Since posting last Thursday's media advisory about the proposed name change, this blog has received 80-plus comments. Most of them have come from alumni and current students, and most of them have expressed opposition to either a.) changing the university's name at all, for any reason, or b.) the choice of Missouri University of Science and Technology, or Missouri S&T (or MUST, as some doggedly insist on calling it). This is not surprising, as public forums like this one typically draw their share of opponents and dissenters. That's the beauty of this type of communications medium: it gives people an outlet through which to express their views.
A few commenters have also veered off into discussing the issues related to marketing a new name. More about that in a future post.
Overlooked in this wave of comments opposed to the proposed name or the concept of changing the name are some posts from those who actually agree with the direction the university and Chancellor John F. Carney III are headed. Here are some of those comments, and excerpts from some others:
From Bruce Thompson:I know change is hard to accept, especially one this significant.
Again, from an out of Missouri perspective, I think this is a good long term change.
I am tired of UMR being the "best kept secret" school of the Midwest. The current name DOES portray a regional branch campus to the general public. It would take a larger marketing budget than any university could dream of to ever beat that fact. ...
It takes a great leader to address the real white elephants that inhibit an institution's success. We have been blessed with back to back Chancellors willing to make the dynamic moves that are moving the university to the greatness it has deserved.
I am counting our blessings of solid leadership. I am also excited about the change to Missouri S&T.
***
From Brian Johnson:
So, the 100th Annual St. Pat's could potentially be the first ever St. Pat's at Missouri S&T... Was this timing intentional? Is it the Chancellor's plan to leverage this large event to launch the two month old name into the hearts and minds of thousands of returning MSM/UMR alumni?
***
From Jeff:
Well I think it's a great idea and should have been done long ago. Face it, UMR has stagnated for the last 30 years. It is known in some engineering circles in the midwest but that's it. This could be the first step to a true national recognition of the University. Bravo Chancellor Carney for not being satisfied with the status quo!
***
From Bob Stevens, ChE'81:For those who wonder why we need to change the name, consider the following encounter:
Last week I was speaking with a long-time engineering manager who has spent his entire career in the Pacific Northwest, where I currently work.
He asked where I went to college. I said, "University of Missouri - Rolla". He said where? I repeated.
He said, "Oh, you must have had to travel to Mizzou to take your engineering courses, then." I said, "No, Rolla has a much larger engineering program than Mizzou. It is also ranked better, nationally."
He said, "Your kidding! I've never heard of it. I thought it sounded like a branch campus."
In US News & World Reports, annual survey (of Presidents, Provosts, and Deans of Admission of the top 500 national universities) the results UMR's Academic Reputation are similar to that of the regional universites around the state (a/k/a the old "teacher's colleges".)
You and I know of UMR's graduates caliber.
Unfortunately, if someone has not encountered a graduate directly, the name is the perception, and perception is reality.
As the former chair of the benchmarking team for the CDC during the 1990's, I speak from a decade of understanding. This is a problem that only can be solved by a new name.
I strongly support a new name.
This corrects the profoundly serious mistake that was made in 1964 when MSM was change to UMR.
***
From one of our most frequent commenters, Pradip Shah:
Many alumni including me have expressed their opinions (mostly apprehensions) about changing the name of UMR. Now that new name (Missouri University of Science and Technology -- or Missouri S&T for short) is almost a given, we as an alumni need to support wholeheartedly. The onus is now on the marketing team in disseminating not only the new name to all the industries, govt. agencies, academic institutions all round the US and the world at large, but also the strengths of the school & what the school stands for. The marketing team will do well in focusing the northeast and the west coast locations. ...
(See complete comment.)
***
Another from Bruce Thompson:
Changing the name still feels wierd, but it is very exciting --- AND NEEDED.
It is so frustrating always explaining that that UMR is not MIZZOU or it's little feeder campus.
I think they found a good name. I hope the Curators approve it.
***
From Missy Leone:
Hey Andrew, I think it's difficult for anyone, especially engineers, to accept change with something they have an intimate relationship with.
That said, as much as I would've loved to go back to MSM, I guess MST will have to do. The fact that we will now officially be known as a technology university is great. It's about time.
Good luck with the trolls.
***
John Sewester (responding to a commenter who thinks "engineering" should be in the new name):"
... Somehow the "Massachusetts Institute of Engineering" just does not seem to have the same ring. Tech has helped a lot schools prosper and offer broader curriculum and research areas. You cant argue that the general public confuses Cal Tech, RPI, Stephens Tech, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, IIT, etc with vocational schools.
Change is always difficult. Based on my personal experience and after reviewing the data, a change was probably appropriate. Missouri S&T is okay with me.
***
From Jared Ware:
As I stated in my original comments: "I am not opposed to change, but the change has to be tied to a long-term vision, achievable and measurable objectives, and still maintain the university's stellar intellectual reputation." The Chancellor, as the leader, has made his decision and we as alumni should wholeheartedly support it. However, as with all leaders, he will be held accountable and we as alumni must track overall progress. If the name change succeeds in vision and mission, then buy the Chancellor a pint of green beer at a future St. Pat's event. If the name change flops, then we can look at the statistics and draw conclusions on another course of action in the future.
***
From Keith:
I would be be in favor to changing the name to either:
1) Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy (MSM)
or
2) Missouri School of Mines and Engineering (MSME)
or
3) Any other name which serves the University well. Lets not down play the University with a sub-par name. Much thought needs to be given to a name to suit the University well.
***
From Jian:
"Missouri University of Science and Technology" is Great!! ... But why not M.U.S.T. or MUST.edu?
M.U.S.T. seems a lot more obvious and appealing than "Missouri S&T" or "MST" - just imagine we are supporting our athletes or trying to talk to our neighbors. What do you think?
M.U.S.T. would also potentially save much of the marketing campaign money... the catchy name itself would attract millions of news!!
Go MUST.edu !!
***
From Richard Starke, '71:
... I think a name change to differentiate it from UMC might be in order. Of course it might be a plot to get me to buy a new T-shirt.
Andrew,
I don't think I understand the point of this post. Why are we dedicating a post that simply lists those comments that agree with a name change? Are we having to try that hard to find support?
I think you will find that a lot of frustration about the name change hinges on the reasons (or lack thereof) for changing the name - not the name change itself. Many comments have been made about whether the Chancellor is doing this more for his own ego or for the good of the school. And why? Because this is the change that he has the most control over. Every student and alumnus from MSM or UMR could say no, and he could still push it forward if he chose. The only threat we have is to quit donating money, but that is an even worse idea and not an option that I would encourage anyone to pursue.
Of the various points of improvement that have been mentioned on this board (increased enrollment, etc...), the name change is obviously the most controversial and probably the most theoretical solution available (as opposed to some of the other suggestions given on this board - alumni involvement, better interaction with college-bound students, etc...). Everyone seems to agree that the name change itself will not improve UMR's current situation, so why is it the first step?
One poster stated that he hopes the decision is not made in haste. Another poster stated that engineers don't like change. Though change is a fact of life, change for the sole purpose of change isn't necessarily a good idea. Otherwise you would've never heard anyone say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
My fear is that in five or ten years, the desired results will not have been attained, and the only change will be the name - a change that many people did not agree with but could do nothing about. My other fear is that this will be deemed acceptable.
It isnt right that all the opposition comments have been pulled so that one may look only at the comments agreeing with the chancellor. I think changing the name is wrong and that a new name would potray a new school and with the world Tech in the name it will throw people off to thinking its a tech school as opposed to what it really is.
If anyone still doubts the fact that people outside of Missouri get confused about what the heck UMR is, just check out some of the national comments from Digg when the terrorism story broke recently:
http://digg.com/world_news/BREAKING_Terrorism_Threat_Closes_University_Of_Missouri_Rolla_VIDEO
ORLYFACTOR [POST]: Oh noes, the University of Missouri is under attack!! What will the world do without that pillar of academia?
SOCBRET [REPLY]: "The University of Missouri" is a top broadcast journalism school...have you even been to Missouri?
JEMULOV [REPLY]: University of Missouri, Rolla and the University of Missouri are two completely different schools. UMR is predominantly an engineering school whereas Mizzou, well... I don't care...
DOOM [REPLY]: Someone call Chancellor Carney - Digg is making his case for name change! lol.. we are not a satellite campus!
This name change really is a good idea, imho. Whether Missouri S&T is what it should be -- meh. But it's been growing on me since I first heard it.
ALOHA Thank you for your prompt response and forwarding my comments to Chancellor Carney. I have an Engineering degree from an Institute of Technology (4 year full time, not correspondence or night course). I agree with you that the word technology is more generic and inclusive than the word Engineering but as I said in my initial comments the word "technology" has devolved and become degraded in the past few decades by being used euphemistically by community college and mail order degree programs and 1 or 2 year associate degree programs, apprenticeship programs, textile weaving programs, culinary and technology and technician degrees, etc that I think most have encountered.
I hope the die is not cast and if a name change is made that further intelligent thought and discussion will be given to
Missouri University of Science and Engineering MUSE
As before please transmit this to Chancellor Carnahan. From the way my email is posted I don't know if the below was sent by David or Andrew. Thanks again for your attention to this matter.
ALOHA
DR. LOUIS R. FUKA, PHD ENGINEER
MSM ALUMNUS
cf.
"Posted by: David | March 24, 2007 06:55 AM
Dear Dr. Fuka:
I have forwarded your comments to Chancellor Carney, as you requested. The reason for choosing "technology" over "engineering" is because the latter is too narrow. "Technology" encompasses engineering, but also other fields, such as information systems, computer science, management of technology, etc. We believe that "technology," rather than meaning "something less than engineering," actually includes engineering and more.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
Posted by: Andrew | March 24, 2007 03:22 PM "
If a name change MUST be done (after changing NEMO to Truman and SMS to MSU apparently that is the big thing in Missouri), Missouri School of Mines and Engineering (MSME) is the best alternative I've seen presented (With all due respect to MUSE). This would provide a link to the past and a more apt description of the present and future. I still say leave it as is and save the roughly quarter of a million dollars it will take to physically change the name.
With "Science" in the name a reasonable outsider would assume the mission of the University would include biological and/or medical research. To the best of my knowledge neither is a significant part of the University.
Does this school have nothing better to do with its money? Maybe, if no one has heard of UMR it is because we are either not ranked high enough to be noticed or we do not advertise ourself to the public enough. Changing the name will do very little on how the school operates. Changing to Missouri University of Science and Technology sounds like a name given to a technical community college. Once again, UMR decides to go backwards instead of forward.
James -
Even though I am opposed to any name change, for the sake of principle and issues already brought up about the proposed name change, MSME is growing on me as well (if one MUST change the name, no pun intended). I would like to comment on something you said in your last sentence. (Sorry to stray from the topic) I heard the Chancellor talk at a meeting a couple of months ago. If you have not heard, the Chancellor is planning on demolishing the golf course to build a research park with the first building to be placed where the driving range is. That building will house the research facility for the "soon to be made" deal between UMKC Medical School and UMR to create a biotechnological and bioengineering research facility. Efforts like that should be done first and be proven successful for this Chancellor to even consider the name change. While that may cause some controversy in itself, at least the Chancellor could make a case (after his plans are put into effect) to make a name change. In business, you know that you always have to have positive cash flow...how can a name increase cash flow? It doesn't, only after hard work (e.g. new research opportunities and better marketing of the projects already in hand) and by providing a life for the students that are similar to larger schools. (i.e. better night life, stores, entertainment, better food places, etc.) Happy students are productive students!!! :-) (Sorry again for the straying of this post)
I think Brian and James have made good arguments. I am against the change as well. Something that I am predicting, if the name change happens, is that Chancellor Carney will increase the publicity and cash flow from other sources AFTER the name change and try to disguise the benefits from them as benefits from changing the name. I also heard an argument Chancellor Carney gave for changing the name which was that UMR did not meet his definition of a technological research university. According to his definition, the only schools that qualify have the name Science and/or Technology in their name. Just a coincidence? I think it's not. His variables for classification were percent of students enrolled in science and engineering programs and percent of income that is based on research money. I don't think those schools are classified as such based on his definition, I think his definition is based on the name of those schools. Sorry Chancellor Carney, your secrets are out.
My bad. I meant to write John instead of James.
Andy:
If I can make a suggestion, could you please put a button or some other "signpost" on the home page directing people to information regarding the name change and this discussion? I know for a fact that there are people who have not heard this news yet, and unless you know where to look, it is very difficult to find.
If this website and blog is one of the primary information dissemination methods used by the university, it should be more prominently displayed.
Jason McHaney
Kerry, you wrote:
I also heard an argument Chancellor Carney gave for changing the name which was that UMR did not meet his definition of a technological research university. According to his definition, the only schools that qualify have the name Science and/or Technology in their name.
But in fact, UMR does meet the chancellor's definition of a technological university. (See the definition of a technological research university and list of the schools that meet the definition.)
The point Chancellor Carney was making was that UMR is the only one of those technological research universities with a name that does not describe the institution as a technological research university.
Jason - The story was prominently displayed on the UMR gateway (homepage) from the time of the public announcement last Friday until Tuesday (yesterday). But we're going to post it back on the gateway again in the morning. Thanks for pointing our this concern.
Andrew,
I realize that UMR meets the Chancellor's definition. My mistake for writing that. What I should have wrote is that UMR meets his definition but does not run with the crowd with a word like 'technology' or 'science' in the name. Thank you for pointing that out.
All the discussion about name changes is fine, although I have yet to decide whether I like the idea. I do believe that regardless of a name, a university can become nationally renowned. For UMR-like names, consider UCSB, UCLA, UCSD and UC-Berkley. Granted all of these are CA schools, but I don't believe any of them are viewed as "brach campuses." At least in the circles I run in, they have quite high rankings. Even San Diego which may not have quite the "reputation" or name recognition has a very good bioenginering program. Perhaps as Mr. Besancon suggested, we should work on UMR's reputation and let the publicity (with or without a name change) follow.
Regardless of my thoughts on whether we should or shouldn't, it appears that changing the name is already a done deal. (That came through pretty quickly if you ask me.) So, even if I agree that the reasons for a name change may be OK, I'm still not satisfied. The choice of Missouri S&T? Really? I don't know how that really enhances our National appeal. Missouri is still in the name, and engineering is nowhere to be found. Aren't we an engineering school (as opposed to a science school or technology school - those make me think of the 2-year degree schools like ITT-Tech before MIT).
Previous comments have pointed out the poor design of the alumni survey and the "conclusions" that were made from them. I would hope that anybody who does research and analysis would see the invalidity of that survey and realize that it cannot really be used to make a determination. In the press release about the chancellor's recommendation it says nothing about why MST (or MUST) was chosen. Give me a reason.
Regarding this particular post, I heartily agree that condensing positive comments as was done here is poor practice. I understand this is a blog, but when the MODERATOR takes such a lopsided approach, visitors quickly lose interest.
First, thanks to Andrew for providing this blog as a forum to discuss this issue. It has allowed me the opportunity to think about and reflect upon my alma mater, UMR, more in the last week than I have in years.
After spending the last week pondering the name change I realize that it was a done deal before the survey's were even sent out last year. Chancellor Carney had decided MUST was going to be the new name regardless of alumni opinion. MUST finished with the fourth most number of votes among the preselected alternatives. So, I can only conclude that the answer was known before the question was asked.
The Board of Curators meet next week to vote on the topic. I'm positive they will rubber stamp the Chancellor's recommendation just as the UMR Board of Trustees did. The timing of the announcement was too close the the Curator's meeting to mount any effectve dissent. So, I've come to accept the fact that UMR will no longer exist after December 31, 2007.
I'd like to ask anyone interested the following question: If the only two options were UMR or MUST, how would the voting go? I suspect the Chancellor would not want to know the answer so the question will never be asked.
Goodbye UMR! I'm sorry I didn't take full advantage of all you had to offer, but I thank you for all I did receive. It was a lot of fun.
James McSherry
Mining Engineering 1979
James - I'm glad to hear that this blog has prompted you to reflect about UMR. Thanks for the feedback about that. I'm glad it's been of help in that regard.
I do want to clarify a couple of issues about the reasoning behind the choice of Missouri S&T (aka MUST). Contrary to what you and other commenters here might assume, that name wasn't necessarily the top contender from the get-go. As Chancellor Carney pointed out in his statement at the March 23 press conference, it was the results of the surveys of prospective students and high school counselors that brought Missouri S&T to the fore. As the PowerPoint slide (pasted into the link above) shows, 51 percent of prospective students and 52 percent of counselors found that name to be most appealing. In contrast, 45 percent of prospective students and 44 percent of counselors found our current name to be least appealing. Based on those research results, Missouri University of Science and Technology became the top contender. It may not have been the top choice of alumni or current students, but the prospective students -- those we must recruit for our future -- favored it heavily over UMR or the other choices put before them.
I truly hope that your signoff of "Goodbye, UMR" does not mean the end of your relationship with your alma mater. This university has some of the most committed and passionate alumni of any university I've known, and from the sounds of your post (and many others here) you care deeply about this institution. UMR needs alumni like that.
If I'm allowed to continue a somewhat off-topic thread:
Going back to John's comments a few days ago regarding "providing a life for the students that are similar to larger schools". . . I think he's definitely pointed out something that few have really discussed, at least that I've seen at this point. Sure, those of us who were students at the time got many laughs internally over being named the country's "least happy students" by the Princeton review, but I think another of the issues UMR has and will continue to have, regardless of the name, is its physical location, town size, ability to attract the best faculty willing/able to live there, etc.
I've had a lot of opportunity to talk with Mizzou engineering undergrads and a few alumni since starting on a Ph.D. up here myself a few months back (so help me, but a great research opportunity came my way?), and I can say that at least a few have told me that they just weren't so much of a fan of spending 4 years in such a relatively small, somewhat isolated place like Rolla, Missouri. I've also had one semi-recent Mizzou alum I met not long ago tell me they had the opposite case of school "confusion" with a prospective employer, who was actually thinking of UMR first. Regardless of what we'd like to think about how adult 18-year-olds can be in their decision making processes, there will always be a lot of high school seniors who will look at their options, perhaps really think that MSM/UMR/MO S&T/XYZ is probably the better school on their list in the long run, but will still pick somewhere else because that traditional college experience means enough to them that they'll pick a slightly lower-ranked but still plenty adequate school to get it. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I really don't see just changing the name and perhaps even the attached marketing strategy making a huge difference unless:
a) UMR would become a true equal of, say, MIT such that this "traditional college experience" wouldn't be that big of a term in the whole college-picking equation anymore, or
b) Rolla somehow gets a lot more for students to do off-campus and the sports teams get a lot larger following.
With that said, I do really hope that I'm wrong.
Lisa Wulff '03, '06
Before the name change, I have a few questions that I hope the administration will address.
First, the change from MSM to UMR occurred almost 40 years ago. In that amount of time, why hasn’t the University developed the name recognition and reputation the Chancellor desires to attain with a new name?
What areas within the University will change to develop name recognition and reputation?
Is it possible to enact the same operational changes without changing the name?
What is the acceptable timeframe to develop the name recognition? Another 40 years?
Did the name changes to Missouri State and Truman State actually improve the universities, and enhance the universities’ local, let alone national reputation?
I am on the Board of Directors of SAE with a professor from Kettering University (aka General Motors Institute). I talked with him regarding the impact that their name had on the university. His reply was, “Don’t do it.”
The basis of GMI’s name change was sound. GMI ceased direct support from GM approximately 25 years ago. GMI became an engineering and management institute that supplies graduates to a broad spectrum of industries there after. Approximately ten years ago the curators decided they needed a name that ensured perceived complete separation from GM.
Now for the result, ten years later the university suffers from a name recognition problem. Potential students, benefactors, and corporations approached by professors that seek research funding do not recognize the Kettering University name. That is, until the professor indicates the connection back to GMI.
My wife Mary Ann (EE 85) and I have work for three different divisions of GM over the last 20 years. Within GM, the mention of Missouri-Rolla or UMR is recognized and respected. The University’s reputation is based on several items. UMR provides GM a steady stream of excellent engineers and scientists. University of Michigan students respect UMR for bearing them, on a regular basis, in the solar car challenge. GM works with the EE department on EMI and EMF research and development.
In closing, it is my contention that UMR does have name recognition and respect. What we have not received from the Chancellor is the flip-side, the cons to his pros, regarding the name change. What is his assessment of the downside? How will Missouri Tech maintain name recognition with the companies and individuals that expect and respect the UMR name instead?
Andy Jeffers
MinE 85 MechE 87
I really think that the name change is stupid and a waste of money.
MUST is really tacky at best. UMR was fine and MSM better.
This is an exercise in perception over reality. MSM/UMR/MUST is a fine school, well regarded in industry. Let its products speak for themselves.
Spencer Allen MSM '62, UMR '67
As an already disengage alum, this MUST (as other alum are already calling it) name change is ridiculous! My daughter had already voiced interest in attending UMR, but now that will never happen. UMR will no longer exist. How disappointing! Given the career I am in does not need a degree, I am tucking that soon to be unidentifiable piece of paper away. Talk about continuing to alienate those that once took pride in their alma mater.
I think it is is a strange decision based on questionable polling, poorly done. Even if there was a need to change from UMR to something else, [Missouri S&T] has to be one of the worst possible choices. When I first got wind of this I thought it was a joke.
Regardless, it seems to be a done deal, so realize that this blog has been established primarily to get people over their grief sooner and give them a structured outlet that is controlled by the university.
Oh - MUST has been done already. See
http://whois.educause.net/index.asp
Misr University of Science and Technology (Egypt) already has the must.edu URL, so no wonder UMR wants to take the U out of MUST.
Fortunately I can also claim a VPI MS, because I'll be long retired before MST gets any kind of name reputation.
Rich Fields
BSEM '78, UMR
MSEM '82, VPI
Okay, I had to laugh to myself after typing "www.mst.edu" into a search engine. The search engine thought I had made a typo and asked "Did you mean: www.mit.edu?"
I sure hope all these sorts of things were discussed by the responsible persons before deciding on the change!
Andrew,
I am very disappointed in your posting where you said,
"I truly hope that your signoff of "Goodbye, UMR" does not mean the end of your relationship with your alma mater. This university has some of the most committed and passionate alumni of any university I've known, and from the sounds of your post (and many others here) you care deeply about this institution. UMR needs alumni like that."
Please tell me you are not insinuating that the alumni are no longer needed when UMR is gone.
I know that many of us already feel like we don't matter to the school, but all the same...
Eric:
I am not insinuating the alumni will no longer be needed. Quite the opposite! I was responding to James' final lines on his post. The support and involvement of our alumni will continue to be vital to the university. My apologies for confusing the issue.
I'd rather go for Missouri S&T University, like Texas A&M University which stands for Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University.
I fully agree the name "must" change. There have been countless times throughout my professional career where I've had to provide additional details as to exactly where I obtained my engineering degree. The typical response to 'University of Missouri-Rolla' or just plain 'Rolla' is a blank stare. Sometimes, the belated follow-up reply, other than 'where's that?' is 'Oh, in Raleigh, North Carolina?' or 'ahhh, you're the Tigers, right?'. I've trained myself to avoid confusion and personal frustration by immediately following up with a descriptor like 'it's the engineering school in Missouri', or 'it's not the one in Columbia', or 'it used to be called the School of Mines'. Maybe life would be simpler if we were perennial favorites in football or could lay claim to a dozen Nobel prize winners but, that's not the case. Marketing 101 tells us that branding is important so everyone - get over it - just like the proud generations of MSM graduates and embrace the name change. A good, descriptive title won't go out of style. That's not to say I'm totally sold on MUST. I agree with the one blogger that some conformity along the lines of Texas A&M University will benefit us in the end.
As a UMR alum (Mech. Eng. '01), I whole-heartedly disagree with any name change to UMR. My number one complaint with the decision to change was that it was apparently started after discussions with prospective students and counselors. This is an absolute outrage that a University esteemed for the quality of graduates and professors would base decisions on opinions from high-school students. I do not care that a 17 year old kid doesn’t think “UMR” sounds “cool”. The audience that should be interviewed is the board of directors of major companies and editors for reputable scientific journals. I guarantee that when asking this professional audience you would find far more people who have heard of and respect the UMR name and some will probably be Rolla graduates. I also guarantee that after interviewing the professional audience, the “coolness” of the UMR name will not be a concern.
The second objection I have to a name change is that it is to attract new students. What type of students is UMR hoping to attract? When I was a freshman at UMR, I was proud of the fact that my freshman class had one of the highest ACT averages of any university in the US. I was also proud of succeeding and passing all my classes the first year when many others essentially failed out. This “trial-by-fire” approach builds character and forms a never-say-die spirit that is crucial for future engineering leaders. It is also important to cull those students who do not have the drive and personal commitment to the engineering fields. Opening up UMR to a large number of students, so UMR can have a large university feel, is an awful idea. By doing so, UMR will lose the special character of the past and current student body. Despite popular opinion, some students select a college or university so they can get a good education to prepare them for high-paying employment. These students do not want to be surrounded by the same sub-par students that sat around them in high school, joking during class and wasting time. These students also may not have been infatuated with being “cool” or even having a good sports team. By lowering the University’s expectations of incoming students, UMR will end up losing the exceptional students to other institutions with a more academic focus.
To those that have said “University of Missouri-Rolla” sounds like a regional campus, let us not forget other public state schools that excel in engineering such as University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the University of Texas at Austin, University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Davis, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, or University of Colorado-Boulder. All of these schools were listed in US News “America’s Best Graduate Schools 2008 – Top Engineering Schools”. Out of the 50 schools listed in the report, schools with a regional name were far more prevalent than schools with “Technology” in the name. If the Chancellor wants UMR to regain status as one of the top 50 engineering schools in the U.S., then the emphasis should be on faculty and graduate students to publish research findings in accredited scientific journals and for more engineering research on campus.
To the current Chancellor, please reconsider this change. You are doing a great disservice to the UMR alumni. Unless you are personally going to be serving UMR for the next 100 years, just leave well enough alone.