| Student expresses concern over name change |
|
|
| Written by Alias Tagami | |
|
On Thursday, I was just checking my email between classes when I saw that the board of curators had approved the name change. My internal response was a diverse medley of emotions. However, surprise was not one of them. The singular thought that ran through my head repeatedly is “this was all too predictable.” No, I’m not for the name change, but not because of any loyalty to the name “UMR” or because I’m put off by the cost association with changing the name. MO S&T doesn’t bother me, and the cost associated doesn’t alarm me. I am against the name change because of what it represents to me as a student. One must remember that the name change is only one element of a much larger plan to make UMR our school a “top 5 engineering school.” This is my problem with the name change idea: It is based on at least two large assumptions. The first assumption is that we want more people here. We’ve been fed the propaganda about lower High school enrollment rates and difficulty at getting students to enroll from out of state. We’ve been told how hard it is to get students from the North-East. Maybe I missed it, but when was consensus reached on everyone wanting more students here? I am in a smaller department and my classes are too full as is. Further, to top that, they are offered only once a year. Why do I want more students here? It is as if the Chancellor et al just assumes that the only great campuses are the biggest. Has anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps one of UMR’s our school’s biggest advantages is its small size? The second assumption is about who comes to UMR our school. We can’t get students from out of state? When did we all agree that we needed to? Since when was it horrible that a Missouri University, receiving funding from Missouri taxes went to give Missouri students an education? Plus, at what point is the administration pleased with the ratio of in state to out of state students? I know plenty of people from out of state. These two assumptions have hurt us. I remember when the first waves of debates on this issue came up. The PR on this idea has been outstanding. Not only can we (Carney et al) present an idea, we can also tell you what you’re going to argue about. Example: We let them argue about which name, we let them argue about how much it’s going to cost. The press on this issue has been totally deceptive as well. The strategy has been to very publicly publish who supports the idea, but very privately address those who disagree. To me, it just feels like their mind was made up to begin with. The only thing that mattered was presenting the idea as if it were an “idea.” The truth is that when I read my email, I wasn’t surprised because this is the way of things. I’m am more convinced than ever that given the right seat of power, influence, and the correct strategy, changing the name of UMR our school, was never going to be optional. The student voice was nothing of real gravity, for that matter, any voice that had anything critical to say. Remember when I said that this was just a part of a larger plan? Yeah, well that still concerns me. If this approach is what we are to expect in the future, I am greatly troubled. So many plans are laid out, but what plans get any attention? We certainly have a clear view on how our school is going to be marketed, but what about the students? Where is the passion from Carney to actually make this university a top 5 school? If all we have to do to become a top 5 engineering school is add a little glitter to our name and put more people walking around on our campus then we already are a top 5 school. When I think of what a top 5 engineering school is, I think of one thing exclusively: The product the student gets; the education. By investing so much time into marketing and public relations, but not investing passion into our academics, you send a silent message that our scholastics are already top 5. What adverse consequences could there be for bring more people to campus? Are we going to be so enthusiastic about getting more money to the LEAD program and other academic support programs? Supposedly we are going to double the on campus population. Right now there are about 1400 beds, in the Residence Halls. We let in 1007 freshmen this year. Where are we going to put these people? Add in the fraternities and sororities, you still can’t handle that load. What is going to be the result of all these changes? UMR, the name, the degree, the difference. At one point we put our pride out publicly; we wore it like a badge. We respected the name, we knew what great notoriety came with it. We knew that UMR meant to us the hard work that we invest in our future, and others knew too. More recently a case has been made to say that we don’t have “the name,” that “the degree” was not top 5. I call bluff. The administration has been very ambitious with all these changes, and in my anecdotal experience thus far in life, those with ambition usually care about “legacy.” I encourage the board of curators and Chancellor Carney to remember that this before all other things is a school, not a business. However, if it was a business the product it would sell is still an education. You can’t sell a car if the wheels fall off no matter how nice it looks. I encourage you to spend more time on improving our “product” and less time waxing the hood. I don’t need our school’s mission in its name, I need a school with the right mission: Give me an education, and help me be successful. Missouri S&T, new name, same degree, what’s the difference? This is Alias Tagami, thinking for myself. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|