Talk:Rutgers University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	New Jersey Portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help: ExplorerCDT (talk • contribs • email)

Archives

November 2004 to July 2006

Contents 1 Major Restructuring/Edit 07AUGUST2006 2 Cannon photo? 3 Athletics above tradition 4 The Alma Mater and Political Correctness 5 Size of the article 6 Some humour 7 Protected 8 "first intercollegiate football game" 9 Template:Rutgers 10 Ivy League Invitation 11 Against the merging of Grease Trucks 12 I Know it was a Different Time, But... 13 "Biggest football game in school history" 14 Today vs Contemporary 15 "Flagship" 16 Leading

[edit] Major Restructuring/Edit 07AUGUST2006

I started restructuring this article during the afternoon hours (EDT) of 7 August 2006 and half way through decided it would be prudent for me to explain my intentions so that no one a.) gets their nose bent out of joint, and b.) so people understand why I'm doing what I'm doing, and c.) so they know what I intend to add/subtract. This may take a day or two.

In addition to adding citations, as has been vigorously argued above (and which I concede is important), I intend to do the following to make the article more comprehensive (currently, and I am to blame since I wrote a lot of it, it's very/too history-oriented):

1. ) Add subsections regarding Admissions, Financial Aid, Student Life, and Undergraduate and Graduate programs.
2. ) Make a few substantial mentions of Rutgers-Newark and Rutgers-Camden just to round out the article, despite it being currently New Brunswick-Piscataway campus heavy.
3. ) Add more to the Athletics section regarding the program today, hence why I placed it in its own section. Will mention, as a point of reference, that alumni are divided between Bloustein-Lawrence's "bigger time" athletics, versus those who advocate smaller athletic programs with the old rivals (Princeton, Lafayette, Lehigh, etc.) and greater focus on academics (The RU1000 crowd). Will mention championships that aren't in revenue sports (i.e. sports other than football, basketball)
4. ) Divisions of the University, I think should be added as a subsection of "About the University"
5. ) Something dealing with the Rutgers University Libraries

I think a Rutgers template may need to be made, to link things like the residential colleges, the professional schools, etc. But that is for another time. Perhaps that network of articles may not be necessary if this article becomes sufficiently comprehensive. The various Rutgers articles (like Douglass College, Cook College, Rutgers-Newark, Rutgers-Camden etc.) need to be worked on. Columbia's set of articles (regarding its divisions) may be an influence, as with Oxford or Cambridge articles (re: residential colleges/institutions). —ExplorerCDT 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannon photo?

Does anyone have a photo of the cannon on campus? It seems odd that the "The Cannon War" section has a picture of the Statue of Prince William the Silent and not the cannon. I think that statue photo needs to stay in the article, but it seems odd that it appears to be illustrating the cannon section, when it isn't. So does anyone have a photo of the cannon and have a suggestion on where to move the statue image to? Metros232 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I added a personal photo to the Cannon War section. I should have made my intentions known, but I thought I would have completed the edit to my liking before anyone noticed. You beat me to the punch. —ExplorerCDT 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• P.S. Just so you know, I intend to expand the "Around campus" section to include a few more traditions linked to places around the university, like the Queen's Gate, etc. And extend the "traditions" section to discuss possibly secret societies on campus, the mascot and school colors (which arise out of the first football game...they almost were orange). —ExplorerCDT 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because the cannon is fifteen miles away, buried in the earth. Septentrionalis 01:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• 16.2 miles, not 15...hence why the article read "16 miles." Would you like the GPS data for that fact? I've even read the student accounts of the theft about "journeying sixteen miles under the darkness of the late hours." —ExplorerCDT 03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Then you are going roundabout; the "mile 15" marker on route 27 is in downtown New Brunswick. Septentrionalis 12:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but the mileage sign in front of Old Nassau on Nassau Street (Route 27) in Princeton says "New Brunswick...16." 4 years at Rutgers and I don't know where that mile marker you talk about is. GPS from the cannon in front of Old Queens to the cannon behind old Nassau showed the route (George Street to Albany Street-Route 27 South, parking right in front of the FitzRandolph Gate and walking behind Old Nassau) was 16 miles and 1075.8 feet—19.8 feet over 16.2 miles—ExplorerCDT 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, if you take Somerset Street (which runs in front of Old Queens) in New Brunswick, to Route 27 South—the most direct route—it only shaves off 0.3 miles, for a total of 15.9 miles one-way to Princeton.—ExplorerCDT 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Further, Mapquest.com, even taking Jersey Avenue out to Route 1 South for a few miles, brings it to 16.23 miles total. [1] —ExplorerCDT 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It's on the northbound side of Route 27; I think it's still French Street. Septentrionalis 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Remember, French Street doesn't end at and turn Route 27 over to Albany Street until at least 5/8ths-3/4ths of a mile from Old Queens. I'll have to check that out to make sure, but if that marker is on French street, it's most likely near a mile away. I know there's a mile marker on the Albany Street Bridge between New Brunswick and Highland Park, but I can't get anyone out there to look at it for at least a day or two. However, I will check into it. —ExplorerCDT 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athletics above tradition

Is this really necessary? It plays into the stereotypes about Rutgers, unfairly. Septentrionalis 01:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I thought it was a better transition between the history section to the historical part of the athletics section. If you notice, the Princeton University article has their athletics section above their tradition section, so I don't think it has anything to do about stereotypes. While I agree and lament that tradition does fall to the big time athletics, I don't think that comes into play just in how I moved the section to accomodate what I felt was an aesthetic and organizational improvement. —ExplorerCDT 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. If you notice, I will be adding a discussion about the dissent of several alumni (and faculty and students) regarding tradition and academics being sacrificed for a big time success in athletics (chiefly football), within the athletic section, which I feel would probably segue well into the tradition section. —ExplorerCDT 01:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Alma Mater and Political Correctness

I have consistently had to revert edits to the article that insert "woman" as an alternative lyric for "man" in the Alma Mater section, which has the lyrics to On the banks of the Old Raritan. As seen by the link on the webpage, the official university text only shows one alteration to the lyrics, (the use of "my friends" for "my boys" in the chorus) and does not show any substitution of "woman" for "man" in the first verse...probably because it doesn't fit in with the melodic line. It seems that these edits derive from people involved in Queen's Chorale, the women's SSAA chorus based on the Douglass campus, because this group of about 20 butchers the alma mater by adding "or a woman" to the line in a manner reminiscent of those pathetic grammar school renditions of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. It is not official, none of the official Rutgers pages that put up the lyrics mentions such an alteration, and if it's based from the Queen's Chorale, it's a tradition of a very small minority that doesn't deserve mention in this article. Therefore, whoever it is out there...please refrain from further attempts to alter the lyrics from their true, official form. Until such time as the university recognizes such a substitution on their webpages and publications (i.e. The Rutgers Songbook), it should remain as is. I suggest that if you want to change it here, you should first direct your efforts to getting the university to make it official first. —ExplorerCDT 04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't care what the lyrics are as long as they are properly cited from a reliable source. Simply changing the lyrics such that they are not in agreement with the cited source is dishonest and not in accordance with Wikipedia (or accepted scholarly) policies and principles. If you change the text you gotta change the reference, too. You can't change one without changing the other. --ElKevbo 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Epeefleche 05:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea stated by ElKevbo, that citation of a proper source is required, and propose two possible neutral compromises. The first, which I believe to be most appropriate, is to revert to the original text of the song before any changes were made, that is, the author's (Fullerton) actual words. I suggest striking the current reference (on Rutgers.edu), as it seems suspect to tampering, and indifferent to history- it does not even bother to mention the author of the work (an unacademic practice, which my alma mater should be ashamed of). I would sooner believe something off of the football website. The second proposal is to placate the more PC-minded (or perhaps more emotionally involved editors): add a footnote describing the evolution of the song, citing the causes for each change. I'm not a huge fan of the latter for conciseness issues, and believe it's not very encyclopedic (we could probably create a short yet complete article on the song), but I'm willing to compromise on this. MJKazin 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid further vandalism, I've removed the lyrics, creating a new article entitled On the Banks of the Old Raritan, which resulted in a "main article" thingy in the Alma mater section. —ExplorerCDT 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size of the article

I have talked with User:Metros232 a few days about concerns over the size of the page given the scope of the restructuring of this article that I have undertaken. We discussed the idea of splitting up the page if it gets too big. I pointed out that the range of University articles is roughly 40-75Kb, and that the average range was between 50-60Kb for the good ones, one's I used as influences in my restructuring. Right now, as I write this, the article is about 50Kb in total, and will probably add another 10-15Kb of material. It should top out at 60-65Kb, probably toward the lower end of that range.

However, when you reduce the article by eliminating the markup and other coding that is excludable (footnotes, references, see also, diagrams, images, tables, lists, links, formatting, etc.), there are right now, a little over 5200 words, or roughly 26Kb of text. This I think fits within the Wikipedia size guidelines to not merit splitting up the article. The article is roughly comparable in size to articles regarding institutions with which Rutgers has been associated (academically and athletically) in its long history: Cornell, Princeton, Yale, Michigan, Duke etc. Therefore, I think it is appropriate.

In the end, if you think the article is too long, I ask before anyone brings up "let's split it up" to look through the article and edit out some of the lengthy sentence structure, excess verbosity, etc. from the article, and see how much that diminishes the size. After all, the Wikipedia policy in question[2] does encourage us not to be hasty in splitting up an article. Any questions, comments, etc. you know what to do. —ExplorerCDT 04:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the alma mater be replaced by a link. --Epeefleche 05:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some humour

This is the type of people my alma mater produces (God help us):http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5841359235307549939&q=Rutgers&hl=en. Enjoy! —ExplorerCDT 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I asked that this article be protected so that this whole alma mater thing can be discussed on a talk page rather than through edit summaries and attacks on user's talk pages. Please work this out here. I haven't been involved with this dispute, but I've been working on the Rutgers article lately and I'd prefer it if we could produce an article without this kind of revert-warring. So, please, discuss, but be WP:CIVIL and remember other guidelines like WP:Verifiability and reliable sources. Thanks, Metros232 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! At least one of those who are editing the article to add "woman" to the alma mater has finally begun discussing the issue on his or her Talk page. We're not making any progress addressing the issue but I guess at least discussing it is *some* progress... --ElKevbo 23:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should just replace what we currently have with a link. --Epeefleche 05:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC) I would also like to revert to put back in the choir and deep treble material that I had inserted, which our friend had deleted without any cogent convincing reason ...IMHO.

• Epeefleche: There were (and were provided to you by me)—as you put it—cogent, convincing reasons...1) The material you added was POORLY written, 2.) I stated that the choir stuff needed to be reworked and could be added in the academics section. I have not done so only because I haven't had the time to finish what I'd like to add to the article (life gets in the way), 3.) Deep Treble is a non-notable student organization, one of 700, and I stated to you on several occasions it has no place here, but would be more than welcome if mentioned with other a capella/musical groups on the upcoming "Rutgers University student organizations" article. So, In my NOT-SO-HUMBLE opinion, you really need to relearn how to read because I told you these three things on several occasions and you still haven't comprehended it. —ExplorerCDT 08:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "first intercollegiate football game"

The reference to the "first intercollegiate football game" needs to be changed to something like the "first intercollegiate soccer game." The fact that Rutgers students in 1869 described their game as "foot-ball" or something similar seems to confuse people -- they were not referring to American football, which was not begun until 1873. Instead they were playing Association Football, better known in the U.S. as soccer. (Yes, they had 25 on a side and were allowed some use of the hands, both of which were permitted by the Football Association rules at the time or the students' own modifications.) The 1869 game has nothing to do with American college football today: nothing evolved from it. Rutgers had to abandon soccer and switch to American football rules within a few years to play against schools that actually originated the game that continues to be played today. So the phrase "intercollegiate football" is inaccurate, because it implies American football. (Various apparently official sites[3] make this claim but they are simply false.) Wakonda 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's a matter of interpretation not worth arguing. Rutgers, Princeton, and the history books consider it the first intercollegiate football game, despite the heavy comparisons to soccer (btw, it was not completely soccer either). The tradition (and the sport) morphs from this game, not from the Harvard-McGill game as you seem to imply, as it was Princeton, Rutgers, Yale, and COlumbia that set down the rules for College Football in 1873 based on their participation in intercollegiate "football" stemming from this 1869 matchup. (a year before Harvard and McGill met for a Rugby match). If you know the history well, you can trace that football as we know it today evolved directly from the 1869 Rutgers-Princeton match. You'd like this to be a black-and-white issue, and it is not, and because of such the birthplace of college football history is not false as you seem to claim. —ExplorerCDT 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO, both of the above comments seem to be irrelevant to deciding the issue, coming very close to original research. Wakonda's citation is one I would normally accept- being a Rutgers alumnus, I've been indoctrinated by that dogma. But dogma isn't necessarily false, as he/she implies (see the uncited "simply false" statement). ExplorerCDT's version sounds plausible, but again, it looks like OR. How about an NPOV citation? MJKazin 01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think it looks like OR, Mike. I think that's being too trigger happy on your part. —ExplorerCDT 09:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rutgers

In development. Seeking suggestions. Red links are pages I wouldn't mind seeing made, and will probably pick at over time. —ExplorerCDT 10:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Should I add a section called "Research" for things like Eagleton Institute of Politics, and other notable things like that. etc. —ExplorerCDT 10:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers University
Academics	New Brunswick-Piscataway Campus Cook College • Douglass College • Livingston College • Rutgers College • University College • College of Nursing • Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy • Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy • Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology • Graduate School of Education • Mason Gross School of the Arts • Rutgers Business School • School of Communication, Information and Library Studies • School of Engineering • School of Management and Labor Relations • School of Social Work Newark Campus Newark College of Arts and Sciences • University College • Graduate School • College of Nursing • Rutgers Business School • School of Criminal Justice • School of Law Camden Campus Camden College of Arts and Sciences • University College • Graduate School • Rutgers Business School • School of Law
Research	Center for Alcohol Studies • Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine • Eagleton Institute of Politics • Institute of Jazz Studies • Waksman Institute of Microbiology
Rutgersiana	History of Rutgers University • List of notable Rutgers University people • Henry Rutgers • On the Banks of the Old Raritan • Rutgers-Princeton Cannon War
Campus	Old Queens • Voorhees Mall • Rutgers Gardens • Jane Voorhees Zimmerli Art Museum • Busch Campus
Student Life	Student Organizations • Greek Life • The Daily Targum • Rutgers Centurion • The Medium • Philoclean Society • Rutgers University Glee Club • Cap and Skull • Order of the Bull's Blood • WRSU • Grease Trucks •
Athletics	Big East Conference • Louis Brown Athletic Center • Rutgers Stadium • College Avenue Gymnasium

[edit] Ivy League Invitation

On this article it says Rutgers turned down an invitation to the Ivy League. I've heard this several times, but I can never find anything concrete about it. I've pretty much come to believe that it's a modern myth, since I can never find anything to back it up. In fact everything I read about the Ivy League makes no mention of it. On top of that, I found this link which somewhat confirms my belief:

http://www.syracuse.com/weblogs/print.ssf?/mtlogs/syr_orangefootball/archives/print167451.html

Until someone shows me a concrete source which can verify the story, I'm tagging the passages that mention it. --Osprey39 06:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'll have something for you in about a week or so (be patient)... right now I'm away from my notes/files/etc., and a few photocopies of stuff I found in the Alexander Library a few weeks back that I will be citing for that content. There were several newspaper articles from the 1930s to 1950s as well as correspondence, etc. —ExplorerCDT 00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• I've removed the references until such proof can be determined; this isn't to say it isn't there, but I don't want to see the article have the "fact" or "citation needed" tags on it. If you can find the information, Explorer, then by all means put it up. Anthony Hit me up... 03:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--Osprey39 06:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Try the Targum microfilm copies from the 1950s (in the Alexander library). 205.188.116.200 06:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Against the merging of Grease Trucks

The Grease trucks article is notable enough to stand alone as an article and should not be merged. There are many sources throughout the internet citing the prominace of the Grease Trucks. Valoem ^talk 20:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Know it was a Different Time, But...

Did Rutgers' Baseball team really lose 40-2 back in the 1800s; 40 runs in a baseball game must be some sort of record

[edit] "Biggest football game in school history"

I toned down this phrase and changed it to "first major national football game." I know that a few sports columnists have insisted the Louisville game to be the biggest in school history - and, statistically, it did draw the biggest crowd - but I am hesitant to include subjective hyperbole. Rutgers did complete two undefeated seasons, one in 1961 and one in 1976, and it would seem that the final games of those two seasons must have been notable. The 1961 season ended with Rutgers mounting a 25 point fourth quarter comeback against Columbia (yes, 25 points in a quarter -- that is right up there with the absurd baseball score), and it seems capricious to establish a hierarchy of major games, especially when the Louisville meeting hasn't faded from the hyperbole of headlines yet.

Also, regardless of the two undefeated seasons, there are some who might proffer that the "biggest football game in school history" was the 1869 match against Princeton insofar as it was the very first college football game in known history. This is why using subjective words like "biggest" is just asking for trouble.

There might be an occassion to apply this phrase later. If the 11/9/06 game really does go down as a classic and is still talked about and viewed as a milestone when the dust has settled, this should be revisited. Also, it's worth noting, if Rutgers were to run the table, take the Big East's BCS bid and play in one of the BCS games, that would almost certainly eclipse the Louisville game by any standard.

[edit] Today vs Contemporary

I changed the heading "Today" to "Contemporary". Does anyone else object other than the person who reverted it? "Today" refers to "24 hours of time", but the article is referring to events covering several years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• RETORT: I reverted your bad edit for the following reasons: Today also defined in its adverbial and adjectival forms as relating to "this present time or age" or "at the present time; in these days" or informally as "of the present era; up-to-date:" Your definition is restrictive as well as wrong given its usage and context within the article. Contemporary, on the other hand, is wrong in your intended usage, as its denotations include (in adjectival form), "existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time" (The Random House Unabridged Dictionary brings up the example of "Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.") also "of about the same age or date" in addition to its usage, less so, relating to "of the present time; modern". However this last usage can equally become dated. For someone with your high level of education, I'm surprised you didn't first refer to the denotations for these common words as found in any dictionary. Lastly—and for the umpteenth time—please stop fucking up articles on which I've worked with similar unjustified, disingenuous and often wrong-headed edits. —ExplorerCDT 04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, anybody else other than the guy that has reverted it? Anyone else have an opinion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm allowed to explain—since you seem to not like the fact that I have been compelled to revert many of your unjustifed, wrong-headed edits as of late—my rationale in my defense. Your response (I presume you're phishing for people to join a prospective RfC, etc.) implying that I shouldn't or needn't respond is disingenuous and presumptuous, but along with "wrong" that seems to be your stock in trade. —ExplorerCDT 15:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Today sounds a lot better than using Contemporary, which in general is mostly used in reference to describing art, clothing, architecture. If you take the title "Today" literally then yes it doesn't fit very well, but in this context nobody does that unless they don't have a full grasp of the nuances of the English language.AntiG 15:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think either word works very well. ExlorerCDT's arguments against "Contemporary" are accurate but "Today" also suffers from many of the same problems. If I had a better suggestion I'd give it and if I think of one later I'll make the change.

And both of you need to calm down a bit and relax. --ElKevbo 15:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Flagship"

A flagship university is the original, oldest university in a state university system. "Flagship" does not mean "good," it means "oldest in a system." "Rutgers" is not a "flagship university." (If you like, New Brunswick/Piscataway is the flagship campus of the Rutgers system, although Rutgers does not seem to use this language).

The typical pattern is for a state to have a university established around 1870 or thereabouts in the huge wave of university-building that followed the Morrill Act. After the Second World War, there was another huge wave of what might be called college "upgrades," in which existing teaching and agricultural colleges were given university status and became part of a state university system. Because traditionally age is associated with prestige in universities, and because the oldest campus is often the biggest and best-funded, the "flagship" campus is often the best campus in the system.

But "flagship" simply means "oldest in a system." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

P. S. For more on this, see [4] which notes in particular:

It was in the context of this massive expansion, then, that the term "flagship" came to be used to refer to the original campus of the system, the campus from which branches were developed or other institutions attached. The metaphor obviously had a naval origin; each fleet has a flagship, the largest battleship or aircraft carrier from which the admiral directs the movements of the entire fleet.

[edit] Leading

The same goes for "leading" to replace "flagship". Its replacing one subjective description for another one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's actually replacing an incorrectly-used objective description with a subjective one. --ElKevbo 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Or, I'd say, replacing a just-plain-incorrect objective description with a subjective, but reasonable and defensible one. Actually I'm guessing that the editor who used the word "flagship" thought it meant the same thing as "leading."

I edited it the way I did because I wasn't taking issue with the idea that Rutgers is New Jersey's leading university. Oops, oh, wait, I mean New Jersey's leading public university.

I detest academic boosterism but on a scale where 10 is an objective fact and 1 is boosterism, I'd say "Rutgers is New Jersey's leading public university" is somewhere around a 3...

In the U. S. News and World Report rankings of "top national universities," if we scan down looking for New Jersey, we find that a well-known private university in New Jersey currently ranks #1 (I'm convinced that U. S. News' ranking methodology includes a die with two H's, two Y's, and two P's which gets rolled once every year to add interest and excitement to what would otherwise be a predetermined outcome for the top three), Rutgers ranks #60, and Stevens Institute of Technology ranks #77. That's probably a meaningful separation.

As an alumnus of both Stevens and Rutgers, I believe Stevens (in engineering and several sciences) is both more comprehensive and rigorous than Rutgers. I don't believe in the USNWR rankings. Stevens' admissions standards are higher than Rutgers (48% admitted Stevens/61% Rutgers, average SAT 1300 Stevens/1205 Rutgers). I admit Rutgers has more money in PR (public relations - paid for by our tax dollars) than Stevens, so the name is more highly publicized (now more so because of football), driving USNWR's rankings. Stevens by the way is now ranked #71 by USNWR, considering that the curricula overlaps Rutgers in only a few areas those are very close.

There's a single Google Books hit on the phrase "leading public university in New Jersey," and the context is "the president of Rutgers, the leading public university in New Jersey." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)