I apologize if it has been posted, but I couldn't find it anywhere.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/s...n-the-big-ten-is-still-seen-as-a-big-win.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/s...n-the-big-ten-is-still-seen-as-a-big-win.html
Despite Rocky Start, Rutgers in the Big Ten Is Still Seen as a Big Win [NYTimes]
- Thread starter TheRacRU
- Start date
Interesting article.
I'm reluctant to comment on the last quote, since it is made by a football fan. But I don't see any way the History Department doesn't run a deficit. I don't know if the department is big enough to run a $20MM deficit, but it almost certainly runs a deficit.
The revenue sources for the department are research grants and the portion of tuition paid by students (allocated by some formula based on how much of the student's time is in the History Department vs other departments), plus whatever donations are directed to the History Department.
The expenses, just like expenses for the Athletic Department, include salaries, facilities (including offices and share of classroom space), operating expenses (including office/classroom supplies, travel expenses for conferences), organizational expenses (such as a share of library costs and university overhead), and scholarship costs for History students (which can be fairly large for grad students receiving stipends).
Certainly it is easy to justify the cost of a quality History Department as necessary to a world class university. But I also think there is no way that History Department revenues come close to covering Department costs.
I'm reluctant to comment on the last quote, since it is made by a football fan. But I don't see any way the History Department doesn't run a deficit. I don't know if the department is big enough to run a $20MM deficit, but it almost certainly runs a deficit.
The revenue sources for the department are research grants and the portion of tuition paid by students (allocated by some formula based on how much of the student's time is in the History Department vs other departments), plus whatever donations are directed to the History Department.
The expenses, just like expenses for the Athletic Department, include salaries, facilities (including offices and share of classroom space), operating expenses (including office/classroom supplies, travel expenses for conferences), organizational expenses (such as a share of library costs and university overhead), and scholarship costs for History students (which can be fairly large for grad students receiving stipends).
Certainly it is easy to justify the cost of a quality History Department as necessary to a world class university. But I also think there is no way that History Department revenues come close to covering Department costs.
Interesting anecdotes from the article on RU's vacillation between sports and academics noting the football schedule playing Alabama and Cornell in the same year. That says it all. Mulcahy's quote as well.
That was my first comment to myself after reading the article--"They ALL run deficits" was my actual comment. Some on the academic side don't realize the nature of investment and big-time athletics, which is that athletics creates excitement at public institutions like Rutgers, and donations to the academic side increase as the athletics gain exposure. Sports are a big part of our culture in the U.S., and virtually nobody comes back to campus for a lecture on the latest mathematics theory, as enticing as that might be.
Last edited:
The academic side will never fully feel at ease until 2021. However, most on the research side love it already due to the CIC and things like this, which Rutgers is the heading up: https://www.bigtencrc.org/
How many schools have their own tv network to publicize their academic accomplishments through school profiles and commercials. My son has gotten thousands of booklets and pamphlets in the mail that he hasn't even opened. Compare that to three hours on national TV.
From what I understand that alone would have cost Rutgers $18 million dollars last year if they had to pay for those ads.
I am sure that is something that the union will never ever bring up.