What's in a name?

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.

I agree with most everything that George Tanith has posted. The only small exception I take, is Missouri not having an elite school. Apparently George is in the minority by not considering Washington University of St. Louis prestigious (page 20)- http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research2000.pdf

While we are on the topic of Wash U., check out the .pdf file referenced above on page 20. Pretty impressive for a school from a "hick state".

I know..I know...Wash U. isn't considered a precious, "Tech. Research University", but guess what....Wash U., UC Berkeley, U. of Michigan-Ann Arbor, U of Illinois, all having engineering programs ranked far higher than UMR's, would die laughing at UMR's stance that they are not considered "Tech. Research Universities". It all comes down to total research $'s per student to normalize all schools. UMR can dream all they like.

It is like UMR leaders live in a dreamworld...Sure...our school is pretty good at engineering. Many alumni are leaders in industry. But none of this makes up the fact that there are ~5,000 students at UMR. The schools listed above have 25,000 and even 30,000 students. Sure, they don't all major in engineering like UMR, but the simple fact is that the business major at those schools who scored 10 points lower on his ACT will make more money selling securities and investments than you will ever make as an engineer. Why? Because his hiring manager liked how Michigan scored in Division 1 football that year, and he associates your school with "winners". Changing the name won't fix that disparity.

Let's examine Wash. U a bit more. What does Wash U have that UMR doesn't?
1. A major airport - 8 miles away
2. A top ranked Med, Law,and AACSB accredited Business School.
3. Major corporate sponsorships
4. Pleasant Environment

1. The airport - do I need to even explain this benefit?
2. The simple fact of offering more degrees will lead to more alumni revenue streams in the future. In Wash U.'s case, lucritive revenue streams.
3. Corporate Sponsorship - If you need proof of this, check out the names of the buildings on Wash U.s campus. Do you think Boeing and CAT only donate to UMR?
4. Wash U.s campus is manicured better than most PGA links, take a look at the asthetic appeal of UMR. Which campus would attract the best and brightest?

Much like George, my point is that UMR should diversify to more than a "technological research universiy"- given its location, state funding, and intense focus on engineering, lack of Division 1 athletics, UMR is up against a wall. Changing the name is only a bandaid on a gushing bloody wound.

Lead by spreading QUALITY (Med.Law.real business) degree offerings and reputation will follow. Do not lead by marketing a name change.

But like George, "I think the Chancellor has already made his decision and this blog is merely here to placate us."

Dave:

Thanks for sharing that report. It provides an interesting perspective in terms of research universities. While it's true that UMR will never match the research productivity of the comprehensive research universities you mention (and cited in that report), UMR has a chance to be one of the top technological research universities as defined in the link. The criteria for a "technological research university" includes the following:

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.

Granted, items 1 and 2 are easier to define and measure than 3 through 5. But the list of those universities (listed in the chancellor's description include some elite universities (Cal Tech, for instance).

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?

Was this in meaningful ranking guides such as U.S. News and World Report, or Kiplinger's? In other words, how/why would an incoming freshman care what UMR is listed as? Especially, if it is an arbitrary self-awarded proclamation. Perhaps I've missed something.

Dave:

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching sorts colleges and universities into a series of classifications that are probably closer to the chancellor's "technological research university" criteria than U.S. News, for example. The Carnegie Foundation includes UMR in the "Doctoral, STEM Dominant" category, which, according to Carnegie's definition, consists of "institutions [that] award doctoral degrees in a range of fields, with the plurality in the STEM [science, technology, engineering, mathematics] fields. They may also offer professional education at the doctoral level or in fields such as law or medicine."

Many of the institutions included in Chancellor Carney's definition of a technological research university are also included in that Carnegie classification. for example, California Institute of Technology, Colorado School of Mines, New Jersey Institute of Technology and Worcester Polytechnic Institute all fall in this Carnegie category, as well as in the UMR definition.

So, yes, the university uses a credible third party (the Carnegie Foundation) in developing the criteria for a technological research university.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but one reason we don't use the Carnegie term "STEM Dominant" or something similar has to do with 1.) the awkwardness and unfamiliarity of such a label to our students, alumni and the public, and 2.) to avoid any confusion with the controversial issue of stem cell research.

I hope this clarifies the issue for you.

George,

The name change is only one of about 30 primary initiatives designed to help further position the university as one of the top technological research universities in the nation. The Strategic Plan does a nice job of operationally describing UMR’s “personality” and how that institutional persona is a strength that, if further reinforced, can create a brighter future for the entire university community.

Also, I thought I would go ahead and provide you with some "real data" on another school that aggressively embraced its unique brand while “looking professional to the rest of the world.”

Many readers may be familiar with Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri (a rural city about the same size as Rolla). Truman, like a lot of today's major companies, has had a lot of name changes. It was formally known as Northeast Missouri State University, Northeast Missouri State College, Northeast Missouri Teachers College, North Missouri Normal School, and First Missouri Normal School and Commercial College. I think it may have been officially called a few other names over the years.

This year Truman was recognized as the # 1 Public University in the Midwest Region by U.S. News & World Report’s "America’s Best Colleges 2007" and was listed as the nation's No. 4 best value in the Princeton Review’s public sector rankings.

Truman has also been able to grow and maintain a large population (over 1550) of high ability out-of-state students.

Their most recent name change was in 1996. The change was accompanied by a multi-initiative strategic plan that, like UMR’s plan, put greater focus on their unique educational mission.

Truman may not meet the standard of Harvard or Stanford (not many of the +2700 US colleges and universities do), but its name change seems to have worked out pretty well. Heck, they were even mentioned in last August’s “Who Needs Harvard?” article for TIME magazine.

Andrew, as you mentioned above, UMR is using the credible Carnegie Foundation for developing criteria for the definition of a "tech. research university."

You neglected to mention some of the other "Research Powerhouses" on the same Carnegie list with UMR, names like, Oakland U. and Lamar U. and U of Alaska, and Alfred U. and Montana State. and my personal favorite, University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez. I wonder why these schools didn't make Dr. Carney's list? They are co-listed with UMR on the Caregie foundation list your cited.

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=63&search_flag=true&ref=748&start=782&ipgrad2005=17&submit.x=49&submit.y=13

This is my point. Dr. Carney and/or other UMR leaders are manipulating information to market this name change so that it will pass without much resistance. If that means creating a new tech. school ranking category based LOOSELY on the Carnegie system, then fine.

The true crime is most high school seniors are not likely to use the Carnegie classification, or Dr. Carney's magical tech. school classification/rating index when deciding where to go in the fall. They will use U.S. News or Kiplingers just like every other high school senior to evaluate different schools. UMR needs to improve their rankings and classification on those guides. How? by improving ACT/SAT score admittance, research funding, endowement, etc.(I already addressed these issues in 4 posts above).

A name change is not the answer to fix UMR. George Tanith is correct in his original post, UMR is facing an identity crisis. Imagine a corporate sponsor deciding whom should recieve budget next year for research. Ficticious example:
Frank: "Gee Bob, I have a lot of composites research funding laying around needing to given to a University."
Bob: "Boy, I sure would like to give the funding to my alumni, UMR."
Frank: "I've heard they changed their name."
Bob: "Really, again? O.k., what are they called now?"
Frank: "Ummmm...I think Missouri Tech. Institute...or something like that."
Bob: "No, I think that is a 2 year vocational school in St. Louis" (www.motech.edu, trust me click it!)
Frank:"Geez Bob, maybe we should look elsewhere for research, like Purdue, they are consistent and professional."
Bob: "Sounds good Frank, I'll get the purchase order going."

Dave:

I apologize if my previous post about the Carnegie classifications wasn't clear enough. The Carnegie classification is one of the metrics used in developing the definition of a technological research university. Not all of the schools listed in the Carnegie classifications fit the criteria of a technological research university. Take a look again at the Carnegie definition of "STEM-dominant" universities (where UMR fits in the Carnegie classification universe). STEM-dominant universities are "institutions [that] award doctoral degrees in a range of fields, with the plurality in the STEM [science, technology, engineering, mathematics] fields. They may also offer professional education at the doctoral level or in fields such as law or medicine." Those universities you list all meet that criteria, but our definition of a technological research university includes other criteria having to do with research productivity. You ask why they didn't make Chancellor Carney's list. The answer: the lack of strong graduate programs and a comparable research culture.

You also wrote:

The true crime is most high school seniors are not likely to use the Carnegie classification, or Dr. Carney's magical tech. school classification/rating index when deciding where to go in the fall. They will use U.S. News or Kiplingers just like every other high school senior to evaluate different schools.

You're correct that they won't be reading the Carnegie classifications. But a lot of them won't be reading U.S. News or Kiplinger's, either. The truth is, more and more students will turn to online sources like RateMyProfessors.com or My college Guide -- as well as Facebook and other peer-to-peer social networking sites -- for information about which school to attend. According to some of the latest research, strength of major and financial aid are the main factors high-achieving students use to select a college or university. Reputation is important, of course, but the traditional arbiters of "reputation" -- i.e., U.S. News -- may be less influential with prospective students than we thought.

UMR needs to improve their rankings and classification on those guides. How? by improving ACT/SAT score admittance, research funding, endowement, etc.(I already addressed these issues in 4 posts above).

You are absolutely correct. And UMR is working to improve its standing in all of these areas. But this is a blog about the name change issue, so I won't discuss this in too much detail. The strategic plan Jay alludes to in the comment just above yours outlines the campus strategies for those goals. It is still in draft form so is not yet online, but once it goes online I'll post a link to it from this blog.

Thanks for writing, reading and making your views known.

I entirely agree with George and Dave. I work in the NASA environment and UMR name is well known here. However, it is very disappointing to point out here that while I visited the manufacturing unit (finned tube heat exchangers) along with my UMR professors in the mid-80's, the engineers at the plant did not know about UMR at all. That tells us that it is the amount of research and that too, quality research carried out could put any school on anybody's radar screen. UMR has failed miserably there. The PR machinery has to concentrate its efforts to disseminate the good news about UMR. I have been getting so many post-cards from various schools for my daughter who is about to graduate. The faculty members should be given the financial incentives for publishing papers. I may also point out that more and more students from India, Thailand, and China are looking at schools in Australia for higher studies. Everything said and done, the students get attracted by the brand name and UMR has miles to travel before it becomes one.

Jay,

Truman is #1 in the midwest in schools that offer Master degrees only. That is apples and oranges with UMR. Because UMR offers PhD.'s , they are placed into a research category.

What does Truman's research funding look like? It doesn't really exist, because that isn't their main goal. One of UMR's main goals is research.

However, I agree that Truman has come a long way with many name changes, I think that is an appropriate example.

It is just hard to imagine that they were able to come that far without referencing their mission in their new name. According to Carney's logic, their name should have been Northeast Missouri Teachers College But wait, that USED to be their name at one point, why did they change to Truman? Boy that is strange?? So, you are saying that the name Truman, propelled them into a teacher college superstardom - not Northeast Missouri Teachers College? Huh.

On the other hand is Pradip Shah at NASA going to select Truman State for research, most likely not.

This brings up another topic, should UMR's main focus be on research, or should they transition into a Rose-Hullman type of school?

Andrew:

The outside entries into the “conversation” are starting to get interesting. In my post of 09:57PM 7 Feb 2007 (under the 03 February 2007 blog heading “Alumni survey results: 70% favor name change”), I commented on the definition of a technological research universities, the chart “Comparison of the nation’s technological universities” (which supposedly defines the University of Missouri-Rolla’s peer group), and the various assertions as to what a name change would accomplish without present facts to support the assertions.

In response to my comment (see11:13 PM 7 Feb 07 post by Andrew), you reiterated the definition of a technological research university presented in the white paper and the power point presentation, information that I had already reviewed (via the web links) before submitting my survey and comments on 2 January.2007. The response provided no new information. It neither addressed my questions on the validity of the definition nor addressed why such a definition is necessary. It did not present information to verify that name change would accomplish the various assertions that made.
The recent posts by George Tanith (see 08:22 PM 16 Feb 07) and Dave (see and 02:04 AM 20 Feb 07, 08:37 PM 21 February 07, and 08:32 PM 22 Feb 07 posts) under the 14 February 2007 blog heading “What's in a name?”, also raise questions on the basis of and validity of the technological research universities definition. Your initial response (see post by Andrew 4:46 PM 21 Feb 07) again reverts to the sound bits in the technological research university definition link to the white paper (see post by Andrew 4:46 PM 21 Feb 07) and then relapse into a reference of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classifications of colleges as a defense (see posts by Andrew 22 Feb 07 and Andrew 23 Feb 07).
The Carnegie classification system groups colleges into categories based on several different issues including (but not limited to) Basic Classification, Graduate Instructional Program, Undergraduate Instructional Program, Enrollment Profile, Undergraduate Profile, Size and Setting. Within each of these issues, the schools are sorted in to several different categories. The University of Missouri-Rolla classification categories and category descriptions for each the six-major Carnegie issues are shown below, where the numbers in within parenthesis () represent the total number of institutions classified in the category.

1. Basic Classification = RU/H { Research Universities (high research activity)} (103 institutions in this category) = Doctorate-granting Universities. Includes institutions that award at least 20 doctoral degrees per year (excluding doctoral-level degrees that qualify recipients for entry into professional practice, such as the JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.). Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges.
2. Graduate Instructional Program = Doc/STEM: {Doctoral, STEM dominant.} (50 institutions in this category) = According to the degree data, these institutions award doctoral degrees in a range of fields, with the plurality in the STEM* fields. They may also offer professional education at the doctoral level or in fields such as law or medicine. (* STEM: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.)
3. Undergraduate Instructional Program = Prof+A&S/HGC: {Professions plus arts & sciences, high graduate coexistence.} (67 institutions in this category) = 60–79 percent of bachelor’s degree majors were in professional fields, and graduate degrees were observed in at least half of the fields corresponding to undergraduate majors.
4. Enrollment Profile = HU {High undergraduate.} (523 institutions in this category) = Fall enrollment data show both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for 10–24 percent of FTE enrollment.
5. Undergraduate Profile = FT4/MS/HTI {Full-time four-year, more selective, higher transfer-in.} (87 institutions in this category) = Fall enrollment data show at least 80 percent of undergraduates enrolled full-time at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. Score data for first-year students indicate that these institutions are more selective in admissions (our analysis of first-year students’ test scores places these institutions in roughly the top fifth of baccalaureate institutions). At least 20 percent of entering undergraduates are transfer students.
6. Size and Setting = M4/NR: {Medium four-year, primarily nonresidential.} (115 institutions in this category) = Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 3,000–9,999 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions. Fewer than 25 percent of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus (includes exclusively distance education institutions).

To identify peers of the University of Missouri-Rolla according to the Carnegie classification system, one can search the Carnegie database for institutions that that have the same six classification-system categories listed above for UMR. The result of such a search indicates:
“1 result for Basic = “RU/H” and Enrollment Profile = “HU” and Graduate Instructional Program = “Doc/STEM” and Undergraduate Instructional Program = “Prof+A&S/HGC” and Size and Setting = “M4/HR” and Undergraduate Profile = “FT4/MS/HTI”
Institution Location Control
University of Missouri-Rolla Rolla, Missouri Public”

Hence, in the totality of the Carnegie Classification system, the University of Missouri-Rolla has no peers! This is just another way of showing that UMR is a institution offering a unique educational opportunity. The administration has to advise the potential student pool of this unique educational opportunity, and I don’t think simple name change will not accomplish that.

I find your comments on the Carnegie classification system to be somewhat vague and less than a direct description of how the chancellor’s definition of technological research university was developed and why he felt compelled to develop a new classification.
First, when responding to Dave, you only refer to the Carnegie-Graduate-Instructional-Program classification category for UMR (Doc/STEM). The use of only this category is misleading when addressing UMR characteristics and its competitors for the potential student pool because of its enrollment profile is HU (High undergraduate). Second, not all of the 50 DOC/Stem schools are include in the Chancellor’s definition of a technological research university, whereas numerous schools that are not Doc/STEM were included in the data considered in his presentation. Furthermore, the reasons for the inclusions and exclusions do not appear to be directly related to the Carnegie System. The above comments are restricted to your insertion of the Carnegie system. A separate comment will be submitted later on the actual data behind the chancellor’s charts.

I think the point about the new Carnegie classifications is being misunderstood. Carnegie does not rank schools. Carnegie's institutional groupings is what has been used by the ranking organizations to cluster institutions by focus and type.

US News has already said they are evaluating the new Carnegie classifications to reorganize their rankings (and why not, everytime they change thier format, they sell more magazines).

The Education Trust has already engaged the new classifications in their College Results website and publications. It sounds like most of the other ranking groups plan to follow this plan.

BTW: Georgia Tech has already engaged the new classification in their institutional vision statement: "Georgia Tech will define the technological research university of the 21st century and educate the leaders of a technologically driven world."

Roy:

I'm sorry that you found my response to your earlier post less than satisfying, and my discussion of one of the Carnegie classification system vague. Because you seem to see the university's definition of a technological research university as flawed, I doubt any response from me would satisfy at this point. I will reiterate, though, that the "STEM-dominant" criteria from the Carnegie Foundation classification system is just one of many data points used in developing the criteria for the definition of a technological research university.

I repeat: the Carnegie "STEM-dominant" criteria is not the only data point used to determine what constitutes a technological research university.

Now, the "STEM-dominant" criteria for graduate instructional programs is useful in helping us identify which universities have a similar "robust graduate program" as UMR (criteria 3 in the UMR definition of a technological research university).

To return to the issues you raised in your original comment, I would only add that the engineering programs of the public university systems you reference (Illinois, Texas, California, Wisconsin) are comprehensive universities, and none of them have a majority of their student bodies enrolled in engineering, the sciences, business and mathematics.

Your further research into the Carnegie classifications for UMR goes to show just how unique a university this is. Thanks for sharing that. I suppose, if we were to use that criteria only, then we would be number one in our niche, and then we wouldn't have to worry about becoming a top five technological research university. But then, we wouldn't have much incentive to improve and grow.

I am going one step ahead and am listing the study results conducted in UK for the world's top 100 technology universities. I had sent this list to our chancellor in November.

The world's top 100 technology universities as per Times Higher Education Supplement (UK). I have pasted the table from www.thes.co.uk/worldrankings. Of course, UMR is no where to find. Whether we like it or not, perception is everything. No prizes for who is # 1. MIT and subsequently all the schools listed need to be read in this way: 1st # is 2005 rank, 2nd# is 2004 rank, institution, country, peer score, & citation per paper.

2005
rank 2004
rank Institution Country Peer
score Citations
per paper
1 2 Massachusetts Institute Technol US 100 6
2 1 University of California, Berkeley US 98.7 6.3
3 4 Indian Institutes of Technology India 86.4 -
4 3 Stanford University US 84.9 6.8
5 5 Imperial College London UK 81.3 4.1
6 8 Cambridge University UK 79.4 5.1
7 6 California Institute of Technology US 78 7.1
8 7 Tokyo University Japan 76.8 -
9 9 National University of Singapore Singapore 74.1 -
10 10 Beijing University China 68.5 -
11 11 Tokyo Institute of Technology Japan 67.2 -
12 16 ETH Zurich Switzerland 67.1 6.6
13 12 Oxford University UK 66 5.7
14 14 Carnegie Mellon University US 65.8 4.9
15 24 Delft University of Technology Netherlands 65.6 -
16 26 New South Wales University Australia 60.4 -
17 15 Tsing Hua University China 60.1 -
18 22 Melbourne University Australia 59.9 4.5
19 23 Kyoto University Japan 59.5 -
20 17 Georgia Institute of Technology US 58.7 3.8
21 13 Harvard University US 58.3 7.6
22 19 Ecole Polytechnique France 58.1 4.2
23 20 Hong Kong University Sci & Technol Hong Kong 57.6 3.2
24 18 Monash University Australia 57 -
25 29 Technion Israel Inst of Technol Israel 56.4 -
26 33 Nanyang Technological University Singapore 56.2 -
27 21 Illinois University US 54 4.9
28 38 Aachen RWTH Germany 53.6 3.1
29 31 Australian National University Australia 53.5 -
30 27 University of Texas at Austin US 53.4 4
31 40 University of Toronto Canada 52.4 4.1
32 44 Vienna University of Technology Austria 52.1 3.1
33 46 Technical University Munich Germany 51.9 3.7
34 30 Cornell University US 51.5 6
35 25 Purdue University US 51.2 4.2
36= 36 University of California, Los Angeles US 50.6 5.5
36= 41 Ecole Poly Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland 50.6 5.2
38 34 Princeton University US 49.8 7
39 - Catholic University Leuven (French) Belgium 49.6 4.2
40 47 Queensland University Australia 48.3 3.2
41 45 Manchester University & Umist UK 47.2 3.6
42= 37 Korea Adv Inst of Sci & Technol South Korea 46.5 -
42= 55 McGill University Canada 46.5 4.1
44= 28 Massachusetts University US 46.2 4.7
44= 63 Lomonosov Moscow State University Russia 46.2 -
44= 39 Technical University of Berlin Germany 46.2 -
47 52 University of British Columbia Canada 45.7 -
48 48 Sydney University Australia 45.1 4.1
49 57 Auckland University New Zealand 44.7 -
50 42 China University of Sci & Technol China 44.4 -
51 59 Waterloo University Canada 44.3 -
52 49 Helsinki University of Technology Finland 44 -
53 43 Osaka University Japan 43.2 -
54 64 Karlsruhe University Germany 42.6 -
55 35 University of Michigan US 42.5 4.9
56 66 Politecnico di Milano Technical Univ Italy 42.1 -
57 72 National Taiwan University Taiwan 41.8 -
58 71 Royal Institute of Technology Sweden 41.7 3.9
59 51 Chalmers University of Technology Sweden 41.5 -
60 60 Technical University, Denmark Denmark 41 5
61 53 University of California, San Diego US 40.9 5.3
62 58 Yale University US 40.5 8.2
63 75 Twente University Netherlands 39.5 -
64 56 Wisconsin University US 39.2 4.2
65= 67 Seoul National University South Korea 38.9 -
65= 78 Shanghai Jiao Tong University China 38.9 -
67= 50 Texas A&M University US 38.8 3.6
67= - Queensland University of Technol Australia 38.8 -
69 - Indian Institutes of Management India 38.5 -
70 93 University of Technology, Sydney Australia 38 -
71 79 Edinburgh University UK 37.8 3.2
72 70 Virginia Polytechnic Institute US 37.1 -
73 73 Boston University US 37 6.2
74= 68 Eindhoven University of Technology Netherlands 36.9 3.6
74= 69 Stuttgart University Germany 36.9 -
76 95 Chinese University Hong Kong Hong Kong 36.7 -
77 90 Paris VI, Pierre et Marie Curie France 36 4.8
78 61 Glasgow University UK 35.9 -
79 54 Adelaide University Australia 35.3 -
80 - Hong Kong University Hong Kong 35 -
81= 62 Penn State University US 34.8 4.3
81= 76 Johns Hopkins University US 34.8 5.1
81= 79 Tohoku University Japan 34.8 -
84 73 Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris France 34.7 5.4
85 83 Fudan University China 34.4 -
86= 82 Bologna University Italy 34.1 3.4
86= 98 TH Darmstadt Germany 34.1 -
88 - Catholic University Leuven (Flemish) Belgium 34 -
89 88 Rensselaer Polytech Institute US 33.8 4.5
90= - City University Hong Kong Hong Kong 33.5 -
90= 100 RMIT University Australia 33.5 -
92 87 Columbia University US 33.4 5.2
93= 85 Norwegian University Sci & Technol Norway 33.1 3.4
93= 77 Montpellier I University France 33.1 -
95 86 Pennsylvania University US 32.5 5.6
96 - Curtin University of Technology Australia 32.4 -
97 91 Trinity College, Dublin Ireland 32.2 -
98 - Ghent University Belgium 32.1 4.5
99 65 St Petersburg State University Russia 31.7 -
100= - Chulalongkorn University Thailand 31.4 -
100= - Nagoya University Japan 31.4 -

Source: The Times Higher Education Supplement and QS Quacquarelli Symonds, published October 7 2005
© QS Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd.

The following are the comments I sent in with the Alumni Survey back in December. I have not read answers to some of the questions I raised and was hoping that they would get answered here.

While I understand the desire to change the UMR’s name to distinguish it from the other University of Missouri campuses, I do not fully support the arguments for most of the other reasons. The University of Missouri - Rolla has already undergone at least one name change. How long did it take for the name University of Missouri - Rolla (UMR) to be accepted after being the Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy (MSM)?

One reason given to change the name is “To reflect the university’s mission”. When I look at the graph showing the comparison of the nation’s technological universities, I notice that UMR has the highest percentage of enrollment in engineering with over 10% greater than any other university. Any name change to reflect the university’s status would have to have word engineering in it. While “technology” has been used in some fine institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I feel a new name with the word “technology” or “tech” would make UMR seem more like the ITT Tech Institutes that are definitely not in UMR’s league. Are an increasing number of undergraduate students really going to be swayed into applying just because the new name reflects the mission of a technological research university?

Other reasons listed are “To broaden our share of the national student pool” and ”To enhance the university’s reputation”. The first reason states that the Missouri high school graduates that populate UMR will shrink by more than 15% after 2010 and UMR will have to attract students who want to study at a technological research university. According to Chart 2 : Missouri Public High School Graduates, 1987 – 88 to 2001-2002 (actual), 2002 -2003 to 2017-2018 (projected) located at www.umr.edu/namechange, the years from 2002 to 2005 have shown a nearly flat number of graduates and yet the Total UMR Enrollment listed in the UMR Magazine shows an increase for these years, albeit a small one. The 15% drop in 2010 lasts for only a couple of years to around 2012 with the numbers increasing from there out to 2018. Can UMR weather this decrease without resorting to a name change?

I fail to see how this is so drastic that a name change is needed in order to attract students from outside Missouri and the Midwest when neighboring states of Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee are projecting an increasing number of high school graduates. Currently UMR has reduced out-of-state tuition for students who are residents of Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wisconsin. All of these states have projected decreases in high school graduates from 2002 – 2012. Why not give reduced out-of-state tuition to students coming from Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee and even Indiana? I came to UMR from Illinois and paid full out-of-state tuition for 4.5 years. I would think that UMR could attract more students from these neighboring states to offset lower enrollment from Missouri. Of course, if the goal is to get more students paying higher out-of-state tuition, then this would not work.

I also fail to see how a name change is suddenly going to create swarms of students knocking at the doors of UMR. How many years will it take in order for the new name to have the desired effect? Will it require even more marketing on UMR’s part and if so why not increase the marketing of the existing name? Why are students on the east coast not sending in ACT scores to UMR? Is it because a lot of them take the SAT instead of the ACT? Is it because many have not heard of UMR in which case will they have heard of the newly named UMR? Is it because many do not want to go to school in Rolla and prefer the bigger cities where the other institutes are located? I think some of these questions need to be answered before just saying a name change will solve all problems.

I had never heard of the Illinois Institute of Technology until I read this article in the UMR Magazine and I was born and raised in Peoria, Illinois. Comparisons have made with these other technological research universities. A lot of these are private universities who charge much higher tuition with which they can afford to pay for higher profile faculty. What kind of teaching loads do these universities have compared to UMR? If UMR wants to attract Nobel Prize winning researchers, then it may have to pay a lot to get them to come and live in Rolla versus places like Boston, Pasadena, or Chicago. Does UMR want to keep raising tuition in order to afford research focused professors? Will UMR become a “state university” where students from Missouri cannot afford to attend?

In conclusion, I feel more thought needs to be given to the effect a new name will have and how long it will take before the new name becomes synonymous with the quality that is UMR.

Let me start off by saying that I think the name change is a good idea. While it's difficult to discuss its ramifications in the absence of the bigger strategic picture, it is silly to continue to pretend that we've ever really been a part of the UM system in anything but name. Academically and culturally we've always been worlds apart. If we can break that subservient association in the minds of prospective students while clearly conveying the unique value we bring to the educational experience, then I am all for it.

If I had to suggest a name, I'd say keep it simple: Rolla University. Anyone who's familiar with UMR uses Rolla as the short-hand anyway and the short-hand Rolla is definitely associated with Engineering for most in-state students I'd guess. The marketing challenge then is to extend that association to out-of-state students as well.

Speaking of out-of-state students, can someone refresh my memory as to why we financially penalize students from outside of Missouri? If broadening our appeal to out-of-state students is one of our goals, surely dropping that disincentive is under consideration, right?

George earlier indicated he thought the university was suffering from an identity crisis and so far I haven't seen any attempt to contradict his belief. Is the name change part of a coordinated strategic plan or a reaction to an identity crisis?

What about the City of Rolla? Quality of life is certainly a consideration in attracting students and faculty; how is the City supporting this strategic plan? Is the City's strategic plan aligned with our own?

All of these strategic questions are relevant to the debate of changing UMR's name. Why isn't this a site that discusses the name change from within that strategic framework? Where can we find the framework?

I believe that it's only within the context of the bigger picture that we can have a productive debate on whether or not to change UMR's name.

Bottom line up front, we should call it Rolla Missouri University.

Background and reasons/considerations follow:

Background:
On 16 March I was introduced to a group of new colleagues as having a bachelors degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Missouri, and I immediately chimed in to add "at Rolla." The engineering manager who introduced me was from Long Island, New York, and obviously not familiar with Rolla being a separate engineering school from the one in Columbia. The point is that having Rolla at the end of the name tends to get Rolla dropped, making it simply University of Missouri.

In approximately 1963, when it was decided to change the name from MSM to the University of Missouri at Rolla, we had a "riot" to protest the name change, and most of the student body marched through the streets or Rolla.

As you would expect, no property was damaged and nobody was hurt. We picked up a couple of small cars parked on Pine Street and turned them around, but that, and a big bonfire by the Chancellors house comprised the extent of the mischief.

Although we were well disciplined, we were deeply upset because we did not want to be even more closely associated with engineering students from MU than the old name, University of Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy implied, or, heaven forbid, mistaken as having graduated from MU in Columbia.

Although the "at" prior to Rolla has been dropped in the meantime, the acronym after the name change in the early 60's was UMR as it is today.

Reasons/considersations:

To get to the point, Jim Stratton is on the right track. One of the main goals should be to find a unique name which starts with Rolla. Anybody who has ever heard of the school calls it Rolla (period), and they still will no matter what it is named. Therefore, the name Rolla be the first word in the name.

For the purpose of appearing in the results of Internet searches of Universities or Universities in Missouri, it should also include the names University and Missouri to define the location and type of school.

RUM would immediately become a joke, i.e. students would be known as rumheads, etc., but RMU would work.

Making Rolla the first word insures that if anything gets dropped when speaking of the school, it is Missouri University. Having Missouri as the second word tells the exact location of the school. Using University as the last word tells it like it really is. It gives credit/recognition to all students, because a university consists of several colleges, be it engineers or some of the recently added non-technical degrees.

The name Rolla Missouri University would also keep the MU curators happy, and they most likely have the power to veto a name without MU included.

Another advantage is that RMU is simply UMR "spelled" backwards, so the change is not all that drastic, and the reversing of the letters is easy for all to remember.

No comma should be used in the name, because Rolla, Missouri University would cause people to again drop the word Rolla.

Also, if an engineering student were to be asked if he went to the University of Missouri, the immediate response could be that R stands for Right as well as Rolla, i.e., the Right University of Missouri for engineers. Non engineers could simply answer yes, because they may wish to be associated with the more intricate liberal arts studies offered at other MU campuses. :-)

I'm not totally convinced we need to change the name, but it sounds like it will happen. So if a change is made, it should make sense, and be an improvement, and I believe my suggestion accomplishes that.

We need to get the name change right, because do we really want to upset current students so much that they would protest it?

Finally, we should think ahead to the nickname the school could get from a new name, because once it's changed, it will be too late to undo it. For example, Rolla Technological University would quickly become known as Rot U.