Report on Capacity Issues

The Budget and Planning Committee was given the following charge:

Consider how Rutgers University, and particularly the New Brunswick Campus, should respond to the projected large increases in numbers of New Jersey high school graduates between now and 2008.  In particular, consider and make recommendations to the full Council with regard to the following questions:

a. What general principles should guide the university's response to the projected increases in applicants?

b. What mechanisms could be used in order for faculty, administrators, and students on all three campuses to work together most effectively to plan the university's response to the projected increases in educational demand and advocate for the needed resources?

c. Should the New Brunswick Campus increase undergraduate enrollment and/or increase admission standards significantly in response to the projected increases in applicants?  If enrollment should be increased, what additional resources in terms of faculty, staff, facilities, and infrastructure would be required in order to accommodate the additional students without diminishing educational quality?

d. How can the NBFC most effectively help to make the case for the resources Rutgers needs to continue to provide the highest quality education to current and future students?

The committee addressed this charge with the current budget crisis in mind.

Response to Question a

The University's response should take account of the following:
a.1. Maintain the current level of quality so that Rutgers graduates can continue to be successful
a.2. Ensure that the accreditation of programs that undergo external accreditation is not put in danger
a.3. Undertake no new initiatives that require resources that do not speak directly to the core mission of the University
a.4. Continue hiring during difficult budget times even if at a reduced level
a.5. Maintain affordability

Response to Question b

The committee believes that there exist two sets of inefficiencies, those that can be addressed with additional resources and those that can be addressed without additional resources. Among the former are the low number of TAs that increase cost in the long run when students require more than 4 years to graduate because of closed lab sections or scheduling overlaps, thus increasing the student body. These inefficiencies can not be addressed without additional resources. If and when new faculty and TA lines become available they should be distributed to the units and departments with the educational mission of the University in mind and be used to address past inequities that already exit or that will have been aggravated by the budget crisis.

In addition members noted that better students tend to graduate sooner, increasing the efficiency level. Furthermore better incoming students save on resources used for remediation. Thus capping admission, with the ensuing increase in quality of incoming students, would increase efficiency in the long run without additional resources.

The committee felt that there may be inefficiencies in the teaching of low-enrollment course sections that could be addressed currently. However it also felt that simply putting down minimum registration cut-off numbers for courses to run would not work across disciplines and suggests that a reward mechanism is set up that would encourage people at the departmental and deacanal levels to review current inefficiencies.

The committee believes that an evaluation of teaching by departments and units could address inefficiencies as well as deficiencies. Mechanisms such as exit surveys at graduation, surveys of alumni and surveys of employers could prove very beneficial.

Finally the committee suggests that a NBFC representative participates in the University-wide Physical Master Plan Committee and reports back to the Council.

Response to Question c

There is general agreement within the University that the NB campus is stressed as it is. Addressing the future increase in applications that will stem from the demographic boom with plans such as discussed earlier by Dr. Lawrence about hiring 250 additional faculty and equivalent number of TAs do not seem to us as feasible given the current budget crisis. Fiscal 2003 looms as being worse than 2002 and the hiring freeze will further reduce the faculty body through attrition. Even if funds become available in a flood in 2004 it would be too late to address the backlog and hire new faculty in significant numbers. It was also mentioned that, even if it was feasible, departments should not increase in size over a short period of time but rather increase their size gradually over several years to preserve their texture. Thus it seems that Rutgers will not be able to accommodate the demographic increase, at least in NB, and that a cap on enrollment will have to be put in place. This may be a de facto increase of admission standards but it does not need to be presented as such. The committee suggests that a cap on enrollment representing a small reduction is implemented immediately for the incoming class.

Response to Question d

The committee understands that what is common knowledge within the University in terms of the capacity issues is not necessarily common knowledge outside the university. An additional concern is that if state taxes are increased and at the same time more applicants are turned away the pressure from taxpayers will increase. We realize the faculty must participate in making the case but we are unsure of the exact mechanisms that we could use and ask the administration for suggestions of how to proceed.