The long-awaited results of UMR's various surveys of alumni, students, faculty and staff are now available. Read on for the blog version (minus the tables, pie charts and lone footnote), or download the full report (MS Word file) for a more graphical presentation.
February 21, 2007
Summary
Background
Survey results: alumni
Survey results: current students
Survey results: faculty and staff
Conclusions
Since announcing the name change discussion (Oct. 9, 2006), UMR has surveyed alumni, current students (undergraduate and graduate), faculty, and staff. Based on these survey results:
- A majority of alumni, faculty, staff and graduate students believe a name other than UMR would best describe the university
- 70.1 percent of alumni responding to the survey in the Winter 2006 issue of the alumni magazine, UMR Magazine
- 57 percent of graduate students
- 65 percent of faculty
- 62 percent of staff
- 70.1 percent of alumni responding to the survey in the Winter 2006 issue of the alumni magazine, UMR Magazine
- A slight majority (51.8 percent) of all students believe the current name best describes the university. When segmented by undergraduate and graduate students, the results are:
- 54 percent of undergraduate students believe the current name best describes the university
- 43 percent of graduate students believe the current name best describes the university
- 54 percent of undergraduate students believe the current name best describes the university
- In all of the surveys, of those who said a name other than UMR would best describe the university, there is no consensus on what the best name should be.
- UMR has hired a higher education marketing firm (SimpsonScarborough) to conduct further research. This firm will survey:
- Prospective students from out of state
- Corporate recruiters
- High school guidance counselors from out of state
- Community leaders from the Rolla area
- Prospective students from out of state
Background
In his State of the University address on Monday, Oct. 9, 2006, UMR Chancellor John F. Carney III proposed a universitywide conversation about the possibility of changing the university’s name to something that better reflects the university’s mission and focus as a technological research university. To gather input about the name change from various constituents of the university, Chancellor Carney commissioned surveys of several of those groups, including alumni, students, faculty and staff, prospective students, community leaders, corporate recruiters and high school guidance counselors. Surveys of alumni, current students, and faculty and staff were conducted in-house by UMR staff. Surveys of the other groups listed are being conducted by an educational marketing research firm, SimpsonScarborough.
In order to reach the largest alumni audience possible, UMR decided to include a mail-in/fax-in survey in the Winter 2006 issue of its quarterly alumni magazine, UMR Magazine, which was sent to alumni in early December 2006. Similar surveys were delivered electronically to current students, faculty and staff in January and February 2007. Each survey offered respondents a list of six possible name choices (including the current name) and an “other” category, and asked, “What name would best describe this university?” The goal of these surveys was to determine these audiences’ views of the current name as well as their views of other possible names.
The name choices provided were as follows:
- Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T)
- Missouri University of Science and Engineering (Missouri S&E)
- Missouri Technological University
- Missouri Science and Technology University (Missouri S&T)
- Missouri Science and Engineering University (Missouri S&E)
- University of Missouri-Rolla
- Other (please specify)
Survey results: alumni
As of Jan. 10, 2007, 955 alumni responded to the UMR Magazine survey, giving the survey a 2.2 percent response rate from the 43,000 alumni who receive the magazine. Of those respondents:
- 70.1 percent (or 669 of the 955 respondents) said a name other than UMR best described the university.
- 29.9 percent (or 286 of the respondents) said the current name best described the university.
- 21 percent favored Missouri Technological University
- 20 percent favored Missouri University of Science and Engineering
- 19 percent favored Missouri Science and Engineering University
- 14 percent favored Missouri University of Science and Technology
- 10 percent favored the university’s former name, “Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy,” or something similar
Approximately 50 other survey forms have arrived since Jan. 10. Those results have not yet been compiled.
Survey results: current students (undergraduate and graduate)
An online survey of current students was conducted from Jan. 22-29, 2007. Both undergraduate students and graduate students were surveyed. Both surveys attracted a large response rate, with 2,415 undergraduates (or 57 percent of 4,234) and 601 graduate students (45.7 percent out of 1,315) responding.
- Of all students, 51.8 percent – or 1,559 out of 3,009 respondents – said the current name best describes the university.
- Among undergraduate students, 54 percent – 1,299 out of 2,409 respondents – said the current name best describes the university.
- Among graduate students, 43 percent – 260 out of 600 respondents – said the current name best describes the university.
Survey results: faculty and staff
An online survey of faculty was conducted from Jan. 22-29, 2007, during the same time period as the survey of students. The survey received a total of 356 responses. Of those respondents, a solid majority said a name other than UMR best describes the university.
- 65 percent – 228 out of 349 respondents – said a name other than UMR best describes the university.
- 35 percent – 121 out of 349 respondents – said the current name best describes the university.
- 62 percent – 308 out of 498 respondents – said a name other than UMR best describes the university.
- 38 percent – 190 out of 498 respondents – said the current name best describes the university.
Conclusions
Survey results indicate that a solid majority of the alumni, faculty and staff who responded to the surveys perceive a need for the University of Missouri-Rolla to consider a name change. The results of the student surveys and younger alumni respondents indicate a slight preference in favor of the status quo.
In addition, across all surveys, there is no clear consensus on which of the suggested names best describes UMR.
Oops. The original post contained a typo in the survey results for staff. Instead of:
The correct line is:
Thanks to Dr. Martin Bohner of the UMR mathematics and statistics department for pointing out the error. (I should run these reports by a mathematician first.)
I thought the change TO UMR was silly. MSM already had a nationwide reputation (for quality education as well as St. Pats) and the name change confused things and relegated us to a branch status rather than an institution standing on its own.
Hpw much money is being wasted on this issue?
Spencer "Mike" Allen, '62, '67
I'm a structural engineer in St. Louis. I'm not from UMR, but aware of UMR. I'd suggest a name for you if you don't mind.
Rolla Scientech University
I believe the name should be simple and unique. Scientech is a combination of Science and Technology.
Thank you.
I am reminded of the old saying, "A rose by any other name, is still a rose." Meaning that the title of UMR can be the name of an even more outstanding University. I don't think changing the name will help improve the school. I think a strong leadership with a vision of the core of school's reputation is what will benefit the most.
I also favor a name change, getting away from being a "branch." My preference lies with the suggested one, "Missouri University of Science and Technology." In addition, it can then go by an appropriate acronym,
M U S T, that might have some additional recognition value!
Ed Creamer, Class of 1953
My personal opinion on the name change is inconsequential, but I do object to the original survey, in which a vote for "UMR" gave up your opportunity to vote for a preferred future name (and hence, skewed the results in favor of a name change). Anyone who felt that a name change was inevitable would be throwing away their vote if they selected "UMR". My perception is that the name is going to change, regardless of these surveys. It would have been very simple to have a 2-question survey asking 1) should the name change from UMR; and 2) select your favorite name. Someone did NOT want to hear this answer. It is disingenuous to claim, from the results, that a majority clearly want a name change - that is an interpretation of the results, and could have been a simple yes/no question on the survey. That we didn't have that simple choice, says it all. What a waste of resources.
I am assuming the name change is for some value added, so let me propose the Missouri Institute of Sustainable Sciences and Technology (MISST) or the Technological Research Institute of Missouri (TRIM)
Bill Stein '79'
From the document "UMR Name Change Survey Results: Summary and Analysis" dated February 21, 2007...
"Conclusions
Survey results indicate that a solid majority of the alumni, faculty and staff who responded to the surveys perceive a need for the University of Missouri-Rolla to consider a name change."
Maybe I received a different survey than everyone else, but where did it ask if we thought UMR "needed" a name change?! I was asked what name would best describe UMR. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the wordplay in all these documents is astounding and almost insulting. If our opinions are merely going to be reworded in order to support the name change, then why waste our time by asking?
Furthermore, it appears (though I am quite surprised) that the majority of alumni chose a name other than UMR as a better description of the school's emphasis. However, the results show that the plurality of the sample chose UMR. 29.9% chose UMR. Of those who did not choose UMR (70.1%), the highest was the 21% who chose Missouri Technological University (less than 15% of everyone surveyed). So twice as many people picked UMR over the next highest response. This direct comparison is ignored in all the pie charts and graphs, and I feel that this is another distortion of the results to emphasize the probability of success of a pre-decided agenda.
One of the reasons for the low response from Alumni was the fact the only methods for response were fax/USPS. I don't use either if I can avoid it. If you would allow an electronic survey I would have responded. I agree with the chancellor that the name does not market well and appreciate the efforts to find a consensus name that better suits the mission in today's market. Send me an on line form and I'd be more than happy to offer an opinion on the names suggested.
Can you please explain why the raw survey results aren't presented? How many respondents chose each of the suggested names? And what percentage of students, staff and alumni responded?
If I understand the survey results that were presented, the results were as follows:
29.9 percent favored University of Missouri - Rolla
14.7 percent favored Missouri Technological University
14.0 percent favored Missouri University of Science and Engineering
13.3 percent favored Missouri Science and Engineering University
11.3 percent favored a change but did not indicate a name
7.0 percent favored the university's former name, Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy, or something similar
9.8 percent favored Missouri University of Science and Technology
There are likely some small rounding errors, and I may be mistaken about the "did not indicate" group.
Hence the conclusion could very well have been:
Survey respondents favored the current name over any other
option BY MORE THAN A 2-TO-1 RATIO.
Instead of the posted conclusion:
A majority of alumni, faculty, staff and graduate students believe a name other than UMR would best describe the university.
Ultimately, it doesn't affect me much if the name is changed; current and recent students and staff will be much more affected. A name change would likely bring some benefits and certainly some confusion.
Some have claimed the survey itself was tainted, with the wording of the questions. The survey results, too, are presented in a fashion that shows the results in a light most favorable to changing the name.
By the way, I was unable to participate in the survey, and it appears that was true of others as well.
And yes, I would have voted to keep it as-is.
Being a former UMR student I can attest to the fact that UMR automatically relegates us to branch status. When you tell people where you went to school the response is typically, "the University of Missouri Rolla". And the standard response is, "So that's another campus for Mizzou?" Why not differentiate ourselves from a statewide university system that is in all aspects of technology, science and engineering education inferior?
I agree with Mike’s and Justin’s comments above. I like how the “results” say that 70% of the alumni respondents favor a name change. The question asked: “What name would best describe this university?”. If one picked a name other than UMR that best described the university then they were automatically placed into favoring a name change.
Interpreting the results this way distorts the intention of the people answering the question. Kind of like having the political pollsters ask Republicans if they favor McCain or Romney for their candidate. When they get the results, they say 75% of Republicans favor McCain when in reality maybe 80% would favor Giuliani.
I don’t remember a question being asked if we favored a name change. Conspiracy aside, questionnaires and results can be highly manipulated to reach the outcome of the ones conducting the survey. I saw what was going on and answered UMR to that question. If I answered something else, I would have “favored” a name change. I DO NOT. I would be interested in finding out the percentage of surveys returned that were used. Were ones only partially completed thrown out? According to my wife (a PhD Economist from MIT), this is done quite frequently in national surveys.
How about we ask whether Boeing and Caterpillar are names that best describe the business that those companies are in? I would bet that a majority would say they do not. But ask people if those companies should change their names to better describe their business and I would bet that the results would be quite different. It’s all in the questions and interpretation.
In the alumni-survey-results report the proposed name "Missouri Institute of Technology" received 4.2% of the all the votes cast, even though it was not one of the six candidate names listed on the ballot. This is a remarkably high showing for a "write-in" candidate -- I strongly suspect that the response for it would have been significantly greater if it had been one of the listed candidates. I suggest that a "run-off" election be held on-line, with the following four candidate names listed on the ballot: (1) Missouri Technological University, (2) Missouri University of Science and Engineering, (3) Missouri University of Science and Technology, and (4) Missouri Institute of Technology.
Dave Siems (ME '82)
The real need is marketing. UMR doesn't need a name change -- UMR needs to market itself for what it is -- a high quality technical university where a kid can get a premium education and find a good job on graduation. If you change the name the "NewName" will still have to market itself. Purdue obviously doesn't have "Technology" in its name but there is no doubt what kind of university it is. Marketing & Reputation! This whole discussion on a name change is a diversion from addressing the real issues facing the university. Lets get out there and market UMR and stop wasting time and resources on organizational diversions.
Fantastic! The new name, Missouri S&T, sounds like a junior college trade school. For example, ITT
http://www2.itt-tech.edu/af5/onlineprograms/
Achievement, performance, marketing, advertising, contiuous improvement, and reputation are more compelling, in my opinion, than a name; especially if process redesigns and/or improvements are not implemented in conjunction with a name change.
While I support whatever is necessary to continuously improve my alma mater, I hope that someone has thought about answers to the following questions as we move forward with changing the name from UMR to MUST:
1) What are the measurable goals and objectives for changing the name from UMR to MUST?
2) What would the performance against those goals and objectives look like before the name was changed from UMR to MUST?
3) What metrics will be used to measure the difference made by changing the name from UMR to MUST?
4) How frequently and for how long will the metrics be reviewed and reported?
5) Reasons for changing school names could be substantiated and quite compelling if performance metrics could be compared as follows: time as MSM, time as UMR, and, eventually, time as MUST. Can this be done?
6)What process redesigns and/or improvements will be implemented re marketing, advertising, et al to optimize the benefits of changing the name from UMR to MUST?
Greg McClain
EMgt '72, PD '93
I don't disagree with changing UMR's name but I do wonder what the purpose of the poll was when it appears the 5th place name won with less than 1 in 10 votes...
I'm late to the game, having just received a pre-announcement email last night.
It would make me happy to have an alma mater with a name that sounds like a real school rather than an extension campus, so I am in favor of a name change.
I guess I'm all about tradition. And I see a point about "more accurately describing" our school. But, we still have psychology and biology and other majors that are not necessarily "science and technology".
Why not go back to Missouri School of Mines? It may not be as accurate anymore either, but at least is a tradition.
I think the new name should be UstaB! You know MUST UstaB UMR UstaB MSM. Missouri University of Science & Technology. Get real KISS, KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID something like Missouri School of Engineering Duh!! Concentrate on what you do best and what you are known for thats Engineering boys. If you must MSET instead of MSE thats Missouri School of ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY. But the decision was preordained and the Chancelor just wants a feel good change to say looky see i am earning my salary.
IT AIN'T PERSONAL. NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN IS INTENDED TO OFFEND THE IMMATURE, RETARDED, HYPERSENSITIVE, EMOTIONALLY/HORMONALLY UNSTABLE, OR OTHERWISE EASILY OFFENDED.
BUT IF IT DOES? BWAAHAHAHAHA!! DON'T CRY TO ME ‘CAUSE I DON'T CARE’.
NO No more money Leave well enough allone
Obviously any sort of name change is going to be controversial. Particularly for those students who have attended UMR for the past few years and will graduate with a diploma that says the name of a school they only attended for a semester or two. I suggest that those students who started with the school named the University of Missouri-Rolla have the option for that name to be printed on our diplomas.
I personally think the need to change our name every 50 years or so is silly. The school's reputation stands on its own and changing it's name, just confuses the public and waters down the reputation.
UMR has alway been a name known as a school where you have to be smart to get in and put a 110% into a no nonsense school. This new name cheapens it,sounds like a trade school. Put money into advertising not changing what works.If studedens cant remember UMR then ther probley not smart enough to get in what makes you think they can remmember a lomger name. Keep a proud name change is always good. Thank you
I was very disappointed to learn that a name change has been approved. I think the name selected name is a poor substitute and will do nothing to enhance the reputation of the school. I voiced my opposition to a name change when I responded to the survey. Perhaps if those opposed to the change express their disapproval by reducing financial support for [Missouri S&T], then their opinions would be heard.