Accountability:
Home
Table of Contents
Letter from the President
Overview
Mission and Goals
Mission Fulfillment
Cost Containment
Sum. of Key Co. Ind.
Board of Gov. & Trustee

Cost Containment:
Part I
    Section 1:
     Section 2:
Part II
Part III

Jump to:
Rutgers Homepage

Comparative Results
    

Reflecting the university's ongoing effort to be cost-effective, data indicate that total non-restricted educational and general (adjusted) costs per student were 22% less at Rutgers than at peer institutions during FY1994 ($10,799 at Rutgers compared to $13,801 for the average public AAU institution), the latest year for which comparable data are available. The following table presents comparative cost data by academic, support, and other areas of the public AAU institutions and of Rutgers (both unadjusted and cost-of-living adjusted). The data presented are from an analysis of higher education costs within the state undertaken by the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education in its Second Annual Systemwide Accountability Report - May 1997. Rutgers' Costs are 22% Less Than AAU Peers Components of Fiscal Year 1994 Unrestricted E & G Expenditures per Student Rutgers University and Average Public AAU Institutions       The New Jersey Commission on Higher Education study indicates that Rutgers' costs in the area of support are $900 less per student than among public AAU schools and that academic costs per student are roughly $1,500 less per student. Notwithstanding Rutgers' ability to deliver higher education at a reasonable cost, quality is remarkably strong as indicated by the high rankings achieved by its doctoral programs, by the number of students who go on to earn doctoral degrees, and by its high undergraduate graduation rates. Rutgers' commitment to the delivery of a quality education in a cost effective manor is also acknowledged by the media. An illustration of this is evident in the recent Money Magazine Rankings of Colleges and Universities (August, 1997) that placed Rutgers-New Brunswick as the 14th best value in the country, and Rutgers-Camden and Rutgers-Newark as the 21st and 25th best value, respectively, among institutions in the Mid-Atlantic region. Rutgers Has Increased its Funding of Academics While Decreasing its Administrative Expenditures Components of Unrestricted E & G Expenditures as Percentages of the Total Rutgers University and Average Public AAU Institutions       As the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education study shows, even in the face of declining state support Rutgers has been able to preserve its academic strengths by shifting resources from support categories to its three-fold mission of instruction, research, and public service. For example, between FY1989 and FY1994, while instruction as a percentage of total unrestricted educational and general expenditures fell by over 2% among its AAU peers, at Rutgers this figure increased by over 2%. Similarly, while AAU peers cut support as a percentage of total unrestricted educational and general expenditures by roughly 1% during this six-year period, Rutgers cut such costs by 2.5%.     A very visible manifestation of this shifting of institutional resources is the university's Strategic Resource and Opportunity Analysis which recently identified $4 million in administrative efficiencies that have been used to fund key academic growth priorities defined in the University Strategic Plan: A New Vision for Excellence.