That all may be true (as my undergrad alma mater of UIUC faces a lot of the same critiques in the State of Illinois), yet I believe that the overall point is that Rutgers, Illinois, Penn State, Minnesota or any other flagship is not what the OP article means by a “regional public university.” The University of Minnesota flagship campus is not a regional public university (even though the vast majority of students come from the State of Minnesota), while the schools listed in the OP article are all regional.
Correct - didn’t mean to get off topic with the Rutgers stuff. In NJ I’d consider the regionals Stockton, Monmouth, TCNJ, Montclair State, Drew, Rider, Kean, etc.
USNews has Rowan in National Universities now…
Yep, this was exactly what I meant–thanks!
FWIW, the reason data from the UMinn campuses weren’t included in the linked article is that in Minnesota, all UMinn campuses are administered by a different system entirely than the other state colleges and universities.
Many directional state schools have been under financial pressure, partly from declining enrollments. We can probably all think of examples, such as the University of Wisconsin system.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/03/06/u-wisconsin-stevens-point-eliminate-13-majors
I, my self, had no interest in Rutgers. I made my kids look at it, but they too had no interest as they didn’t want to be around the same kids they went to HS with. One went to TCNJ and one to SUNY Binghamton.
Interesting about Rutgers - My kiddo is in the same boat as most of your kids here, no interest in Rutgers. But I can’t ignore the fact that Rutgers has 80% of student in state, compared to, say UMich with less than 60% (i could be wrong but definitely not more than 70%). Would you say UMich is not popular for Michigan kids? Just curious.
Yes I heard that a lot from other kids too.
More that UM is popular with out of state students, including those from NJ.
That may be true, but my point is that you can’t say a school is unpopular for students of that state when it has 51,000 undergraduates and around 83% are from that state!
CC sample is a spec compared to the real world. You UCB taught me that fact 
Regardless, Rutgers bashing is out of place here when the point is regional public schools (not flagships) AND it is doing fine–many students must be fine with it since it does not have declining enrollment. The list of “regionals” above includes several private colleges–Monmouth, Drew, Rider–which is also not what the post was about.
I’d also add Montclair State as another one that is expanding enrollment and building impressive new facilities.
I think overall takeaway is that regional public universities in NJ are doing fine. “Your” kid might not like them, fine, but thousands of NJ kids get great educations at them. We export college students simply because we have so many–our state system couldn’t possibly hold them all.
Overall, we’re a small state with a lot of people–chances are we are not going to see the type of threat of closing that a big, less populated state is going to have.
This. Had Rutgers originally built its campus where Monmouth is, then I’m sure it would have a much different appeal.
In fact, the opposite is true. Big universities have become so snooty and selective, they forget that the goal is to educate students. The smaller state universities have benefited from that. Take UTSA for instance, just 75 miles south of UT-Austin. In 2000, the student body was about 10,000. UT-Austin changed their admissions standards during that time, especially for their business school. At the same time, UTSA decided to do the exact opposite. They opened their enrollment and started offering innovative degree programs to attract students. They were one of the first schools in the country to offer a degree in Information Technology. In that period, UTSA literally tripled in size. For a time, there were more buildings under construction than being used. That’s the kind of school you want to be going to. Prestigious schools use smart kids as a way to cover their deficiencies, because the goal is research grants, not educating students.
Yikes, Stevens Point is cancelling Spanish and history? Not good.
New buildings are nice, but you also want students at a school to graduate. According to the 2018-19 CDS, 15% of UTSA students entering in 2012 graduated in 4 years, and 36% graduated within 6 years. At UT Austin those numbers are 61% and 83%, respectively.
That said, UTSA does seem to be improving its numbers gradually. The 4 year graduation rate is up to 25%, and the 6 year rate is 40%.
https://www.utsa.edu/president/2018/09/story/2018-0928-UTSA-graduation-rate.html
@warblersrule You’re comparing apples and oranges. That’s because UTSA is a commuter school and there are as many part-time students as full-time students. It’s that way on purpose, because of the high Hispanic population. There are a lot of older first generation students that have to go part time because of finances, so the school purposely structures their classes around that. Those rates don’t necessarily apply to a non-traditional university.
Re: #33
It would not be surprising if graduation rates increased or decreased with changes in admission selectivity, which tends to be related to student demand. UTSA historically has not been that selective, but it may be getting stronger students now as Texas’ student population increases, causing more to be squeezed out of more selective campuses, resulting in increasing graduation rates.
This depends upon where you live. For a high growth state like Texas where there are clearly relative few spots in the top public options relative to the population (such as UT-Austin or Texas A&M). It’s definitely the opposite here in Illinois where we have had stagnant/negative population growth. The flagship UIUC is still steadily growing due to academic prestige, its sister UIC is very rapidly growing with its increase in academic prestige and research opportunities with a location in West Loop neighborhood that has transformed from a big negative to a major positive over the years, and Illinois State (a solid school for certain majors such as education) has had flat enrollment.
However, the enrollment at the regional public universities in Illinois (similar to the ones described in the OP article) have absolutely plummeted. It’s sort of a vicious circle: with tuition costs rising, that causes a flight to quality. Why go to a regional directional school in Illinois when you can get a degree from the Big Ten flagships in neighboring Indiana or Iowa for not that much more? We see the decision being made over and over and over again in the state of Illinois, which is why we’re one of the biggest net exporters of college students in the country (along with New Jersey).
"
NJ has an has an excellent, well funded, public education system K-12, which makes NJ kids desirable to out of state colleges.
In FL it seems (don’t know for sure) that the smaller or 2nd / 3rd tier state schools are doing fine. FGCU, UNF, UWF, etc. But, our population has been growing steadily (I remember a few yrs back when they made a big deal about the first time in FL history there were more recorded births than deaths).
Most kids here want to stay in FL. Probably not that different than other big states with massive state schools.
That, plus the fact that the only “prestige” school in NJ is Princeton which only accepts 1600 freshmen each year, AND we don’t have enough colleges for a state with so many people, AND we are pretty diverse, kids are not afraid to go out of state to experience new things…
I love NJ, it has everything we wanted here, even with high property tax.
Coincidentally, D19 told me a professor made an offhand comment to her that he is impressed with NJ students because they are most prepared for college. This comment even though from one professor from Cal, it validates everything I’ve known about NJ school system.