The External Affairs Committee of the University of Missouri Board of Curators voted today (Thursday, April 5, 2007) to endorse the proposal to change the name of the University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR) to Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T). The proposal now goes before the entire Board of Curators, which will consider the proposal tomorrow (Friday, April 6, 2007).
Today's vote was a committee vote, which means the External Affairs Committee recommends that the full board approve the proposed name change.
Today, UMR Chancellor John F. Carney III presented the case for the name change in a fashion similar to his presentation at the March 23 press conference announcement -- i.e., he discussed the research results and shared the process used to conclude that Missouri University of Science and Technology should be the university's new name.
After Carney's presentation, Curator Marion Cairns, who chairs the External Affairs Committee, asked about how the university plans to address concerns of students who are not science or engineering majors. Carney replied that UMR's humanities, liberal arts and other non-engineering/non-science disciplines will continue to be an important part of the university. He added that the university has recently invested more funding into these departments. “These are critically important areas for our university," Carney said. "It’s simply not correct to think that a technological research university should not have a strong, vibrant psychology department. We have no intent of marginalizing any of those departments.”
Curator and committee member Doug Russell noted that many alumni and community leaders he’s heard from "overwhelmingly" support the name change, but asked Carney to discuss what concerns students may have about the proposal.
Carney pointed out that younger alumni also were less inclined to favor a name change. “The older you were, the more in favor of a name change you were. … If you graduated a few years ago you were less enthusiastic about a name change.” He added that 77 percent of undergraduate students are from Missouri, and that UMR is well known within the state.
Carney added that the name change is "no silver bullet" for increasing enrollment on a national scale. “We need to do a better job of marketing and branding this institution," he said, "and we intend to do that. But our current name is a hindrance.”
Hm... guess it's time to go read a resume style guide to figure out if mine should say
University of Missouri-Rolla (now Missouri S&T)
or
Missouri S&T (then University of Missouri-Rolla)
Surprise, surprise. The name change got rubber stamped.
According the description above, the older you were, the more likely you were to endorse the name change. I take from this, that the chancellor wants to alienate the younger alumni who are going to be the ones who will potentially donate the most money in the future. Great idea.
Even if most of the alumni and students supported a name change (which they don't) I haven't seen anything that overwhelmingly supports this name.
If this name change does go through, I vote that we change the mascot from Joe Miner to Musty Joe.
David:
Two clarifications to your post.
First, you wrote:
The name change got rubber stamped.
As I explained in the post, this was a committee vote. It was not the final vote.
Then, you wrote:
Even if most of the alumni and students supported a name change (which they don't)...
You offer no evidence that most of the alumni and students do not support a name change. Evidence exists, and has been presented elsewhere on this blog, that supports half of your assertion, but contradicts the other part. The survey results show the majority of alumni surveyed (70 percent) believe a name other than UMR best describes this institution, while a majority of current students (52 percent) believe UMR best describes this institution.
I feel like the alumni were not given enough time to offer input on the name change for UMR. It is also troublesome that the university wants to change its name but by the polls listed in the latest issue of the MINER, the people most affected by the change, those who graduated in the last twenty years, were against the name change.
I never would have imagined from the time I heard about the name change to now would only be a few months and that I would hear about the name change from the news. I would have hoped that it would have been communicated through the Miner with time for more input before pushing this issue through.
Steve Schultz
CE ‘94
My mother has always asked me, "Why fix something that isn't broken?" So I am asking, “why change a name that is already well established in the professional and the academic communities?” I graduate this May and have been through internships and several interviews (outside of the COC or campus career fair) and most everyone I have encountered through these companies (Phelps Dodge, Rio Tinto, Schlumberger, and I am sure that there are many others) know us by UMR or MSM. Just a week ago a company VP congratulated me on building such an impeccable resume at UMR and said that it was one of the best he had ever seen; even compared to many he had viewed from schools such as Texas A&M and MIT. I have even been stopped at the airport in Atlanta, Ga because someone wanted to gush over my MSM t-shirt. I think that changing the name of our school is not going to be very beneficial to this school or its graduates at all. I believe that the money that would be used to change all the stationary, signs, and etc. already in existance with the UMR logo would be much better spent towards scholarships, departmental funding, or something much more educational. Leave the marketing of the school and its name up to it past, present, and future graduates whose hard work and abilities speak for themselves and the institute (MSM-UMR) that gave them such an impeccable education! It’s the name, the degree, the difference, so, “Why fix something that isn't broke?"
I think it is a consensus that a name change is inevitable; however, the name chosen is absurd and the definition of technology does not define the humanities at our beloved school. Since there are a little statistics and interpretations thrown into this blog, I would like to point to the online poll being conducted by The Rolla Daily News (www.therolladailynews.com). The poll shows, out of 678 respondents, 73% are not in favor of the new name, 20% is and 7% is in the middle. That is almost half the respondents from the Alumni surveys (1500) that were returned and a direct opposite to what the Alumni said in terms of 70% saying that a name change is desired. As Mr. Shultz has indicated and I have stated elsewhere, this name appears to have been made in haste and I hope that the Curators reject the recommendations of the committee and force UMR look deeper into the name change.
Now Andy, let's be "fair and balanced", shall we? It's not "the majority of alumni surveyed (70%)" that supported the change. It was 70% of the alumni who responded, about 600 out of 15,000. What infuriates me is that so few people bothered to return their survey. Had this been allowed to repeat during one "news cycle", which UMR Magazine can be defined as since it was the medium the university decided to communicate the change through, I believe the results would have been very different, and the curators would not have been as impressed with the alumni support.
Be that as it may, assuming the full board votes today to accept the committee's recommendation, this will be my final public denouncement of the idea. As I told Dr. Carney in January, I would oppose the change until the decision was made. However, I feel it is important that the alumni of MSM/UMR/MST (doesn't THAT sound just great?) close ranks, shake their heads and go on. Supporting the students should be our priority. After all, isn't that what the organization is about? My greatest hope is that I am wrong, and the university gets a great boost from this choice. The other option is just too painful to consider.
Jason McHaney
The following is taken from the ME Dept website of GA Tech:
“The College of Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology is seeking nominations and applications from qualified individuals for the position of Chair of the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering. The successful candidate will hold the Eugene C. Gwaltney, Jr. School Chair. The School is ranked 7th by U.S. News and World Report and is among the largest mechanical engineering programs in the country. It has a student body of 1,700 undergraduates, 452 master’s, and 262 Ph.D. students, as well as 80 full-time faculty members. The School’s diverse faculty is actively engaged in research at the national and international level. Research program areas include acoustics and dynamics; automation and mechatronics; bioengineering; computer-aided engineering and design; fluid mechanics; heat transfer, combustion, and energy systems; manufacturing; MEMS; mechanics of materials; and tribology. The school also offers degrees in Nuclear and Radiological Engineering and Medical Physics. The groups in Nuclear and Radiological Engineering are fission, fusion, and medical physics. The Woodruff School has faculty and students at two other campuses – in Savannah, Georgia and in Metz, France – in addition to its home base in Atlanta. The School has an endowment of approximately $100M. More information can be found at www.me.gatech.edu. “
This makes you sick when you compare them with their counterpart at UMR. No wonder they are on the top. I hope that the Chancellor and the Chairman of the ME department have been reading this blog site. Now, this is only their ME dept that we are talking about. It is the misfortune of the UMR that it is located in a remote town, Rolla. I have veered off the name change topic several times on this blog because in the final analysis, the name change is of no consequence, IMHO. The students look for the substance. I, for one, repose the confidence and faith in the administrators’ view that the name change is imperative for making the UMR unique among the four campuses and that it would help in recruiting the students. The marketing team may not have any difficulty in spreading the new name in Missouri. The real challenge would be the rest of the country and the world.
Not that it matters now, but when I stated that the name change was rubber stamped I was responding to the news that the committee aproved it, I did not say nor imply that the name change was official yet.(It is now though)
As for evidence that most of the alumni do not support a name change I base that on my survey of the alumni I know and a majority of them do not support a name change. I can also point to the survey that was done in which only 669 out of 43,000 alumni stated that a name other than UMR best describes the university. The survey did not ask if the universities SHOULD change it's name.
I find it very ironic that I just received my copy of the alumni magazine and on the back they have a small box that says that the board of curators will be voting on the name change yesterday and today.
I can understand the reasoning behind a name change. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. What I don't understand is how a name was chosen that was only supported by approximately 94 out of 43000 alumni that received the alumni magazine.
Another thing that I find funny is that in the current edition of the Alumni magazine there are several advertisements for new products, all of which say UMR on them. Some of them are personalized license plates, credit cards, and a mechanical engineering shirt.
Off the topic, I think the idea of a research park is a great idea, I do hope that a new golf course can be built somewhere relatively close to the campus. I only wish that all of the campus improvements that have taken place since I graduated in May of 2001 had taken place before I started there so I could have used and enjoyed them.
In closing, I do ask that you stop using a survey that only a small percentage of alumni responded to justify the name change.
Thank you.
Quote: "The survey results show the majority of alumni surveyed (70 percent) believe a name other than UMR best describes this institution, while a majority of current students (52 percent) believe UMR best describes this institution."
I did not fill out this survey, so I don't know how the questions were worded. However, the above statement says that 70% of alumni believe that UMR does not best describe the university. This says nothing about 70% believing that changing the name is a good idea. If this is not how the survey was worded, then please disregard this post.
Does "Boeing" best describe a world leading aircraft manufacturer?
Does "Anhueser Busch" describe the world leading beverage manufacturer?
Does "Proctor and Gamble" say anything about manufacturing products for your home?
Does UMR describe a nation leading engineering and research institution?
I think that if we all answered these questions honestly, we would all say "NO" to each. The point I am making is that survey results are said to have measured the support for changing the name, when they have actually measured whether or not the name describes the school. Thus the survey is invalid. You would think that a "research focused institution" could put together valid research.
Is there a common website where people are getting together to try and keep this name change from occuring? I honestly can't believe that the possible names weren't shortlisted. Most everyone I have spoken with would favor returning to MSM as the name, yet it wasn't even a choice, but as a write in had a good showing. I wonder who would win if there is a MSM vs MUST poll? I think MSM or I would not be wasting my time with this.
Steve,
I hate to say it, but I think the decision made last Friday kind of proves that our thoughts on MSM vs MUST/MOST/MoS&T do not matter to anyone who makes the decisions, even if another vote were allowed. Though I have seen supporters of the new name on this blogging page, I have spoken with no graduate of UMR who supported any change unless the name was changed back to MSM.
Given the fact that the alumni survey misdirected our responses and was never corrected or adjusted (I'm sure it was presented to the board of curators as 70% wanting a different name instead of 70% picking a name that best describes UMR's current mission), the fact that no real pro/con discussion took place (as far as I'm aware of, only presentations of the pros took place except on this blog), the fact that we weren't privy to the results of the phone surveys until the announcement was made (I wonder if they were conducted with similar methods to the alumni survey), and the fact that the Chancellor has not once posted on this blogging page (AC has been kind enough to act as the middleman), I must conclude that our opinion meant very little to those in charge. Personally, I sent a letter to the Chancellor along with my survey - I never got a response (not even a standard "we appreciate your concern" form letter). I also sent a short e-mail to the board of curators merely inquiring on what grounds they would base their decision - I never got a response.
The name change is supposed to be part of a broader plan to propel UMR into the technological foreground. What other pieces of that broader plan have been instigated? We don't even have a defined metric to measure our success! And I repeat... We don't even have a defined metric to measure our success! If we accomplish our goal, will the Chancellor give us a big "I told you so?" And if we don't, will the alumni be blamed for wanting the name change but not supporting the University under the new name? Maybe cynicism has begun growing inside of me since I graduated, but I wouldn't be surprised of either result. All we can do as alumni is sit back and watch with our hands tied behind our backs.
Justin,
There is one big thing that the Alumni can do, stop donating to the school in any way, shape or form. Money is the only thing that talks in situations like this.
David,
You are correct that we have the option to quit donating money. Unfortunately, that makes us the enemies, and I definitely think those in charge know that. I'm not a fan of being an alumnus of a University with an identity crisis, but I definitely don't want to be part of the group that causes UMR to go under. Those who are in charge of the name change will simply move along without a scar, and our pride will have only hurt the students.
However, a similar response would be to specify that all future donations support student scholarships. This way, we can continue our "silent protest" while not depriving future engineering students of a good education.
Justin:
You have made many excellent points in a number of outstanding posts on this blog throoughout this entire debate over the last several weeks. Thanks for articulating the thoughts of many alumni, especially in pointing out the flawed nature of the alumni survey results, and the attempts by the administration to justify the name change.
David:
You are absolutely correct that the only way to get their attention will be to withhold alumni donations. I've already increased my donations to the university which my son attended and participated in athletics.
When people ask where I went to college I'll proudly say University of Missouri-Rolla, UMR, but the school was destroyed by "Hurricane Carney" in 2007.
FWIW, if we MUST change the name, Missouri School of Mines and Engineering (MSME). This attribution goes to Keith on another thread.
Andrew,
Could you please comment on the Justin's observations above? You must be a part of the adminstration and might have participated/attended the closed door meetings with the curators. We only hope that the balanced (pros and cons) views were shared while following the democratic principles. I know that it is extremely difficult to satisfy each and everybody's point of view. But, it is rather disappointing to note that the Justin's comments were not answered by the Chancellor and the curators. You were planning to disclose the metric for the measurement of success. Are you still planning to do that?
Pradip:
There are certain things I simply will not offer comment about, because they do not pertain to the name change discussion but have to do with other issues, some related, some more tangential. I don't mean to sound evasive here, but how do you expect me to respond to allegations that the commenter presents as "fact"? ("Given the fact that," etc.) I'm sorry, but I'm not going to offer any comment about that.
As to why the chancellor or the curators did not respond to Justin, I could only speculate. I do know that the chancellor did respond to many alumni regarding the name change discussion.
About the issue of metrics: Again, that is an issue pertaining to the strategic planning of the university, and not to the name change. Of course, what we call ourselves is an important component of the strategic plan. But there's a strategic planning committee that is developing a draft that will be shared with the university community at the proper time. I do plan to share metric information once it becomes available. But the development of those metrics is part of the strategic planning process, not a part of the name change discussion.
As far as being involved in the Board of Curators meeting, I did attend the meeting during which the name change was discussed and voted on. Yes, I am part of the university administration, but no, I do not attend any closed-door meetings of the Board of Curators. The curators meet in closed session only to discuss legal issues, employment issues, or the purchase or sale of real estate. All name change discussion at the board meeting occurred during open session.
I did receive a response via e-mail from the board of curators today (April 12). The response stated that "research supported the belief that the new name would ultimately serve to broaden and strengthen the well-deserved reputation of the
Rolla campus." I only mention this since I have stated recently that they never responded to my e-mail. However, I still wonder how the research was presented to the board...
As to my "allegations" posted previously, I think Pradip's request for a response is reasonable.
1. The alumni survey misdirected our responses. This has been stated numerous times on this blog, so I don't think I need to explain it again. Though this was pointed out early on, the Chancellor's remarks on the March 23rd news conference stated that 70.1% of alumni are in favor of the name change. Was this corrected when the board was presented with the results?
2. This blog was the only pro/con discussion outlet. I will admit, I cannot personally attest to this since I was unable to attend the campus forums. But the people on campus who I have spoken to said that the con discussion was quickly squelched during campus forums - I think a poster on this blog corroborates this statement. I don't need to explain why a thorough pro/con debate is necessary to make important decisions. If the board was not presented with any cons of the name change, or if the cons were not given equal consideration, an ill-informed decision could have been made. Was the board presented with both sides of the issue?
3. We were not privy to the phone survey results prior to the public announcement. This is undeniable. Since the alumni results disagreed with the phone surveys (MST was least picked by alumni but most picked by outsiders), doesn't that bring up points for further discussion?
4. The Chancellor has not posted on this blog. Please correct me if I'm wrong. How do we know that every angle has been discussed and that the best decision has been made if there are so many unanswered questions - many of which could best be answered by the Chancellor himself?
All these comments pertain to the name change discussion in the sense that they question the method of discussion. If the method of any process is not good, then the results may not be good, as well.
My only real "allegation" is that the alumni opinion meant very little to those in charge. And without a response to the above points, I have to stick to that conclusion.
Remember the adage about things that look like ducks, walk like ducks, and quake like ducks, are probably ducks? Well, this sure looks like a rubber stamp job.
Why not Missouri School of Mines and Technology?