Dear readers: Bring out the torches and pitchforks, for I have committed what surely is a cardinal sin in the eyes of any technological research university graduate, student or faculty member, regardless of the institution's name.
In a previous post about alumni response to our name change survey, I wrote that "112" of our alumni responded. The actual number is 995 (prior to a mid-January cutoff date, plus more since then). I then compounded my error by claiming that amounted to a 2.5 percent response rate. Surprisingly, no readers called me on my faulty math. But a fellow staff member did, so I double checked it and corrected the errors in the original post. The corrected version is posted again, below, using only the numbers from the pre-mid-January results. We haven't had time to figure in the other results yet, but we're keeping tabs.
As they say in the news business, "We regret the error." But regret just doesn't convey my remorse. I really, really, really regret the error. - Andrew Careaga
In the winter 2006 issue of UMR Magazine, alumni were surveyed about the proposed name change, and the results of that survey may come as a surprise to those who claim the majority of alumni are opposed to the name change. We'll publish more information about the survey in the spring issue of UMR Magazine. I didn't want to scoop the magazine, but this is the blogosphere, and some of the comments we've received imply a groundswell of opposition to the name change. So to set the record straight, I have no choice but to scoop the mag.
And here's that scoop:
More than 70 percent of alumni responding to the survey said they favored changing UMR's name to something more descriptive of our mission.
That's right: more than 70 percent (70.1 percent, to be exact).
A note about the survey itself and the results: The survey garnered a 2.5 2.2 percent response rate (112 955 of the 43,000 alumni). That may sound low, but it beats the typical response rate of 1-2 percent for mail surveys. We would likely have received a higher response rate by conducting an online survey, but we have the email addresses of only about 19,000 or our 43,000 alumni, so we would have missed a large segment of the population. Publishing the survey in the magazine was the most cost-effective means of reaching as many alumni as possible.
The survey was accompanied by an article, which summarized the case for the name change.
We'll share more information about this survey in the spring issue of the alumni magazine. This blog will also carry the results from student, faculty and staff surveys soon. Keep reading.
All this talk of the famous "UMR" name got me thinking about my summer intership last year. When people asked where I went to school, "UMR" was the first thing I said. After they looked at me like I was dumb, I proceeded to say "The University of Missour-Rolla" and its a mouthful. A better name that better reflects what we do here would be a welcome change for me.
Noboy thinks Georgia Tech is some 4th rate technical school. Why can't we do the same?
Whether there were 112 or 995 responses, you didn't actually 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?
Even though most comments I've heard or seen about the name change have been against it, I have a feeling that sharing our opinions will be as effective as a non-binding resolution passed by Congress. In other words, I think the Chancellor has already made his decision and this blog is merely here to placate us. Nevertheless, I'll still give my thoughts about the name change.
The problem with UMR's reputation has nothing to do with its name. Some of the top schools have names that don't tell people what they do or who they are. I'm talking about schools like Yale, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Cornell, Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth, Rutgers, Carnegie Mellon, Purdue, etc. I think we can all agree that these are some of the elite. Now look at their names. Do they say anything about what the school does? Of course not. But tucked inside these institutions are top notch schools of law, medicine, business, computer science, engineering. Furthermore, if you ask almost anyone, they would tell you the same thing. You don't see Johns Hopkins changing their name to the Institute of Medical Technology. Why? Because they know that reputation has to do with what an organization's name represents and not the name itself. While the reputation of a school depends on the quality of education, it ultimately rests in its students, both past and present. When you graduate from one of these elite schools, you are proud to put that name on your resume. You have a vested interest in achieving and giving back to your school to enhance its reputation because that reputation will be reflected back on you.
Now let's say Harvard decided to change its name. Can you imagine the amount of people that would be against that change? Alumni have such pride in Harvard and have gained so much reputation just by going to that school. Even people that have never attended Harvard would probably write to them about it. This leads to the biggest problem UMR faces. It has done a poor job connecting with their alumni. I don't know what's worse -- that the survey shows only a few alumni read their UMR Magazine or that so few cared enough about UMR to submit the survey. In any case, there seems to be a general disinterest among alumni with what is going on at UMR. This is something that should be addressed in University Advancement, which I believe is its responsibility. If the Vice Chancellor is having problems keeping her own employees at UMR, how is she supposed to keep alumni interested in UMR as well? We need better leadership. Even if you change the name of UMR, you cannot change its location. How many of the colleges in Missouri are considered elite? None! Missouri does not have a school of that kind of reputation. When people hear "Missouri" whether it's in the college's name or not, it conjures up images of "hillbillies", "rednecks", "agriculture" and the "Bible Belt". Technology is probably the last thing people think and that is something that you can't change. There is strong racism in the area and I can't imagine the social and academic elite choosing this area to live in for four-plus years over other areas.
Finally, UMR faces an identity crisis with its brand, which seems to be suffering from a serious multiple personality disorder. Is UMR an engineering school? Well, it was at one time, but it was called something else. Is UMR a university with a full-range of degrees? Well, supposedly, but not really. It has always pushed the most money and support into engineering and left its few other programs out in the cold. Is UMR a business school? I think it tried to have one, but it hasn't really been pushed effectively. Now it's going back to just "technology". On top of that, UMR has had two names and now possibly a third. Does this look professional? How does this appear to the rest of the world? To me, it looks like a small town school that doesn't know who it is or what it does. It is this lack of marketing that has killed what little reputation UMR had. In the end, I think the name change will do more harm than good, but in any case, I doubt UMR will ever be an elite school. With that said, before you change the name, I would like to see real data that shows how a college went from a "University of The Middle of Nowhere" to a school of Harvard or Stanford quality and reputation. I doubt it ever has happened simply by changing a name.
George is quite the visionary; if you are not an elite, private, east coast university GIVE UP NOW and CLOSE THE DOORS! There is no idea or hope that can save a top Midwestern public school if they cannot be Harvard.
I like the name change idea. It seems appropriate and could have some real long term international benefits. If everyone is honest about the core issue they will admit that the hyphenated school names create a huge perceptional quality deficit. The university is deserving of a better title.
Bruce,
I think you may have misunderstood the point of George's comments. Harvard is merely a point of reference that is familiar to most - I don't think George is insinuating that Rolla should be another Harvard.
What George is saying - and I agree - is that changing the name is not the magical bandaid that will cure all ills. He is not saying "give up hope" or that "you might as well quit if you're not Harvard" - he's saying that you shouldn't expect something as simple as a name change to propel UMR into elite status within a couple of years.
George, forgive me if I have misinterpreted your post, but for the most part, I think you are right on.