A few days ago, "Musical_Alum" (more about pseudonyms in a later post) asked:
Could you include a blog entry explaining why this must be done so quickly?And:
Have any marketing consultants provided their services?I'll try to address both questions with this post. It's a bit long-winded. I hope you'll bear with me.
Regarding the pace at which the UMR administration is moving forward on this subject: It's true that universities are typically slow to change, especially in comparison to the hectic pace of change in many corporate environments. So it may appear as though things are moving quite rapidly regarding this name change.
But the speed in which this conversation is moving forward is relative. For some of us, the idea of changing this campus's name has been a recurring topic of discussion for years. It's been a topic that's cropped up periodically throughout my 16-year career at UMR, and I suspect ever since we switched from the University of Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy to the University of Missouri at Rolla in 1964. (Soon after that name change, the "at" was replaced with a hyphen and we became the University of Missouri-Rolla.)
So, this discussion has been years in the making.
But, yes, this process has moved along quickly, when measured in "university time" (similar to geologic time). That is not necessarily a bad thing, though. All along this fast track, the university administration has worked hard to communicate with as many constituents as possible, as often as possible, and in as many venues as possible. With 43,000 alumni out there, it's impossible to get in touch with everyone, and we're limited by financial and staffing constraints. (We don't have the budget to pull off the awareness campaign of, say, Singular/the new AT&T, for instance.) But we've done a pretty good job of reaching many alumni in a reasonably efficient and cost-effective manner.
It's been four months since Chancellor John F. Carney III first publicly suggested that the campus community discuss the merits of a name change. From that point forward, several units of the university have worked together to inform as many of our constituents as possible, as quickly as possible. We've spent a lot of time communicating with alumni, students, faculty and staff, the public, etc., in a variety of ways. Chancellor Carney has held forums on campus, with local alumni groups and with community groups. Several of us worked with him to craft a position paper and distribute it as widely as possible. At the same time, we worked on a condensed version of that paper to include in the winter 2006 issue of the alumni magazine, which was sent out in early December -- earlier than usual. That issue also included the mail-in survey we've been discussing on this blog. Starting in January and continuing through this month, we've been surveying current students, faculty and staff about the name change. (I'll share the results of those surveys in this space soon.) Most recently, we decided to create this blog to share information and provide an avenue for feedback.
As for the why aspect of Musical_Alum's question, the answer boils down to timing. Look at the demographics of high school graduates: we're about to face a dramatic decline in the number of prospective students from Missouri and the Midwest, where we're best known. (Best known by prospective students and their families, that is. I'm not talking about employers here; that's a separate issue and no one at UMR is arguing that we're not well known by employers in specific industries). Say we're trying to recruit a prospective student from Wisconsin, where the hyphenated University of Wisconsin campuses are perceived as "branch" campuses or feeder schools for the main campus in Madison. Say that recruit receives a mailer from some hyphenated university in Missouri. What is that prospect's perception of the school? A feeder school. A branch campus. Not "big time." But say that prospect receives a mailer from "Missouri Polytechnic University" (to choose a possible name out of the hat). What is the perception there? A technology campus!
Of course, I'm speculating about how some prospect in Wisconsin might perceive a name like Missouri Polytechnic. Which brings us to Musical_Alum's second question: Have we sought professional help from marketing firms to assist with the research?
We have. An educational marketing firm has been hired to survey prospective students, corporate recruiters, community and business leaders, and high school counselors. That work begins soon.
Andrew:
In my earlier comments, I indicated that not all of the 12 schools included in the Chancellor’s definition of technological research universities of were in the Carnegie Doc/Stem classification. By my count, the non-Doc/Stem institutions were Georgia Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Michigan Technology University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and South Dakota School of Mines.
I also noted that based on all six major Carnegie issues that the University of Missouri-Rolla UMR had unique classification. UMR is not alone in this aspect as the California Institute of Technology, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology also have no peers base on all six of their Carnegie system; furthermore the Colorado School of Mines and Michigan Technological University have equal Carnegie categories for all six issues and hence are full peers.
Of the other 11 institutions in the schools included in the Chancellor’s definition of technological research universities:
• 1 institution has five Carnegie-category classifications in common with UMR;
• 3 institutions have four Carnegie-category classifications in common with UMR;
• 2 institutions have three Carnegie-category classifications in common with UMR;
• 1 institution has two Carnegie-category classifications in common with UMR;
• 2 institutions have one Carnegie-category classification in common with UMR; and
• 2 institutions have no Carnegie-category classifications in common with UMR.
The two institutions with no Carnegie-category classifications in common with UMR are South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The two institutions with only a single Carnegie-category classification in common with UMR are the California Institute of Technology and Georgia Institute of Technology.
Based on the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classifications, the above observations suggest there is not a strong peer relationships between the 12 schools included in the Chancellor’s definition of technological research universities. Hence, it is not clear why you raised the issue when responding to Dave. Am I missing something?
The facts and schools used in preparing the chart on page 13 of Fall magazine article and Slide 16 through 18 of the Chancellor’s PowerPoint presentation and be reviewed by downloading the PowerPoint presentation through the link in the Case for Name Change and then clicking on the graphs and opening the Excel spreadsheets. These spreadsheets present data on only 40 institutions; including 12 institutions that are not shown in slides 16 through 18 of the PowerPoint presentation.
As noted in my comments posted 09:57PM 7 Feb 2007 under the 03 February 2007 blog heading “Alumni survey results: 70% favor name change,” I noted that there are numerous schools without technology in their names that have highly recognized engineering programs that did not appear on the chart. There are many engineering schools that do not appear in the Excel work sheets.
Based on the above comments, I have several questions:
• Were the 40 schools listed in the Excel sheets the totally of the data evaluated to determine that there are only 12 schools meeting Chancellor’s definition of technological research universities, or is it possible the there are other schools that might also meeting this classification?
• What were the quantitative criteria used to evaluate the items 3 through 5 of the criteria for the Chancellor’s definition of technological research universities?
• Other than to promote a name change and to establish the schools against which he intends to measure the goal of reaching the Top 5 by 2010, where there other reasons the Chancellor felt compelled to develop this classification?
• How will the 12 schools be evaluated to determine what the rankings are in 2010?
• Considering only the 12 schools in the Chancellor’s definition of technological research universities, what is UMR’s current ranking?
Roy wrote:
Based on the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classifications, the above observations suggest there is not a strong peer relationships between the 12 schools included in the Chancellor’s definition of technological research universities. Hence, it is not clear why you raised the issue when responding to Dave. Am I missing something?
The only reason I brought up the Carnegie classification system was to respond to a question he brought up in this comment, namely: Andrew, I understand what Dr. Carney lists are criteria for "Tech. Research Universities." however, I have scoured the net looking for the definition of a Tech. Research University with no avail. With the exception to Dr. Carney's list of criteria of a Tech. Research University, has anyone found the definition elsewhere? Are these just random criteria metrics he made up? How was his list ranked?
As I've mentioned in comments elsewhere, the Carnegie classification system is just one of many criteria used to develop the list of technological research universities.
As for your forther questions, I'll try to get back to you as soon as I can with the answers.
Since this topic mentions professional help, I will ask here: When will the price of the "Independent Consultation" come out? I was told that it would probably be available here.
Jeff:
UMR hired the consulting firm of SimpsonScarborough to conduct the independent research. We don't have the final costs yet, but I can tell you that the work was funded by private donations.