Kudos to the Chancellor Carney!! The approval was expected and it was a mere formality. Now, the real work begins…..marketing, increase in the research budget, infrastructure etc. to name few. The school needs to improve its clout among the academic institutions, govt. agencies, and the private industries. That will happen when the school is in a position to showcase the world-class research and the presence of renowned faculty members. Earlier, I gave a snapshot of ME dept of the GA Tech. This gives you an indication that the UMR & in particular, the city of Rolla have a lot of catching to do. I was hoping for the research park news in this news item. Maybe, they will take this topic later on. The education has become a big business worldwide (fortunately or unfortunately??) & in order to remain on the forefront, the school needs to evolve continuously and otherwise it will go into oblivion

I would still like to know why Engineering, the one word we all know best captures the essence of our school is not in the name.

Even Chancellor Carney's own words testify to this, "UMR’s current appellation does not distinguish the campus as one focused on ENGINEERING, technology and science, he said." (emphasis added)

Science and Technology are important at our school, as is research. But we all know what our school is first and formost about...engineering. I agree with the name change, but I think the logic behind S & T as the choice is convoluted and poor at best.

Missouri University of Science and Technology? Makes me think of damp, MUST-y basements. Think visiting sport teams' supporters will pick up on this? (Imagine, in a sing-song chant: "I smell something MUST-y!!") Oh, well, Rolla has never been much in sports, anyway.

Why Missouri University of Science and Engineering (MUSE) was not chosen is beyond me, especially when considering the meaning of the word "muse." You certainly don't get an engineering degree from Rolla without musing a great deal. I can vouch for that, personally.

I think this name change is ridiculous. I understand the thought process behind it, but leaving out ENGINEERING is an insult to the majority of past and present students who attend(ed) the school for the engineering curriculum. I am personally offended that ENGINEERING was ignored in the name. I am proud to be an engineer and I am proud to have received my degree from UMR - and I will continue to claim that I received my degree from UMR. Claiming a degree from MUST sounds ridiculous and a lot less prestigious. I am disappointed with the final decision.

I have heard more alumni speak negatively of the name change than positively. What the name change does is limit the university, not expand its potential. Not only is "engineering" left out of the name, but what about the other degree majors that UMR provides: English, psychology, philosophy, etc? Instead of bringing in more students, I believe this name change will bring in less and further disillusion the alumni that are already put-off by some other happenings since they have left.

I agree with everyone else on here who says that it's ridiculous that ENGINEERING was left out of the name. All it takes is one walk around campus and you realize that it's really an engineering campus more than a science and technology one. Hmm, Mech Engineering, EE, Civil ?? It seems that these were forgotten as well as the opinion of most of the students. I never receieved anything asking me about my opinion regarding the name change. I am infuriated that (while I know now that my vote wouldn't have meant anything) such a small sample was used to gather your "data". If anyone actually listened to the students there is a majority that strongly opposes the change, and the name that was picked. Oh, and as a humanities major I really appreciate the attempt to recognize the diversity of degrees on campus. I'll love telling my future employers that I got my degree from a "science and technology" school. Why don't I just go to Linn Tech? It sounds just about the same. Needless to say, I am very dissapointed.

Since the new name change “will better define the university as a leading technological research university” I assume all the History, English, Philosophy, Psychology and Teacher Ed. majors will cease to exist at Rolla.

The comments from C.P., Sarah and Rick all question whether UMR's non-engineering, non-science, non-technology majors will have a future at Missouri S&T. The answer is a resounding yes. As Chancellor Carney explained in his March 23 news conference and again in his presentation to the Board of Curators on Thursday, April 5, the liberal arts and humanities degree programs will remain a vital part of the university. From Thursday's blog post:

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.” [Emphasis added.]

The proposed name emphasizes the historic role that science and technology have played in the history of this university. However, even as Missouri S&T is descriptive of our technological emphasis, it does not limit us to strictly engineering. Like our nation’s other top technological research universities, we will continue to offer excellent academic programs in all of our offerings – including the liberal arts, the humanities, business, and management. Technology and the liberal arts are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in a society increasingly dependent on technological advances, the need for humanistic education is more important than ever. [Emphasis added.]

While in my heart and fond memories, the university I proudly graduated from will always be "UMR" or "Rolla", I think it is a wise move to take steps to differentiate our school from Columbia and better define the main focus of the campus. I do wonder why Engineering was left out, but assume that "Technology" was meant to be more all-encompassing than "Engineering." It also lends credence to many of the fantastic offerings in the Engineering Management department, which have sometimes gotten the short stick from a respect stand-point. My only concern is that we get too focused on research and forget the teaching. Whatever the name, my Engineering Management degree has served me well in my professional development and career. As long as we continue to focus on stellar education, learning and application opportunities for our students, and opportunities for them to grow as leaders and contributors, I think we'll be just fine. I do think we should market MO-S&T more than MU-S&T though, since we are trying to differentiate and MU will still sound like Mizzou.
Respectfully,
Sharon Wingron
Engineering Management 1987

Greetings.

I earned my BS in CS in 1984 from UMR.

I guess graduates will now earn there BS from MOST....

I do not understand the logic of changing the name. The idea that UMR was not able to compete with other science and tech schools is absurd. It is even more absurd if one thinks UMR could not compete solely based on it name.

Dennis B. Laughlin, Esquire
BS CS 1984 UMR
MS CS 1987 SUNY-Binghamton
JD 2004 WNEC

I have been monitoring this blog off and on today to observe the reaction to news that really shouldn't (and probably doesn't) surprise anyone. My experience is that most university administrators do not propose something like this without a priori knowledge of the feelings of the people that make the decisions, in this case the curators. So given this I am at least content that science is going to be part of the new name. Now, I can sort of put myself in the shoes of the engineering students and alumni and see why they would initially be upset by having "engineering left out" of the name. While I certainly don't want to put words in the chancellor's mouth or seem like a die hard supporter, it seems his perspective is as mine, which is engineering is an applied science. As engineers you take the principles of physics, chemistry, geology, and if the University is smart biology in the new research park, and apply those principles, the scientific method, and economics to solving the problems of society, making life hopefully better for its citizens. So take a step back and see that engineering research in academia and industry is truly an applied science and the "science" in Missouri University of Science and Technology overwhelmingly includes both you and me. As engineers you take the fundamental science research we do and bring it all the way to fruition as usable technology.

Jason -

If I remember correctly, if you go the faq about the name change there is a definition of what technology is...there is where engineering was placed not under science. Just as humanities was defined as merely lending a hand to the engineers and scientists at Rolla. I have a friend who is about to graduate with a teaching degree from UMR, she knew what this school was when she came here...but the way this administration has defined the name and the mission around the name, she feels like she received a slap in the face by graduating with a degree that is there merely to assist engineers. Personally, I know that the Curators will not allow for this to happen (I have been wrong about the name change) but I feel that there is going to be a slow move from transforming this school from public to private. It just has that feeling to me.

As for the Tech Park, which I believe would have received just as equal amounts of discussion as this did, was pushed through without a whisper. I am in favor of a Tech Park, but the location is what I fear. Yes, the University owns the grounds now, but it is too close to densely populated area including one major facility - the Hospital. What if some research goes wrong...it locks down the hospital, where does one go after that? Fort Wood? Lake of the Ozarks? Springfield? St. Louis? Parking...when I went to school parking was a major issue...that was 10 years ago...now...still a major issue...there are no plans to build a garage stucture, so where does one park? Traffic, how does one get a semi-truck full of equipment to the area without making quite a bit of modifications to existing roads and creating turning spaces? Doesn't City of Rolla have an ordinance and a location for industrial parks? Money, who is going to pay for it...the University is trying to get MOHELA to help finish paying off Toomey Hall?

None of this makes sense now...enrollment has been maxed out the last two years and there are new dorms and a very nice Havener Center. My suggestion is that all of the drive should be to put into developing the Town of Rolla to better accommodate students lives, focusing on putting EXISTING research in the news, and focusing better on the undergraduates in design teams showing with the support of all the companies that provide funding and research to help our teams succeed but put it out there nationally. Heck can’t $220K buy a few articles in national newspapers and online news venues with our research?

…Now I know what the guys and gals from the school of MSM felt about the change to UMR…I hope that [Missouri S&T} does alienate those who would have donated to the University of Missouri – Rolla as much as those who were alienated by the change from MSM to UMR. So what’s next, next year will be the last St. Pats celebration? (P.S. I heard that there is a committee discussing that as well)

Good discussion. I agree with most of what's been said. One note: I guess previous investments such as the ad campaign "The Name. The Degree. The Difference" are wasted money. Apparently "The Name" had nothing to do with UMR being great after all since the very next chancellor felt the need to change it... Sometimes I just feel that splashy marketing and jazzy (and costly) public relations ploys are poorly used funds (this includes any name change ploys). UMR as at the mercy of public opinion and whatever the national trends in education are that all the administration is constantly spouting off about. Trying to control that seems rather futile. Might as well stick with "The Degree. The Difference," and not worry about the name...

As far as I am concerned, effective January 1, 2008, my university will close its doors and no longer exist. If someone asks me where I went to school, I will say UMR. If they ask "Didn't they just change their name?", I will reply "I was under the impression they were no longer open." Good luck on keeping the doors open in the future. My kids will never attend [Missouri S&T].

I will always be a UMR graduate no matter what is on the letterhead. With that said, I feel the name change is probably a necessity. Mizzou and "Missouri State" will undoubtedly continue to fight for national attention. UMR will need to distinguish itself from those schools (especially MU), so that it can maintain a unique identity.

My main concern is Chancellor Carney’s emphasis on making UMR “Missouri’s premier technological research university”. I sincerely hope that UMR does not lose focus from the primary purpose of the university: education. A shiny new name and ground-breaking research will certainly bring UMR into the national spotlight, but success will be short lived if the university fails to produce quality graduates.

My warmest and most lasting experiences from UMR were instigated by a handful of good teachers NOT RESEARCHERS. There is less glory to be found in the building of character and kindling of life-long learning, but in my mind those are the true marks of UMR.

I have spoken to many UMR Alumni at Dynetics Inc. and the majority of us do not support the name change. Bad choice, bad idea.

We all know that whatever the top dollar donors wanted the name to be, that is what is was going to be. Peons be damned!

I fully support the name change.

Many years ago at Ft. Riley, I was attending ROTC Advance Camp. Only one cadet in my squad knew of UMR and he was an MU student. I got so damned tired of explaining the difference between MU and UMR.

Even now as a professional, I still have to explain to people from out of state what UMR is and how it is so tough.

My question now is, as an alumni, can I get my diploma reprinted so I can proudly point to MS&T in large letters instead of "Rolla" in fine print?

Andrew,

Mr. Nield brings up an interesting point, though it has been brought up here before. Even though UMR is changing it's name to MST, it still belongs to the University of Missouri system. For that reason, will diplomas continue to show "University of Missouri" in large letters across the top? Or will that change?

I love how you feel the need to edit other posts - to hell with "open conversation"! But why start caring about what the students and alumni think now? It's been perfectly clear that the Chancellor was going to do this all along regardless of what we thought. I guess asking unbiased poll questions is too much to ask for from the current administration.

And by the way, any effort to get me to use the name "Missouri S&T" will be useless - it's a patently ridiculous name and this post will be the first and last time I ever use it.

Thomas, Justin:

The issue of the diploma is one we're still trying to negotiate. Our draft "name change transition plan" (still a draft) calls for us to determine a process by which alumni may get new diplomas with the new name by late spring. (This will be an option. Alumni and students will have the option of the current "University of Missouri" diploma or, if the board allows, a different one that reflects the new name.) However, this issue may also need to go before the Board of Curators, or at least to the University of Missouri system, for approval.

What a waste of money! I simply cannot believe that UMR will be wasting all that money on a name change, a name change I have heard VERY few support. The money should be used for purposes such as university relations, both with high school counselors (who assist students on picking good schools based on reputation and not the NAME) and big engineer-hiring firms, who hire graduates based on the rigor and depth of the school's curriculum and not the NAME. I am extremely sad that this has happened. In fact, the UMR name came up on a presentation yesterday (collaboration with Lockheed Martin) and I sorrowfully pointed out that it was now [Missouri S&T]. Everyone in the room (executives!) thought the name change was quite unnecessary, and not a very smart use of resources.

I have read over your comments, Andrew, and I have listened to what Carney has had to say regarding, "These are critically important areas for our university." What I want to know is why I should believe a word he says regarding his concern for the "other" degrees offered at UMR. It is obvious to me that there has been little concern on his behalf over what the majority of students and alumni think. Unless I start hearing someone start paying attention to the accomplishments of the professors, students, and alumni in the humanities, I am not going to idly believe that our academic areas are going to be so tenderly supported. Heavens to Betsy, he's already phasing out the name of a university! What else is he going to phase out? I'm sorry, but I believe I have a reason to be concerned about the future of my degree program on a tech campus. If it wasn't for my support of my husband's engineering degree, I would most certainly transfer. The politics at this school make me sick.

By the way, I don't believe this is an appropriate reason for changing the name: "I got so damned tired of explaining the difference between MU and UMR." Just proof that we should better the use of the money through publicity--not just a stunt to get the school it's 10 seconds of fame.

Another question...

I was surfing around the UM system and noticed that University of Missouri - Columbia apparently goes by "MU"? Missouri University? I could find no rhyme or reason for the acronym "MU" on the Columbia site.
Now this brings up another concern... if the big problem with "UMR" was that it was being mistaken as a satellite school for Columbia, what exactly does this name change fix? Now, if Columbia is going by "MU" and UMR changes to "Missouri University of Science and Technology",(MU S&T) it would appear yet again to be simply a satellite school specializing in "Science & Technology".

This may seem nit-picky, however, if I can make that assumption within 10 minutes of surfing, then what do you think the potential students are going to think when they are seeking a university?

Additionally, I'd really like to know how the excellent departments of English, history, psychology and other liberal arts programs are going to be able to recruit students to a Science and Technology school? Are these excellent programs destined to simply be prerequiste programs for the greater Engineering degrees?

Eric

Eric:

Good point about the University of Missouri-Columbia and its highly successful branding campaign. You may not find any "rhyme or reason" on that campus' website, but the school's editorial style guide offers some guidance about when to use MU under the University identification entry: In all publications, presentations, news releases, the first reference should be University of Missouri–Columbia. Thereafter, use either MU, Mizzou or University (with capital U). It's interesting, too, to note that the MU style guide prohibits the use of the "UMC" acronym: "Do not use the acronym UMC as a reference to the University of Missouri–Columbia."

But on to your other questions:

[I]f the big problem with "UMR" was that it was being mistaken as a satellite school for Columbia, what exactly does this name change fix?

The satellite school issue is just one of the issues, but it is a big one. The branding of Missouri S&T as our official name should differentiate us from the branding of "MU." Will it fix the confusion? Only time and research will tell.

Additionally, I'd really like to know how the excellent departments of English, history, psychology and other liberal arts programs are going to be able to recruit students to a Science and Technology school? Are these excellent programs destined to simply be prerequiste programs for the greater Engineering degrees?

I addressed concerns about the role of the humanities and liberal arts in a technological research university setting in the comment above. But as for recruiting students to a technological research university: that's exactly what these departments have done throughout their history. One of the arguments presented repeatedly in the comments on this blog has to do with the fact that UMR is already well known as an "engineering school." (Even though, as a "technological research university," UMR provides more academic breadth than mere engineering, but so many engineering alumni see that as our focus.) The point is, the institution's name will now be more reflective of its nature as a technological research university. You already stated that the humanities and liberal programs are "excellent." A university can both focus on technological education and offer strong liberal arts and humanities, as I explained in the comment above.

Despite my earlier comment, I was feeling neutral on the name change, however in at least three publications of professional organizations and on the KRCG website story ABOUT the name change I have seen UM-Columbia referred to only as the University of Missouri. Given the direction in their style guide this makes sense. More and more I agree with the name change, although I do believe that at some point in the past this could have been avoided by a) University administrators from UMR, UMKC, and UMSL putting their collective foot down about UM-Columbia's use of the name University of Missouri
and b) better marketing of UMR. I am starting to believe this opportunity has long passed.

My last comments are off topic but I see no other place to put them. We could mostly agree that the during the "bomb threat" in February after about an hour it was clear there was no bomb and only a student reaching out for help. Many people, including me, thought there was an overreaction. The horrible events at Virginia Tech today have caused me to change my outlook and unfortunately show what happens when University administrators go to the other extreme and do not react in a proactive manner.

I concur with the sentiments expressed by Jason about the commendable job done by the Rolla Police and the UMR administration in diffusing the "bomb threat" incident occurred in February.

I for one thought that the name change phenomenon was confined to our Alma Mater only. I found out that the Virginia Tech's official name is Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. When founded, it was named as, "Virginia Agriculture and Mechanical College".

I am delighted to see the UMR teams winning design competitions big time. This will place UMR in the limelight for sure. In fact, we are using the MR SAT (Satellite) design as a reference in our own project. I am thankful that the team’s executive summary is available in the public domain.

I strongly disagreed with the reasoning for the name change, and am simply embarrassed by the choice.

Yes im dropping out of your school if you change the name because it seems as though you're trying to worry about money coming and you think you are better than other Missouri Universitys, when you are not, you just have a central focus of a premiere technolgical research center. The focus should be on recruiting top of the line teachers to teach instead of top of the line money.