Tweet
I ran across an interesting discussion on a couple of different message boards and wanted to get Shocker nation's take. I am a big proponet of changing from Wichita State University to University of Wichita as I believe it represents the school mission's better and puts us in the same name category as our piers. (Houston, Louisville, Cincinatti, Tulsa, Memphis etc...) Anyways here are the links and a copy of the discussions.
A number of larger universities have re-branded themselves in the last 20-30 years to very good effect. Memphis State became the University of Memphis. North Texas State University became the University of North Texas. Southwest Texas State became Texas State. Southwestern Missouri is now Missouri State. Southeastern Louisiana tried to become the university of Louisiana, but was thwarted by the State legislature.
I think naming is a way that a school can (relatively) quickly buck the system and change the impression, focus, and general direction of the University and affect positive change.
I know a lot of posters on this site ridiculed Missou State when they changed the name saying that no one would ever judge them beyond what they started out to be. I don't think this is the case. When you take into account that, including slackers, a university turns over it's enrollment ever 5 years or so, and that young people discover universities maybe 10 years before they go to college at most, Missou State will effectively be established as the "state" school in Missou by say 2012 or so, despite academics' protests. They have effectively leapfrogged UMKC and UMSTL --- former equivalent schools.
I do understand that technically a land grant flagship is almost always going to be a better school that some johnny come lately, because they are more established and have greater resources sunk into them over a long period of time, but by the same token there appears to be a pecking order based on names.
(In all of the examples below, "X" refers to the name of the state.)
1) Tier 1 - the "University of X" --- generally the best a state has to offer. Generally the flagship, although there are exceptions (Ohio State and LSU are flagships of their states and A&M shares the flagship designation in Texas.). Now to be clear of my point, officially, UT is the "University of Texas at Austin", but in practice anyone you mention the University of Texas to is not going to ask "Did you mean UT Austin or UT Dallas?" UT Austin owns the UT name --- UT Dallas, UTEP, UT- Arlington, UTSA and others just borrow it. They are just trying to soak up some of that good name to gain legitimacy. (I do recognize that all are in the UT system and that is the stated reason behind it's use. I just don't think that is the honest point of it in this day.)
2) Tier 2 - "X State University" --- in most states the largest State university is designated "X State". Sometimes their academics are just shy of the University school of the state. Sometimes thy are way off. There are exceptions. Some states have #2 public schools that are Techs or A&Ms (Georgia Tech, Louisiana Tech) instead of a well developed "X State" school.
3) Tier 3 - "X Tech" and "X A&M" schools --- this can be a real hit or miss category. A lot of states have tiny A&M schools or tech schools that would rank as a tier 7 school, but a well sized Tech or A&M gets pretty good attention.
4) Tier 4 - "(Major City) University" or "University of (Major City)" --- Large schools designed to serve a major metro area can differentiate themselves from smaller state schools by adopting the city name. Often they are referred to just by the city name. As I mentioned earlier, schools like Cinnci and Houston, have been joined by Memphis. This technique really only seems to have positive results when the city and university are large.
5) Tier 5 "North/South/West/East/Central X University" or "University of North/South/West/East/Central X" - Unidirectional Schools. I think these schools are on the rise in terms of esteem. I think we will soon see a day when lower tier 2, and all of larger Tier 4, and larger Tier 5 occupy effectively the same tier behind the flagships and really elite state, tech, & A&M schools. UNT, S. Illinois are good examples.
6) Tier 6 - "(Major City) State University" - This is a state University in a major city that refuses to escape from the shadow of the state school or is not legislatively allowed to do so.
7) Tier 7 - "NW/SE/NE/SW X University" or "University of NW/SE/NE/SW X" and "(Name) State University" and "(Minor City) State University" and "(Minor City/name/whatever) A&M University" and "University of X - (city)" - Almost all of these universities are small time. They are either designed to serve a very small region of a state or are trying to borrow legitimacy from a system of schools or a flagship. NW Louisiana. Sam Houston State University. West Texas A&M. UT-Tyler. UL-Monroe is technically not that, but might as well be.
I think it a name change on a small school is often like putting lipstick on a pig. It is still a pig.
But a name change on a larger school --- say 15K to 30K or more can dramatically affect a university, changing the long term direction of the university, the focus of student recruitment, and nationwide public perception.
When Texas State dropped the Bi-directional prefix from their name successfully, the size of the university and its political weight in the state started to become apparent. This will lead Texas State to be seen as a player in the state and become a recognized national name within a couple generations.
When UNT dropped the "state" from their name, I would argue they moved from one of an endless number of faceless state schools to the dominant public school for the North region.
When Memphis State dropped the state designation from their name, i would argue that they embraced the identity of the city like Houston rather than just being one of a million "(city) State" schools. It is a little like graduating from the need to have the state's state University system propping you up.
Utah Valley State College is smartly shortening their name when they become a full university this year. Utah Valley University is not a bad choice when you consider what is already taken. Shorter is usually better.
I think there are a number of schools that would profit from re-branding. Here are some I would argue in my region. many of these might get resistance from the state system, but some might not.
NW Louisiana and SE Louisiana --- these are both schools that might one day grow into FBS candidates. They would be smart to re-brand their schools now that SW and NE Louisiana have re-branded as ULL and ULM. They probably would not get resistance. The Universities of North Louisiana and South Louisiana would brand to appeal to the northern and southern halves of the state and both schools could see some quick growth and positive direction change from that re-branding.
Metropolitan University might strongly consider renaming itself as Denver Metropolitan University or Denver U. I think they hurt their enrollment and public perception by not cluing anyone in on where they are based. Not having Denver in the name would be especially unhelpful if they ever looked to do sports seriously.
UTEP and UTSA might seriously consider renaming their universities. It would be worth it to fight the system to allow them to drop UT from their names. UTEP could be Texas Western again or El Paso University. UTSA could be the San Antonio University. I think re-branding could really help underscore their similarities to Universities like Houston and Memphis --- or barring that UNT (I am only saying it would help.) and would also set them apart as major independent universities serving major cities and not the satellite university riff-raff.
UT-Arlington baffles me. They would be a 1000 times more successful and well known as Dallas/Forth Worth University (DFW U). I think most people in the Metroplex don't even know that they are by far the second largest university in the DFW Metroplex. They are an enormous university located halfway between Dallas and Fort Worth. At 25K or 26K, they are not far behind UNT in enrollment ---technically part of the metroplex, but to the north.
Sam Houston State University and Stephen F. Austin State University should Join Lamar in not having a "state" in their names. These are tribute schools that sound like independent elite liberal art schools. Putting "state" in their names, just lessens them to the level of the other small Texas satellite schools. That is hardly a tribute.
UALR might consider becoming Little Rock University. They would parallel Memphis well and the name change would amount to a big jump in the food change raising them above being an equal to UA-Fort Smith as a cookie cutter satellite of U. of Arkansas, for example.
Wichita State might chose Wichita University. Cleveland State might consider the University of Cleveland to parallel U of Cinnci. IUPUI would be smart to fight to be Indianapolis University.
Other universities?
A number of larger universities have re-branded themselves in the last 20-30 years to very good effect. Memphis State became the University of Memphis. North Texas State University became the University of North Texas. Southwest Texas State became Texas State. Southwestern Missouri is now Missouri State. Southeastern Louisiana tried to become the university of Louisiana, but was thwarted by the State legislature.
I think naming is a way that a school can (relatively) quickly buck the system and change the impression, focus, and general direction of the University and affect positive change.
I know a lot of posters on this site ridiculed Missou State when they changed the name saying that no one would ever judge them beyond what they started out to be. I don't think this is the case. When you take into account that, including slackers, a university turns over it's enrollment ever 5 years or so, and that young people discover universities maybe 10 years before they go to college at most, Missou State will effectively be established as the "state" school in Missou by say 2012 or so, despite academics' protests. They have effectively leapfrogged UMKC and UMSTL --- former equivalent schools.
I do understand that technically a land grant flagship is almost always going to be a better school that some johnny come lately, because they are more established and have greater resources sunk into them over a long period of time, but by the same token there appears to be a pecking order based on names.
(In all of the examples below, "X" refers to the name of the state.)
1) Tier 1 - the "University of X" --- generally the best a state has to offer. Generally the flagship, although there are exceptions (Ohio State and LSU are flagships of their states and A&M shares the flagship designation in Texas.). Now to be clear of my point, officially, UT is the "University of Texas at Austin", but in practice anyone you mention the University of Texas to is not going to ask "Did you mean UT Austin or UT Dallas?" UT Austin owns the UT name --- UT Dallas, UTEP, UT- Arlington, UTSA and others just borrow it. They are just trying to soak up some of that good name to gain legitimacy. (I do recognize that all are in the UT system and that is the stated reason behind it's use. I just don't think that is the honest point of it in this day.)
2) Tier 2 - "X State University" --- in most states the largest State university is designated "X State". Sometimes their academics are just shy of the University school of the state. Sometimes thy are way off. There are exceptions. Some states have #2 public schools that are Techs or A&Ms (Georgia Tech, Louisiana Tech) instead of a well developed "X State" school.
3) Tier 3 - "X Tech" and "X A&M" schools --- this can be a real hit or miss category. A lot of states have tiny A&M schools or tech schools that would rank as a tier 7 school, but a well sized Tech or A&M gets pretty good attention.
4) Tier 4 - "(Major City) University" or "University of (Major City)" --- Large schools designed to serve a major metro area can differentiate themselves from smaller state schools by adopting the city name. Often they are referred to just by the city name. As I mentioned earlier, schools like Cinnci and Houston, have been joined by Memphis. This technique really only seems to have positive results when the city and university are large.
5) Tier 5 "North/South/West/East/Central X University" or "University of North/South/West/East/Central X" - Unidirectional Schools. I think these schools are on the rise in terms of esteem. I think we will soon see a day when lower tier 2, and all of larger Tier 4, and larger Tier 5 occupy effectively the same tier behind the flagships and really elite state, tech, & A&M schools. UNT, S. Illinois are good examples.
6) Tier 6 - "(Major City) State University" - This is a state University in a major city that refuses to escape from the shadow of the state school or is not legislatively allowed to do so.
7) Tier 7 - "NW/SE/NE/SW X University" or "University of NW/SE/NE/SW X" and "(Name) State University" and "(Minor City) State University" and "(Minor City/name/whatever) A&M University" and "University of X - (city)" - Almost all of these universities are small time. They are either designed to serve a very small region of a state or are trying to borrow legitimacy from a system of schools or a flagship. NW Louisiana. Sam Houston State University. West Texas A&M. UT-Tyler. UL-Monroe is technically not that, but might as well be.
I think it a name change on a small school is often like putting lipstick on a pig. It is still a pig.
But a name change on a larger school --- say 15K to 30K or more can dramatically affect a university, changing the long term direction of the university, the focus of student recruitment, and nationwide public perception.
When Texas State dropped the Bi-directional prefix from their name successfully, the size of the university and its political weight in the state started to become apparent. This will lead Texas State to be seen as a player in the state and become a recognized national name within a couple generations.
When UNT dropped the "state" from their name, I would argue they moved from one of an endless number of faceless state schools to the dominant public school for the North region.
When Memphis State dropped the state designation from their name, i would argue that they embraced the identity of the city like Houston rather than just being one of a million "(city) State" schools. It is a little like graduating from the need to have the state's state University system propping you up.
Utah Valley State College is smartly shortening their name when they become a full university this year. Utah Valley University is not a bad choice when you consider what is already taken. Shorter is usually better.
I think there are a number of schools that would profit from re-branding. Here are some I would argue in my region. many of these might get resistance from the state system, but some might not.
NW Louisiana and SE Louisiana --- these are both schools that might one day grow into FBS candidates. They would be smart to re-brand their schools now that SW and NE Louisiana have re-branded as ULL and ULM. They probably would not get resistance. The Universities of North Louisiana and South Louisiana would brand to appeal to the northern and southern halves of the state and both schools could see some quick growth and positive direction change from that re-branding.
Metropolitan University might strongly consider renaming itself as Denver Metropolitan University or Denver U. I think they hurt their enrollment and public perception by not cluing anyone in on where they are based. Not having Denver in the name would be especially unhelpful if they ever looked to do sports seriously.
UTEP and UTSA might seriously consider renaming their universities. It would be worth it to fight the system to allow them to drop UT from their names. UTEP could be Texas Western again or El Paso University. UTSA could be the San Antonio University. I think re-branding could really help underscore their similarities to Universities like Houston and Memphis --- or barring that UNT (I am only saying it would help.) and would also set them apart as major independent universities serving major cities and not the satellite university riff-raff.
UT-Arlington baffles me. They would be a 1000 times more successful and well known as Dallas/Forth Worth University (DFW U). I think most people in the Metroplex don't even know that they are by far the second largest university in the DFW Metroplex. They are an enormous university located halfway between Dallas and Fort Worth. At 25K or 26K, they are not far behind UNT in enrollment ---technically part of the metroplex, but to the north.
Sam Houston State University and Stephen F. Austin State University should Join Lamar in not having a "state" in their names. These are tribute schools that sound like independent elite liberal art schools. Putting "state" in their names, just lessens them to the level of the other small Texas satellite schools. That is hardly a tribute.
UALR might consider becoming Little Rock University. They would parallel Memphis well and the name change would amount to a big jump in the food change raising them above being an equal to UA-Fort Smith as a cookie cutter satellite of U. of Arkansas, for example.
Wichita State might chose Wichita University. Cleveland State might consider the University of Cleveland to parallel U of Cinnci. IUPUI would be smart to fight to be Indianapolis University.
Other universities?
Comment