Rutgers U - Camden and Newark Rankings Forum

[BostonNJ]

Hi all,

I have been doing research on rankings in general for the past few months, and feel as though I have a pretty good understanding of how they work. However I would like to hear some opinions on why Rutgers Camden has been dropping so consistently in the US News rankings as of late? Rankings are not everything at all, and I know RU C has a great regional rep. however why is my alma mater struggling so much (went there undergrad)?

At one point RU-C was at the top of tier 2, and even Rutgers Newark at one point was a Tier 1 law school back in the 90's at (45 or so). What has happened to the Rutgers Law brand that has brought it so far down according to US News? Can anyone attending the law school shed some light? Even some one with a better understanding of law rankings in general? Will their rankings continue to fall?

I went to Rutgers in my undergrad year in New Brunswick and know they have been struggling with state funding recently (most state schools are in the same boat), however many other state schools in much worse situations have retained their Law schools US news rankings.

Just curious to hear what others think.

Cheers

[IronHBM]

When you find out let me know. I'm curious as well.

[BostonNJ]

When you find out let me know. I'm curious as well.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this, but will do on keeping you posted!

[Justathought]

I think a lot of it has to do with budgetary issues. Both are good schools, but they seem understaffed and underfunded because of their ties to the state of New Jersey. They also are very committed to diversity, which can lead to a student body that is less numerically credentialed, but nevertheless accomplished in ways that are not easy for USN&WR to rank.

[crossarmant]

I poseted the same question more or less in the RU-C Accepted Students Thread:

They're both [Rutgers -Camden/Newark] ranked #84 currently but that just seems too low of a ranking for the schools based off the judgement criteria.

USNWR rank based on exclusivity, which both of these schools have relatively low acceptance rates, higher GPAs and LSATs than similarly ranked schools. They also rank on professors and attorney opinions, which I read that Rutgers is somewhere around ~#45 when polled by large firm attorneys. Another ranking criteria is placement statistics, which Rutgers places better than a some schools in the #40s, they have a 1/3 of the class in clerkships (While not Art. III or super prestigious, they help like none other getting jobs) and a NLJ 250 rate of around 15% which is better than a lot of schools much higher ranked, all while having much higher transparency than similarly ranked schools. The median starting Private Practice salary is $110k at Camden with 73% reporting salary in 2009, which was a terrible year for everyone. They also judge on facilities, which RU-Camden just built a new law school a few years back. And Bar passage is higher than state average.... It just seems like everything adds up to put these two significantly higher in the rankings than where they are. Is it all just due to being in rough areas or what? They're also loads cheaper than similarly ranked schools and in-state residency is easy to attain. I'm just confused as to why they are not ranked significantly higher.

It really is odd. But since posting that, I got a few answers from current students. Yeah, it's about funding. USNWR tends to put a good amount of focus on the endowment and how much money is spent by the schools, etc. and being a state school they can't raise the funds that so many private schools do (And they're not getting stupid levels of contributions from alumni and research like UVA, Minn, Wisconsin, etc). Less focus tends to go to meaningful numbers, like career placement, which Rutgers seems to do swimmingly with and rather transparently compared to other schools similarly ranked.

Another reasoning, and this is my own speculation, is sheer location. Since USNWR ranks based on Selectivity, LSAT, and GPA RU-C has a hard part taking the pick of the litter since it's in literally the worst area in the country. While Rutgers places better than CU-Boulder in their respective markets, CU can take more care being selective since anyone with a 163/3.6 is going to choose living in Boulder over Camden. I know I would choose living in Boulder if I had the option.

It definitely seems to be a school whose performance is completely independent of the rankings, if you look at the placement, price, reputation in the region, and reputation with professors and attorneys it should easily be in the 40s.

[BostonNJ]

I poseted the same question more or less in the RU-C Accepted Students Thread:

They're both [Rutgers -Camden/Newark] ranked #84 currently but that just seems too low of a ranking for the schools based off the judgement criteria.

USNWR rank based on exclusivity, which both of these schools have relatively low acceptance rates, higher GPAs and LSATs than similarly ranked schools. They also rank on professors and attorney opinions, which I read that Rutgers is somewhere around ~#45 when polled by large firm attorneys. Another ranking criteria is placement statistics, which Rutgers places better than a some schools in the #40s, they have a 1/3 of the class in clerkships (While not Art. III or super prestigious, they help like none other getting jobs) and a NLJ 250 rate of around 15% which is better than a lot of schools much higher ranked, all while having much higher transparency than similarly ranked schools. The median starting Private Practice salary is $110k at Camden with 73% reporting salary in 2009, which was a terrible year for everyone. They also judge on facilities, which RU-Camden just built a new law school a few years back. And Bar passage is higher than state average.... It just seems like everything adds up to put these two significantly higher in the rankings than where they are. Is it all just due to being in rough areas or what? They're also loads cheaper than similarly ranked schools and in-state residency is easy to attain. I'm just confused as to why they are not ranked significantly higher.

It really is odd. But since posting that, I got a few answers from current students. Yeah, it's about funding. USNWR tends to put a good amount of focus on the endowment and how much money is spent by the schools, etc. and being a state school they can't raise the funds that so many private schools do (And they're not getting stupid levels of contributions from alumni and research like UVA, Minn, Wisconsin, etc). Less focus tends to go to meaningful numbers, like career placement, which Rutgers seems to do swimmingly with and rather transparently compared to other schools similarly ranked.

Another reasoning, and this is my own speculation, is sheer location. Since USNWR ranks based on Selectivity, LSAT, and GPA RU-C has a hard part taking the pick of the litter since it's in literally the worst area in the country. While Rutgers places better than CU-Boulder in their respective markets, CU can take more care being selective since anyone with a 163/3.6 is going to choose living in Boulder over Camden. I know I would choose living in Boulder if I had the option.

It definitely seems to be a school whose performance is completely independent of the rankings, if you look at the placement, price, reputation in the region, and reputation with professors and attorneys it should easily be in the 40s.

Great Answer, thank you. Makes a lot of sense. I hope that the location of the law school is revitalized soon. I know they have really been working on it. Newark is def getting better I hear! I hope the brand new facilities, which are really beautiful also helps a little in next years rankings.

[IronHBM]

I think a lot of it has to do with budgetary issues. Both are good schools, but they seem understaffed and underfunded because of their ties to the state of New Jersey. They also are very committed to diversity, which can lead to a student body that is less numerically credentialed, but nevertheless accomplished in ways that are not easy for USN&WR to rank.

That sounds reasonable but I would still like to see RU-C bump up a few spots the following year

[BostonNJ]

I think a lot of it has to do with budgetary issues. Both are good schools, but they seem understaffed and underfunded because of their ties to the state of New Jersey. They also are very committed to diversity, which can lead to a student body that is less numerically credentialed, but nevertheless accomplished in ways that are not easy for USN&WR to rank.

That sounds reasonable but I would still like to see RU-C bump up a few spots the following year

BTW, I looked up the student to professor ratio, its 11.3, that's pretty good! So they can't be understaffed?

[observationalist]

I poseted the same question more or less in the RU-C Accepted Students Thread:

They're both [Rutgers -Camden/Newark] ranked #84 currently but that just seems too low of a ranking for the schools based off the judgement criteria.

USNWR rank based on exclusivity, which both of these schools have relatively low acceptance rates, higher GPAs and LSATs than similarly ranked schools. They also rank on professors and attorney opinions, which I read that Rutgers is somewhere around ~#45 when polled by large firm attorneys. Another ranking criteria is placement statistics, which Rutgers places better than a some schools in the #40s, they have a 1/3 of the class in clerkships (While not Art. III or super prestigious, they help like none other getting jobs) and a NLJ 250 rate of around 15% which is better than a lot of schools much higher ranked, all while having much higher transparency than similarly ranked schools. The median starting Private Practice salary is $110k at Camden with 73% reporting salary in 2009, which was a terrible year for everyone. They also judge on facilities, which RU-Camden just built a new law school a few years back. And Bar passage is higher than state average.... It just seems like everything adds up to put these two significantly higher in the rankings than where they are. Is it all just due to being in rough areas or what? They're also loads cheaper than similarly ranked schools and in-state residency is easy to attain. I'm just confused as to why they are not ranked significantly higher.

It really is odd. But since posting that, I got a few answers from current students. Yeah, it's about funding. USNWR tends to put a good amount of focus on the endowment and how much money is spent by the schools, etc. and being a state school they can't raise the funds that so many private schools do (And they're not getting stupid levels of contributions from alumni and research like UVA, Minn, Wisconsin, etc). Less focus tends to go to meaningful numbers, like career placement, which Rutgers seems to do swimmingly with and rather transparently compared to other schools similarly ranked.

Another reasoning, and this is my own speculation, is sheer location. Since USNWR ranks based on Selectivity, LSAT, and GPA RU-C has a hard part taking the pick of the litter since it's in literally the worst area in the country. While Rutgers places better than CU-Boulder in their respective markets, CU can take more care being selective since anyone with a 163/3.6 is going to choose living in Boulder over Camden. I know I would choose living in Boulder if I had the option.

It definitely seems to be a school whose performance is completely independent of the rankings, if you look at the placement, price, reputation in the region, and reputation with professors and attorneys it should easily be in the 40s.

A note of caution on interpreting the information in LST's Data Clearinghouse: the reported medians are still very far off from the reality of that graduating class, even if 73% of private sector grads reported salaries. If you look at the visual at the top you'll see that just 25.5% of the class reported making 70K or more. Without better information from the school on the Class of 2010 data, a reasonable estimate of how the Class of 2010 fared might discount this percentage by half. Meaning that perhaps 13% of the Class of 2010 made 70K or more.

Newark did better, with around 28% making 100K or more. But adjusting downward still means that perhaps one in five graduates came out with a six-figure salary in 2010. With average debt loads approaching six figures, that still means the vast majority of graduates are coming out making less than they need to pay off their loans.

I strongly recommend applicants contact the school and ask for detailed employer lists for 2010 graduates before making a decision to attend either program. Relying on the 2009 data is risky and there is no reason why the school can't supply you with the 2010 data. Per a conversation I just had today with another career services dean, NALP just returned its analysis of the 2010 data to the school, which means they should be able to answer any questions you might have. I recommend focusing on the number reporting salary, the salaries for those graduates, the number in full-time legal jobs, and the number unemployed and still seeking work as of February 15th.

[Verity]

It's not exactly like USN hides their ranking methodology. Look it up.

Short answer: Poor employment prospects, downright dangerous locations, small endowment, etc. Hasn't gotten much better, but other schools may have.

[NYC Law]

It's not exactly like USN hides their ranking methodology. Look it up.

Short answer: Poor employment prospects, downright dangerous locations, small endowment, etc. Hasn't gotten much better, but other schools may have.

Well here's the ranking data for Rutgers-Newark, and for Pitt for comparison. Dangerous location plays no direct role in the rankings, only as a peripheral issue that may discourage more qualified applicants from applying. They get nailed with Assessment scores, Student-Faculty Ratio, and Bar Passage Rate. RU-C just doesn't have great employment prospects or a great bar passage rate.
RU-N

Score 45
Peer assessment score (out of 5) 2.6
Assessment score by lawyers/judges (out of 5) 2.8
GPA (25th-75th percentile) 3.01-3.57
Median undergraduate GPA for all program entrants 3.32
LSAT scores (25th-75th percentile) 155-161
Median LSAT score for all program entrants 158
Acceptance rate 28.3% - Medium
Student-faculty ratio 19.1 - High
Graduates known to be employed at graduation 78.2% - Medium
Graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation 90.5% - Low
Bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 81.4% - Low
State where the greatest number of first-time test takers took the bar NJ
Statewide bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 83.6%

RU-C

Score 45
Peer assessment score (out of 5) 2.5
Assessment score by lawyers/judges (out of 5) 3.0
GPA (25th-75th percentile) 3.1-3.6
Median undergraduate GPA for all program entrants 3.40
LSAT scores (25th-75th percentile) 157-161
Median LSAT score for all program entrants 160
Acceptance rate 31.4% - Medium
Student-faculty ratio 11.6 - Low
Graduates known to be employed at graduation 68.8% - Low
Graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation 84.2% - Low
Bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 80.0% - Low
State where the greatest number of first-time test takers took the bar NJ
Statewide bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 83.6%

Pitt

Score 48
Peer assessment score (out of 5) 2.8
Assessment score by lawyers/judges (out of 5) 3.2
GPA (25th-75th percentile) 3.07-3.63
Median undergraduate GPA for all program entrants 3.38
LSAT scores (25th-75th percentile) 158-161
Median LSAT score for all program entrants 160
Acceptance rate 34.6% - Medium
Student-faculty ratio 13.8 - Medium
Graduates known to be employed at graduation 57.4% - Low
Graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation 85.2% - Low
Bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 91.9% - Medium
State where the greatest number of first-time test takers took the bar PA
Statewide bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 85.7%

[BostonNJ]

It's not exactly like USN hides their ranking methodology. Look it up.

Short answer: Poor employment prospects, downright dangerous locations, small endowment, etc. Hasn't gotten much better, but other schools may have.

Well here's the ranking data for Rutgers-Newark, and for Pitt for comparison. Dangerous location plays no direct role in the rankings, only as a peripheral issue that may discourage more qualified applicants from applying. They get nailed with Assessment scores, Student-Faculty Ratio, and Bar Passage Rate. RU-C just doesn't have great employment prospects or a great bar passage rate.
RU-N

Score 45
Peer assessment score (out of 5) 2.6
Assessment score by lawyers/judges (out of 5) 2.8
GPA (25th-75th percentile) 3.01-3.57
Median undergraduate GPA for all program entrants 3.32
LSAT scores (25th-75th percentile) 155-161
Median LSAT score for all program entrants 158
Acceptance rate 28.3% - Medium
Student-faculty ratio 19.1 - High
Graduates known to be employed at graduation 78.2% - Medium
Graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation 90.5% - Low
Bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 81.4% - Low
State where the greatest number of first-time test takers took the bar NJ
Statewide bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 83.6%

RU-C

Score 45
Peer assessment score (out of 5) 2.5
Assessment score by lawyers/judges (out of 5) 3.0
GPA (25th-75th percentile) 3.1-3.6
Median undergraduate GPA for all program entrants 3.40
LSAT scores (25th-75th percentile) 157-161
Median LSAT score for all program entrants 160
Acceptance rate 31.4% - Medium
Student-faculty ratio 11.6 - Low
Graduates known to be employed at graduation 68.8% - Low
Graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation 84.2% - Low
Bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 80.0% - Low
State where the greatest number of first-time test takers took the bar NJ
Statewide bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 83.6%

Pitt

Score 48
Peer assessment score (out of 5) 2.8
Assessment score by lawyers/judges (out of 5) 3.2
GPA (25th-75th percentile) 3.07-3.63
Median undergraduate GPA for all program entrants 3.38
LSAT scores (25th-75th percentile) 158-161
Median LSAT score for all program entrants 160
Acceptance rate 34.6% - Medium
Student-faculty ratio 13.8 - Medium
Graduates known to be employed at graduation 57.4% - Low
Graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation 85.2% - Low
Bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 91.9% - Medium
State where the greatest number of first-time test takers took the bar PA
Statewide bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 85.7%

WOW PITTS employment is really low at graduation. PLUS a PITT education will cost you. At Rutgers you pay a fraction of that cost and have much better prospects! Plus Rutgers endowment is not that small, its over 600,000,000 system wide, on track to break 1 billion in the next two or three years!

[BostonNJ]

I think Rutgers is more honest on employment data then most schools, irrespectively all schools employment prospects are in the gutter (except for maybe t14), the economy all around is down and will be down for at least the next three years. After five I think we will see growth, however my goal is to go to a decent school and graduate with as little debt as possible, at Rutgers this can be possible with in-State tuition.

Also on the endowment topic, when Rutgers joins the BIG 10 their endowment will balloon!

[mrtoren]

It's not exactly like USN hides their ranking methodology. Look it up.

Short answer: Poor employment prospects, downright dangerous locations, small endowment, etc. Hasn't gotten much better, but other schools may have.

Well here's the ranking data for Rutgers-Newark, and for Pitt for comparison. Dangerous location plays no direct role in the rankings, only as a peripheral issue that may discourage more qualified applicants from applying. They get nailed with Assessment scores, Student-Faculty Ratio, and Bar Passage Rate. RU-C just doesn't have great employment prospects or a great bar passage rate.
RU-N

Score 45
Peer assessment score (out of 5) 2.6
Assessment score by lawyers/judges (out of 5) 2.8
GPA (25th-75th percentile) 3.01-3.57
Median undergraduate GPA for all program entrants 3.32
LSAT scores (25th-75th percentile) 155-161
Median LSAT score for all program entrants 158
Acceptance rate 28.3% - Medium
Student-faculty ratio 19.1 - High
Graduates known to be employed at graduation 78.2% - Medium
Graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation 90.5% - Low
Bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 81.4% - Low
State where the greatest number of first-time test takers took the bar NJ
Statewide bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 83.6%

Pitt

Score 48
Peer assessment score (out of 5) 2.8
Assessment score by lawyers/judges (out of 5) 3.2
GPA (25th-75th percentile) 3.07-3.63
Median undergraduate GPA for all program entrants 3.38
LSAT scores (25th-75th percentile) 158-161
Median LSAT score for all program entrants 160
Acceptance rate 34.6% - Medium
Student-faculty ratio 13.8 - Medium
Graduates known to be employed at graduation 57.4% - Low
Graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation 85.2% - Low
Bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 91.9% - Medium
State where the greatest number of first-time test takers took the bar PA
Statewide bar passage rate (first-time test takers) 85.7%

Camden aside, I honestly don't understand why RU-N isn't ranked much higher. Student-faculty ratio and endowment are important, but come on. The employment prospects are a lot stronger than those of many higher ranked TT schools. Cost-Debt is also unbelievable compared to others.

EDIT- USNWR needs to toss the assessment scores. Those are completely subjective. Bar passage rate is a little rough.

[BostonNJ]

It's not exactly like USN hides their ranking methodology. Look it up.

Short answer: Poor employment prospects, downright dangerous locations, small endowment, etc. Hasn't gotten much better, but other schools may have.

Well here's the ranking data for Rutgers-Newark, and for Pitt for comparison. Dangerous location plays no direct role in the rankings, only as a peripheral issue that may discourage more qualified applicants from applying. They get nailed with Assessment scores, Student-Camden aside, I honestly don't understand why RU-N isn't ranked much higher. Student-faculty ratio and endowment are important, but come on. The employment prospects are a lot stronger than those of many higher ranked TT schools. Cost-Debt is also unbelievable compared to others.

EDIT- USNWR needs to toss the assessment scores. Those are completely subjective. Bar passage rate is a little rough.

I agree 100% with your analysis!

[crossarmant]

Camden aside, I honestly don't understand why RU-N isn't ranked much higher. Student-faculty ratio and endowment are important, but come on. The employment prospects are a lot stronger than those of many higher ranked TT schools. Cost-Debt is also unbelievable compared to others.

EDIT- USNWR needs to toss the assessment scores. Those are completely subjective. Bar passage rate is a little rough.

USNWR needs to start factoring average debt incurred at each institution, especially considering how high tuition has been sky-rocketing. I feel that would shake things up a bit.

[BostonNJ]

Camden aside, I honestly don't understand why RU-N isn't ranked much higher. Student-faculty ratio and endowment are important, but come on. The employment prospects are a lot stronger than those of many higher ranked TT schools. Cost-Debt is also unbelievable compared to others.

EDIT- USNWR needs to toss the assessment scores. Those are completely subjective. Bar passage rate is a little rough.

USNWR needs to start factoring average debt incurred at each institution, especially considering how high tuition has been sky-rocketing. I feel that would shake things up a bit.

You definitely have a point. You'll see some of the weaker law schools dropping their tuition like crazy. But in all seriousness, value should def be included in the USnews metrics. Great Point!

[NYC Law]

Camden aside, I honestly don't understand why RU-N isn't ranked much higher. Student-faculty ratio and endowment are important, but come on. The employment prospects are a lot stronger than those of many higher ranked TT schools. Cost-Debt is also unbelievable compared to others.

EDIT- USNWR needs to toss the assessment scores. Those are completely subjective. Bar passage rate is a little rough.

USNWR needs to start factoring average debt incurred at each institution, especially considering how high tuition has been sky-rocketing. I feel that would shake things up a bit.

You definitely have a point. You'll see some of the weaker law schools dropping their tuition like crazy. But in all seriousness, value should def be included in the USnews metrics. Great Point!

+1

Rankings should be based solely on Value and Employment Prospects. Let Princeton Review rank all the other stuff no one cares about.

[crossarmant]

Camden aside, I honestly don't understand why RU-N isn't ranked much higher. Student-faculty ratio and endowment are important, but come on. The employment prospects are a lot stronger than those of many higher ranked TT schools. Cost-Debt is also unbelievable compared to others.

EDIT- USNWR needs to toss the assessment scores. Those are completely subjective. Bar passage rate is a little rough.

USNWR needs to start factoring average debt incurred at each institution, especially considering how high tuition has been sky-rocketing. I feel that would shake things up a bit.

You definitely have a point. You'll see some of the weaker law schools dropping their tuition like crazy. But in all seriousness, value should def be included in the USnews metrics. Great Point!

+1

Rankings should be based solely on Value and Employment Prospects. Let Princeton Review rank all the other stuff no one cares about.

The Assessment Scores are just another way of making an echo chamber in rankings. People say it's the best, so it's rated the best, and because it's rated the best, people say it's the best thus perpetuating the feedback loop. Such a B.S. measure.

[Jah'rakal]

hey NYC , where did u find that data? is there a data base for other schools?

[BostonNJ]

USNWR needs to start factoring average debt incurred at each institution, especially considering how high tuition has been sky-rocketing. I feel that would shake things up a bit.[/quote]

You definitely have a point. You'll see some of the weaker law schools dropping their tuition like crazy. But in all seriousness, value should def be included in the USnews metrics. Great Point![/quote]

+1

Rankings should be based solely on Value and Employment Prospects. Let Princeton Review rank all the other stuff no one cares about.[/quote]


The Assessment Scores are just another way of making an echo chamber in rankings. People say it's the best, so it's rated the best, and because it's rated the best, people say it's the best thus perpetuating the feedback loop. Such a B.S. measure.[/quote]

+! This is so sad and true, the schools that are more reasonably priced and have great prospects, and don't leave there students in the poor house are quintessentially a great value and really do need to be given acknowledgment in these rankings. Its so unfortunate that when a school tries/does well by its students, it gets screwed in the rankings.

[NYC Law]

hey NYC , where did u find that data? is there a data base for other schools?

It's the US News subscription data, you can get it from their site if you cough up the cash.

[crossarmant]

One other thing about Rutgers that doesn't seem to get factored in a lot of the time, is the fact that a solid third of graduates are in clerkships. Sure it's not Federal Appellate Court or cupping Scalia's balls, but after a year of working in New Jersey COA or such, firms look at you a lot better than a fresh faced grad from out of state or from Seton Hall.

[BostonNJ]

One other thing about Rutgers that doesn't seem to get factored in a lot of the time, is the fact that a solid third of graduates are in clerkships. Sure it's not Federal Appellate Court or cupping Scalia's balls, but after a year of working in New Jersey COA or such, firms look at you a lot better than a fresh faced grad from out of state or from Seton Hall.

I hear that employers in NJ prefer to go with Rutgers 2X before the go with Seton Hall grads. Maybe its just a "Jersey" thing, but I keep hearing the same thing from friends and family in local law firms. My cousin is a lawyer in a major Philly based firm in North Jersey and has said repeatedly to GO TO RUTGERS first! His colleagues have also said if I get into Rutgers go there, skip Seton. When I asked why, they said that historically lawyers from Rutgers-C and N tend to be better quality, less naïve and pretentious was also added in to that, then from Seton Hall. I think no matter what the rankings say, the Rutgers brand/name-recognition in NJ completely out weighs Seton Hall.

[mrtoren]

I'd be hesitant to bash Seton Hall too much. All three law schools place exceptionally well, in part, because of the fact that there are only three law schools in the state. However, as others have said, NJ is fanatical about Rutgers and that carries over into their hiring practices. Personally, I'm glad they're a TT simply because I can get in with my numbers and can avoid having to retake. That being said, they are a gem in a rough, rough sea of tumultuous TT schools. The ignorant and the uninformed are quick to bash it, but employers recognize the school's value. At the end of the day, I'm confident that RU-N will leave me with a relatively little amount of debt while still allowing me the opportunity to find work and pull in a fairly high salary.