A whopping 112 responses out 43,000 and you are ready to declare that 70% of ALL alumni are in favor of the name change? Considering I never received the name change poll in the mail, that would have made it difficult for me to respond.

William - I think you're misinterpreting the survey results (and this post). Nowhere in my post do I claim that 70% of ALL alumni favor a name change. But 70% of all alumni who responded to the survey favored the change.

Sorry you didn't receive the name change poll. If you aren't receiving your alumni magazine, please email me (acareaga AT umr DOT edu) with your current address and we'll get you on the mailing list.

Whoaaaa, sweet response. 112 responses? Lets go ahead and change the name folks! The majority of EVERYONE must like the idea!

Tanner - Have you taken statistics at UM-Columbia yet? If so, ask your prof about the response rates for various types of surveys. (Not slamming UM-Columbia -- I'm a proud J-school alumnus, in fact -- but I sure would like to see more thoughtful and informed comments here (especially from someone representing my alma mater).

I did Statistics at one time in my college career; however, I have also seen numerous elections where they will say 112 precints out of 43,000 have reported in and 70% have voted for Candidate X. By the end of the evening, all precints have reported in and Candidate Y ends up winning with a 70% margin. It turns out that Candidate X's votes all showed up early.

Unless you have a majority response from your alumni survey, I would be hesitant to post the numbers. That is why you are getting the comments you are.

William wrote:

Unless you have a majority response from your alumni survey, I would be hesitant to post the numbers. That is why you are getting the comments you are.

Unfortunately, I doubt we'd ever get a majority response from the 43,000 alumni who receive the UMR Magazine. I should add, though, that we've received many letters, emails and phone calls from people who feel passionately about this issue, both pro and con.

As for hesitating to post the numbers: I can only imagine the comments we'd receive if we didn't share the info. :)

Thanks for posting!

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm apparently making up about 0.9% of that *other* 30% (if I did my math correctly).

Out of curiosity. . . was the idea of incorporating this survey into the annual round of departmental/organizational "phone-a-thon"s ever explored? This, at least to me, seems like it'd have a higher response rate overall (it's a captive audience), and it'd also have the bonus of best reaching the pool of alumni who are most interested in maintaining/improving the state of their alma mater.

Granted, that sort of thing would definitely run the risk of being less anonymous for the respondents than a mail-in survey can be; however, I don't personally suspect that most would mind terribly much.

Lisa - Due to time constraints, we did not explore conducting telephone surveys of alumni during the annual phonathons. But that's another great avenue to solicit opinions of alumni, and I will share that idea with our development office. Thanks for the idea.

Also, the alumni survey is only one feedback source we're using to gather information. We're also receiving unsolicited comments from alumni, students, faculty, staff, community people and others. We're conducting electronic surveys of current students, faculty and staff, and soon we'll start surveying and talking to prospective students, community leaders, corporate recruiters and high school counselors.

I thought those numbers seemed like a possible typo. Glad it was caught.

I think the name change is long overdue. The idea of UMR being thought of as MIZZOU's branch campus has always bugged me. I get asked that question a lot.

Are you considering offering alumni new diplomas if the change happens?

Bob - We are considering offering diplomas with the new name should we go down that path, but we haven't yet worked out the details.

I have reviewed the article proposing a discussion of a name change for the University of Missouri-Rolla in the Winter-2006 issue of the MSM-UMR Alumni publication. I had the good fortune of attending the University of Missouri at Rolla and received my BS in 1968, not long after the university under went its last name change in the early 60’s. I do not think another name change should be initiated unless there are sound logical reasons. The article and the other items reviewed did not present such reasoning. Hence, I cannot buy into the insinuation that a mere change of the university name would significantly affect the number of students and the research funding that Rolla can attract.

While Rolla is unique in that a high percentage of the total enrollment is engineering students, I find the definition of technological research universities and the chart “Comparison of the nation’s technological universities” to be somewhat deceiving and self-serving to support the name change proposition put forth. There are many states with public university systems that have state names with location designations (for example the University of California system, the University of Illinois system, the University of Texas system, the University of Wisconsin system, etc.). Several schools within these systems have highly respected engineering education and research programs even though their name does not include specific reference to their technical offerings, which casts doubt on the article’s assertion that it Rolla’s name that is holding it back.

Of the twelve universities shown in the comparison chart on page 13 of the alumni publication used to define technology research universities and the suggested a UMR-peer group, only six appear in the ASEE listing of the top 50 engineering schools based on the number of undergraduate engineering degrees awarded. Only Georgia Tech appears in the top ten, whereas Rolla is listed as 37th and sixth among the twelve schools appearing in the chart. The definition excludes such major engineering universities such as Purdue University, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the University of Michigan all of which grant approximately 2.4 times the number of undergraduate engineering degrees as Rolla; and excludes universities such as the University of California at San Diego, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of California at Berkeley all of which grant approximately 1.6 times the number of undergraduate engineering degrees as Rolla. Comparisons based on graduate degrees granted or research funding, would lead to similar results. Hence, the definition selected and the chart presented only facilitates defining a goal, which might be able to achieve by 2010. Even if the goal were achieved, it would not truly make Rolla one of the top 5 engineering and research schools in the United States. Furthermore, if the arbitrarily selected minimum percentage of engineering enrollment had been set at about 60 percent instead of the 25-percent value, then Rolla would be the top school by definition.

The information reviewed makes numerous assertions as to what a name change would accomplish, but presents no facts to prove the assertions are true. Although the article asserts that it will be necessary to increase out of state recruiting, it presents little discussion on the impediments to out of state recruiting, such as the high costs of out of state tuition and the low availability of significant undergraduate scholarships.

Roy - Thanks for your comments. I just wanted to address the issue of how a "technological research university" is defined, and why several of the universities you mention (all of which have strong engineering programs) are not included in this definition.

The definition of a technological research university, as set forth in the case for a name change position paper and as presented on the chart from the UMR Magazine article, is one in which:

one in which:

1.) at least one-fourth of the student body major in engineering

2.) a majority of students are enrolled in the study of engineering, the sciences, business or mathematics;

3.) a robust graduate program exists in each of those fields;

4.) a strong research culture exists within the university; and

5.) exceptional liberal arts, humanities and social sciences degree programs thrive so as to complement and lend context to the technological strengths of the university.

By this definition, only a dozen such universities exist in the United States. With the exception of the University of Missouri-Rolla, the universities in that list have names that describe their purpose and mission. Nine of the 12 institutions include the words “polytechnic,” “technological” or “technology” in their titles.

Universities such as Illinois, Purdue, Texas and Michigan are all comprehensive universities with large engineering programs, but they are not focused on technology and engineering as UMR and its peers are.

I hope this clarifies the matter somewhat. Thank you for posting.

You didn't ask if we favored name change. You asked what best described the mission of the university. I'm not against a name change, but I do think it's inappropriate to state that 70% said they favored a name change (implying any name change) when there weren't any yes or no questions on the survey. I don't see why this name change must be rushed without further exploration and more detailed surveys. Could you include a blog entry explaining why this must be done so quickly? Have any marketing consultants provided their services?

You mean UMR is pushing through an idea using shady tactics just because they want to do it. They wouldn't do a thing like that, would they? Then again, look how many surveys were sent out. I know I didn't get one. I hope they do change the name of the school because then I can say I got my degree from UMR and disassociate myself from the "new school.

Sue - If you didn't receive a survey, then you must not be receiving your alumni magazine. The survey was included in the Winter 2006 issue of UMR Magazine., as this post explains.

Please contact your alumni association (alumni AT umr DOT edu) to update your mailing address. Thanks.

I think you missed the point. The Chancellor said every alum would have a chance to answer this survey, but the distribution of it was limited to people who read your magazine. That means the results are completely invalid. Besides, if UMR wants to improve its reputation, they need to focus more on their students and not on a name. UMR has no connection to recent graduates. The low response rate you received for your survey shows that not many alums even care about UMR anymore. How many graduates under 40 even donate to UMR? How many of them come back to visit their school each year? These are bigger problems that won't be fixed with a name change. In fact, changing the name of the school could alienate them even more.

Sue:

It isn't accurate to call the survey results "completely invalid." With a population of 43,000 (the number of alumni receiving the magazine), a sample of 592 responses would be enough to get us within a 5 percent margin of error. We received 955. Our response rate is in line with most mail-in survey response rates.

It's true, however, that the responses, when split by decade of graduation, show that younger alumni as a whole may be less receptive to a name change than older alumni. The break comes in the class years of 2000 and since, where a slight majority favor keeping UMR as the name. More about that in an upcoming blog post.

On the survey, I do receive and read the UMR Magazine, but I usually lag behind a month or more in my magazine reading. So, I was sad to find out that I'd missed out participating in the survey as an alum when the results came out.

On the name change itself, I definitely am for the name change and have been in all of my various relationships with the University--past and present--as a prospective student, undergraduate student, graduate student, and now a staff member.

I only lived about 3 hours south of Rolla in Northern Arkansas when I was in high school and had no clue it existed until my boyfriend (now husband) said he planned to come here. Even then, I had to do some research to feel comfortable that it wasn't a pseudo-community college, research that I probably would not have done without the romance connection. Once I dug in and discovered that it was an excellent institution, I even considered going somewhere else because I didn't want prospective employers to have the same issue.

Andrew:

I see you didn't try to respond to musical_alum's comment, "You didn't ask if we favored name change. You asked what best described the mission of the university..."

He/she makes a good point. It is completely dishonest to claim that 70% of respondents favor a name change just because they didn't choose UMR as the best description of the University. You would probably get the same response from the alums of Purdue; that doesn't mean they want to change Purdue's name.

Using this survey to indicate alumni support for a name change is shameful, disgusting, and dishonest.

Steve:

You're correct in noting that I didn't attempt to address Musical_Alum's statement. That's because Musical_Alum is correct, and the inference I draw from the survey results is an interpretation of those results. I realize, however, that not everyone interprets results in the same way, so I'm trying to be more careful in how I present information on this blog. Live and learn, I guess.

Later today, I plan to post a comprehensive summary of all the surveys to date that I hope will address this issue in a more objective fashion. Also, the survey results at a glance entry from Feb. 16 discusses the results of all the surveys in more objective language.

MSM and UMR have such a rich history in Missouri, regionally and nationally where changing its name would in effect shallow its image. Most people, especially Missourians who know what Rolla’s UM campus stands for would see a wholesale change as window dressing while camping on to short-lived sensationalism or as a cheap attempt to grandstand and spend money where there is no reason to. These negative points are widely held in disdain if you look into Missouri’s political heritage and should be avoided over running the risk of obtaining short-lived gain. Mostly these attempts are usually seen as someone who is clearly trying to make a name for themselves or merely being used for a career-defining move which seldom pass muster.

While a catchy name may be a tool to attract someone or remain memorable in the sea of choices that prospective students have, it should be important to remember that brand and recognition carries far deeper meaning than a name alone. Name changing of both universities and companies in recent years have been en-vogue with the desire to freshen or escape an image, spur change in culture or recognition, or reflect a change in values. I believe that changing UMR to any other name is a shallow attempt at this goal which will ultimately fail to achieve any desired result.

Companies and schools that do this without good reason tend to lose more in trust and recognition than they gain as seen with NMSU as Truman State and SMSU becoming Missouri State University. Neither one of these schools are gaining attraction due to the change because their offerings never changed and the regional area that support these schools the most with incoming people have not seen significant benefits. WorldCom changed its name back to MCI after its highly publicized scandal and again, it never fooled anyone. KFC is actually changing its name back to Kentucky Fried Chicken because the public and stockholders realized the change was a sensationalist prop in which recognition and more importantly, trust of the brand name actually declined. Even my own company failed in its attempt when it changed names from Edward D. Jones and Company to Edward Jones Investments to escape our constant comparison with our cross-town rivals A.G. Edwards. Its been 12 years since with millions of dollars spent and it still hasn’t worked! The public may forget a name once it leaves the headlines, but the community that supports the schools and businesses will never forget. Changing a name on a flawed principle will exact more question to its true intentions, trust and stability rather than reinforce it.

If UMR no longer represented excellence in engineering and science, research and producing quality graduates, then maybe a change of name would be reasonable. If UMR were to change its focus to nursing, law or business, then I could see a wholesale change being necessary. Rolla is known worldwide for having a top rate engineering, science and research facility and if the UM system continues to support it along with its sister institutions, it will continue to thrive without any help from what will undoubtedly look like a sensationalist move to change a name for headlines.

In your recent statement and presentation you cite several schools where the name fittingly represents what the schools main focus is. You state that its popularity is keyed with its name and associating it with its residing city effectively limits its ability to grow, obtain rank, recognition and favor. There is a ranking done every year in the popular news magazine U.S. News and World Report where top schools are named in various categories and judged on popular factors such as research dollars, graduation rates, enrollment, etc. You stated that it was a desire to make UMR or whatever it will be called a top 10 school in the country in our disciplines. If it is so important to not have the name of the city in the name of the school, then why does our sister Midwestern schools such as University of Illinois – Urbana Champaign and Saint Louis University always appear in the top 10? You state that our school has an identity crisis, but there are these and more perfectly fine, high-ranking schools where they obviously do not suffer this affliction. If your argument were true, then Urbana-Champaign and MIT would never trade ranks as 5th best engineering and sciences schools in the nation over and over again.

I can see your point as a relative outsider where quick change and a shock to the environment can be an effective short term change-agent. Our long standing issues at MSM and UMR with enrollment, research volume and recognition has been constant since the Morrill Land Act. You may see our MU neighbor to the north as our biggest nemesis and one with which we need to separate ourselves from. If we can make the common person recognize our school as not the ‘other’ MU school then victory will be ours. This thinking is flawed because what you don’t understand is that Mizzou will always be our better bigger brother and we have to use that reputation to help define us instead of run from it. If we had the Big-Ten sports teams and national NCAA recognition, Mizzou would just be that school in Columbia on I-70 that you pass through with all the lawyers and veterinarian students. The only thing that makes Columbia richer, better and more popular than Rolla in any sense is that money gets poured into that school because of its sports. No professional in any field that UMR supports takes Mizzou seriously unless its game-day.

In the eyes of the engineering and science world, there is already no comparison to UMR since most institution can’t compete in the quality and refinement of what UMR has to offer. Everyone but you seems to know that the engineering and sciences communities of the world have the biggest stake in what reputation MSM-UMR will have and what it means to its obtaining of research and recognizing the quality of its graduates. If you want to make Rolla’s MU campus in the top 10, then you need to focus on gaining research grants, enhancing engineering and science curriculum and continue to graduate top men and women in their respective fields.

If the horrible amount of money you will have to spend (We don’t believe for a minute that all the changes will be covered by $200k) to change the name of the university could instead be used to enhance just one department, then you would be much better off. UMR and its reputation will never need to benefit from its name reflecting a discipline unless you were to revert to MSM. Add another slogan, or curriculum, invent another water-jet or glass micro-spheres or for goodness sake do some heavy advertising but leave the name of UMR and its reputation alone to grow and be prosperous on its own.

Andy,
Are there 43,000 magazines mailed out to alumni?
If not, and the number mailed out is less than, or even close to the 19,000 email addresses you have, maybe an email survey would be more valid.

John - Yes, we mail around 43,000 magazines to alumni. The response rate for an online survey would no doubt be much greater -- as it was for the student, faculty and staff email surveys we did (of course, with a much smaller and more keenly interested group) -- but even with the 955 responses from alumni we received, we were within a tight (4%) margin of error. (See the sample size calculator to get an idea of the sample size needed for a population of 43,000 to get a 4% margin of error.)

Andy,

I first must compliment you on making this available for people to air their thoughts and thank you for taking the time to respond.

Its safe to assume that a name change may have an extremely large impact on the University. I am one of those in favor of changing the name. I do think the name is holding back the reputation of the University. I am from and currently living in Chicago. Prior to my attending UMR; a) I never heard of it, b) When I did, I thought it was a remote campus of Mizzou. There is no national recognition of our school, so we need to have a name that makes the University distinct.

My best friend was a year ahead of me and was at UMR when I did my college search. I heard of Mizzou and wanted to visit their Eng school. I had no idea UMR existed or was a great Eng school. I only happened to stumble on it since I came down to visit my friend after seeing Mizzou. Having a name that would set the campus apart from Mizzou as a focused technological University would be beneficial to recruiting.

After graduating I am really tired of having to explain where I went to school. Every time someone asks where I went I say "University of Missouri - Rolla." Which usually gets a response..."Role-a??" Or "Oh, Mizzou." Then I have to explain, no, its not Mizzou, we are a smaller tech like school south of Mizzou. It’s really disappointing. Even worse, my girlfriend attended KU. Even after explaining that I was not a graduate of Mizzou, she still hated it and gave me a hard time for wearing my University of Missouri-Rolla shirts. (Maybe if she didn't go to KU, she might be able to handle the concept of a state University having two different schools)

It was commented above that Illinois and Texas use the location in their name. Sure, UIUC is University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign, but if anyone says "I have an Eng deg from Illinois” they all know what you mean. Or UT-Austin is the same. “I went to Texas” everyone knows the reputation of being a UT grad.

So in summary, I think it would be advantageous to have a distinct name. For example, I could say "I went to Missouri Tech" and although people might not have a clue what and where that is or its rankings, they would have an idea of what the school stood for. I liked something like Missouri Tech because its short, sweet, to the point, and sounds good. The current name provides no identity.

Regarding the results, it’s pretty sad to learn that 2% of the grads responded. I think I am one of the 98%, although I am not for certain, never use mail, can’t remember if I sent it in or not. I did read the article, probably the week before the deadline for the survey. I think it would have been advantageous to provide a link on the mail in survey to either answer online or by mail. We are a technologically advanced school, I am sure we could have figured out the logistics to that. I also think this is an important decision that would probably warrant an additional survey. The word is out there, more alumni have opinions, I would guarantee more people would respond. It may have also worked to discuss it in one edition of the Alumnus and state in the next one a survey will be conducted. It takes time for word to travel among us grads. I only found it since another grad mentioned it to me.

Thanks for listening! I look forward to being able to donate one day. To those concerned, some of us younger grads might still be trying to get ahead, starting families, or selfishly enjoying luxuries our education affords us. We all do what we feel appropriate, like try to convince my company to recruit Rolla grads. Maybe it would be easier if we had an identity.

Andrew - I started at UMR in the fall of 1967 shortly after the name change from MSM. There was a great deal of resentment on campus at the loss of identity to the University "System." In fact when I graduated you could, and I did, get a class ring with MSM on it.

But what a group of alumni think is really not the point. We spend too much time looking to the past and not to the future. We resist change because we see no immediate reward. We need to look at what we want to be not what we are.

As much as the engineering community may revere our school, most people have never heard of it. Recognition does not come from size or excellence. It comes from exposure in the general media, not the scientific or technical press. The best know schools are not necessarialy the best schools.

So does this mean we should not bother with a name change? No, we should, but it should be done in a way that capture's the interest of NBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, et al. There should be a compeling story behind the change that captures the imagination of every one that hears it and creates a vision for the future.

Is this all a bunch of hype? Perhaps it is but if you want to get into the game, you need to play by rules of mass media. Otherwise, there just isn't any point to bother.

I am alum from Dec. '03, and was not informed about anything re: a name change until I noticed it in Facebook. Pitiful. The Chancellor is just trying to railroad this ridiculous idea through before too many alum complain. I have a degree in ENGLISH, not Science and Technology, and UMR will always be my alma mater, but just what does he think this'll look like on a job application? Not to mention, it sounds remarkably like a 2 year tech. school that turns out barely educated welders and sodderers rather than a 4 year institution at a very prestigious UNIVERSITY. He should be ashamed of himself. Amazing how they can find your number to call and beg for money, but not to ask your opinion about something that will actually affect your future.

i honestly would not have gone to UMR had it been called anything else. two reasons: first, i personally wanted to attend a "big school" like mizzou, but also wanted a sound engineering program (not accepted to university of illinois!). the name UMR implies that it is just as important as a part of the UM system as columbia, just in a different city. i would have blown the school off completely and gone to mizzou if it were named anything else.

so far, all of the names i have seen all scream "TRADE SCHOOL". "missouri science & tech"? that sounds like a 2 year program where i can get my diploma to repair soda fountain machines for the local pepsi distributor. and yes, i am being condescending, becuase that's what the name implies, and people like myself would be turned off completely by it. it doesn't sound like a 4-year university, it doesn't sound like a quality institution.

UMR already has the reputation -- i can't meet anyone who's immediate response to finding out i attended UMR isn't "so, what kind of engineer are you?" or "wow, you must be smart" (i love that last one!)

i also think that the city of rolla plays a very big role in defining the university. what would UMR be placed in any other city? UMx. but there is something unique about the city of rolla, something that makes going to UMR different from going to any other college campus in a small town. that's why i think that having "missouri-rolla" in the name is perfectly suited for describing the schol.

well i just had to get that off my chest with someone other than my friends over email. seriously, though, if you MUST change the name, make it something dignified and distinguished!

I strongly disagree with any name change. I also enjoy how they felt that the alumni magazine was more effective than sending emails to the 19,000 alumni that they email contact information for. Chances I'd respond to a mailer from UMR: ~112 in 43,000. Chances I'd respond by email: ~19 out of 43............

I'm against any name change for any reason. My father, also an alumni, scoffs at changing the name away from MSM, though he's always been ok with MSM-UMR.

The survey results aren't valid, however. Within 5%? When you're dealing with opinions on something like this, how can you know that? Answer...you can't.

I keep in touch with many alumni and faculty and I speak with others in my industry and nowhere NEAR 70% of the former two categories are in favor of a name change for UMR. In fact, I have yet to speak with anyone in regard to the subject who is actually IN FAVOR of it!

In regard to the latter group that I mentioned, ALL know UMR as what it is. The people who are bright enough to look for a leading technologically-oriented school find it easily enough. Those who don't really don't care.

From the start, it has sounded like someone trying to make a name for THEMSELVES rather than gaining recognition for the university.