universities? FWIW, North Carolina-Chapel Hill has a participation rate of 19%., according to the link.
alumni giving rates
alumni giving rates
These figures are old, but indicate our alumni giving rate at 9%, which is pretty mediocre compared to other state U.'s. It's hard to believe we've jumped to 15% -- a 2/3 increase -- in the last seven years.
Giving rate #s are gamed all the time. There are many ways to count participation. Rutgers has traditionally always counted the true percentage of alumni that have given - meaning if we have 400,000 alumni and we claim 10% that means we received gifts from 40,000 alumni.
Many other schools use varying tactics to boost the numbers (because they help in US News rankings). Just a few ways that people game the numbers...
- Count only the percentage of donors that were solicited. This means that you stop sending letters and making calls to people that have never given or haven't given in 10 years (or some other time period). Suddenly you basically cut a large chunk of your dead wood.
- Run campaigns that focus on people giving very small gifts (e.g. $5) for the sole purpose of boosting participation numbers.
- Include a "donation" in event registration, graduation process, etc - again for the sole reason of boosting participation.
And there are other ways as well. Now some schools have legit high numbers but those are generally small high wealth liberal arts schools and it is simply part of their culture.
The reality is that participation numbers don't really mean much. They are just a statistic. Yes it would be great to have a higher percentage but major gifts fundraising isn't a direct reflection of being a long time loyal donor. Plenty of donors give small amounts to their university out of loyalty
but will never give large dollars and plenty never give anything until
they write that big check. Many high wealth donors will make sporadic gifts or none at all and then when properly cultivated and solicited make a large gift.
Many other schools use varying tactics to boost the numbers (because they help in US News rankings). Just a few ways that people game the numbers...
- Count only the percentage of donors that were solicited. This means that you stop sending letters and making calls to people that have never given or haven't given in 10 years (or some other time period). Suddenly you basically cut a large chunk of your dead wood.
- Run campaigns that focus on people giving very small gifts (e.g. $5) for the sole purpose of boosting participation numbers.
- Include a "donation" in event registration, graduation process, etc - again for the sole reason of boosting participation.
And there are other ways as well. Now some schools have legit high numbers but those are generally small high wealth liberal arts schools and it is simply part of their culture.
The reality is that participation numbers don't really mean much. They are just a statistic. Yes it would be great to have a higher percentage but major gifts fundraising isn't a direct reflection of being a long time loyal donor. Plenty of donors give small amounts to their university out of loyalty
but will never give large dollars and plenty never give anything until
they write that big check. Many high wealth donors will make sporadic gifts or none at all and then when properly cultivated and solicited make a large gift.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
BB Recruiting 2024 former SEC commit big man visiting this weekend
- Latest: -RUFAN4LIFE-
-