Should UIUC go back to being Univ of Ill? (Chicago: 2014, chapel)

[edsg25]

Down in Tuscalousa, the University of Alabama continues to be just that: the University of Alabama. despite two other schools in the system that add city names.

The University of Missouri-Columbia returned to being the University of Missouri. Branding was important. "Columbia" localizes the name; Mizzou wanted to project its state wide image.

and down in Champaign, some rebranding has definitely already taken place. The very UIUC I put in the title has fallen from usage; the term has little meaning. The University of Illinois Champaign/Urbana brands itself as "Illinois" look at their logo and webpage and you'll have no doubt.

Isn't it time to make it official…once again. The University of Illinois is the university of Illinois.

Objections? where? the only objections could come from others in the system. those objections simply are not there:

UIC: what does it care? It isn't branding itself with the use of "Illinois". UIC is big, major, a global scale educational and research complex containing the largest medical school in the US. When the Circle opened, there was definitely a little brother aspect to this school. The el stop for it was once U of I-Halsted. How ludicrous that would look today if you got off the train at UIC-Halsted. Look, UIC may not have the branding of the educational acronym that needs not its full name but looks rather silly with it: UCLA. Simply put, there are no other UCLA's out there. but UCLA aside, UIC may come as close to as those few others: UNLV, UAB, and some of the UC's. UIC has no fear of Illinois being Illinois

UIS: not in the same ballpark. It knows its mission. it is a small, regional public university. Within the system, it knows it's not at the same level as Illinois and UIC.

What's in a name? Plenty. Imagine and branding cout; if they didn't, fortunes would not be spent on each. And the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign improves its image and its branding returning to be the Univesity of Illinois.

[Maintainschaos]

UIUC is the University of Illinois, and virtually everyone refers to it as so. I don't think it really needs to be "rebranded"--everyone already knows it is the premier public research university in Illinois, known nationally and internationally, and UIC nor UIS really compare. I don't think rebranding will be useful nor necessary.

[AbbyJaneway]

I've always called it the U of I. When I see UIUC I have to pause for half a second to remember that's the U of I. I agree that UIC and UIS are different enough to not be confused with U of I/Illinois. The same thing happens in Wisconsin, doesn't it? There are several UWs, but when I hear Wisconsin I know the school being mentioned is in Madison, not Milwaukee, Green Bay, Stevens Point, etc.

[linicx]

What is in an established name is recognition. If the school is good at educating, and good at research, then there might be prestige and perhaps global accolades.

The University of Illinois College of Medicine is four individual campuses in Illinois that collectively form the nation’s second largest public medical school system. These schoos are in Peoria, Rockford, Urbana and Chicago. Peoria teams medicine and engineers at the Jump Trading Education and Simunlation Center. On January 27, 2014 more than a dozen members of the Jump team presented at the largest conference on medical simulation in the world.

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by linicx

UIUC is not listed in the the US News 2014 Best Medical Schools. However Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern is #22 and UI-Chiago is #82 Primary Care list. Champaign is not listed in Pediatrics or Internal Medicine. As far as I can remember U-C has never been recognized as a medical school. UIUC is #19 among the 27 animal schools listed.
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsa...arian-rankings.
One of the best Vets I ever used for my pets graduated from #9 University of Georgia - Athens.

This is because the main med school for the University of Illinois system is located in Chicago (at UIC) and the main veterinary school is located in Champaign-Urbana (UIUC).

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

UIUC is the University of Illinois, and virtually everyone refers to it as so. I don't think it really needs to be "rebranded"--everyone already knows it is the premier public research university in Illinois, known nationally and internationally, and UIC nor UIS really compare. I don't think rebranding will be useful nor necessary.

ok, Maintainscheaos, can you tell me exactly what Urbana/Champaign does to improve this name? I've given reasons why the dropping of them make sense.

U-M runs two universities more so than other such system that truly come across as a branch. Yet in Flint and Dearborn, they do exist.

Would the University of Michigan be wise to change its name to the University of Michigan Ann Arbor, in essence turning U-M into UMAA?

again, give me one advantage, just one, that Urbana Champaign adds to the u's name.

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by edsg25

ok, Maintainscheaos, can you tell me exactly what Urbana/Champaign does to improve this name? I've given reasons why the dropping of them make sense.

U-M runs two universities more so than other such system that truly come across as a branch. Yet in Flint and Dearborn, they do exist.

Would the University of Michigan be wise to change its name to the University of Michigan Ann Arbor, in essence turning U-M into UMAA?

again, give me one advantage, just one, that Urbana Champaign adds to the u's name.

I don't think it needs to do anything to improve its name. Why is the assumption so? I work in academia; when people say "Illinois" or the "University of Illinois," they all mean UIUC. The University of Illinois is normally synonymous with UIUC. Otherwise, they specify "University of Illinois at Chicago," or "UIC," or "UIS," or the "University of Illinois system," etc.

This case is really more the rule than the exception. E.g.: University of Wisconsin (--Madison), University of Minnesota (--Twin Cities), University of Washington (--Seattle), UNC (--Chapel Hill), University of Texas (--Austin), and so forth. In cases in which a distinguishing city is necessary is usually when there are multiple universities in a state system on the same footing, such as the University of California system (e.g. UC Berkeley vs. UCSF). The other schools are so well known that there's no reason to change the name--everyone knows where the flagship schools are, and I'm sure it would cost money to make the switch.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

I don't think it needs to do anything to improve its name. Why is the assumption so? I work in academia; when people say "Illinois" or the "University of Illinois," they all mean UIUC. The University of Illinois is normally synonymous with UIUC. Otherwise, they specify "University of Illinois at Chicago," or "UIC," or "UIS," or the "University of Illinois system," etc.

This case is really more the rule than the exception. E.g.: University of Wisconsin (--Madison), University of Minnesota (--Twin Cities), University of Washington (--Seattle), UNC (--Chapel Hill), University of Texas (--Austin), and so forth. In cases in which a distinguishing city is necessary is usually when there are multiple universities in a state system on the same footing, such as the University of California system (e.g. UC Berkeley vs. UCSF). The other schools are so well known that there's no reason to change the name--everyone knows where the flagship schools are, and I'm sure it would cost money to make the switch.

but there have been discussion in places like the above. First off, in Seattle, there is no U-Dub-Seattle….Seattle isn't part of the flagship's name. Indeed, it's branches are just that: banshees.

What other schools stand on their name alone, despite being part of a system:
University of Missouri
University of Arkansas
University of Alabama
University of Michigan
Ohio State University
Penn State University
Purdue University

There has been a push in Madison to go back to being UW. The naming system hasn't been very good since the merge of the UW and WSU systems. Why? Madison, the flagship, is unhappy with its regional name and isn't very well served by being UW-Madison since a UWM already existed (just like UT-Austin can't be UTA). Meanwhile, the other schools come across as branches: they gain no presage from the UW name for that prestige comes in Madison. So they are awkwardly stressing their city names. Could there be benefits for UMW if Madison changes its name? Yes, I think that school could be better marketed as the University of Milwaukee. What do its athletic teams go by: Milwaukee. Just like UWGB which goes by Green Bay.

The University of Iowa is lucky. It's in a system,too, but there are is no conflict between the names of its two fellow institutions: Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa. So we spared there ever being a UIIC.

the only system I can see where all schools benefit from being a part of a system is UC, since UC has recognition and purpose and high quality across the board (that said, I never liked the way UC Berkeley markets itself. In sports, it's Cal. I think it would benefit if Cal became the true academic preferred nickname since I think it carries a lot of power.

You mentioned cost: I remember in Mizzou's case, they said the cost was minimal.


You have managed to answer every question out there but the one I'm asking:

what do you think the University of Illinois gains by having "Urbana Champaign" tagged on? I've told what I consider the loses; why don't you tell me what you think are the gains.

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by edsg25

You have managed to answer every question out there but the one I'm asking:

what do you think the University of Illinois gains by having "Urbana Champaign" tagged on? I've told what I consider the loses; why don't you tell me what you think are the gains.

Yes I did...in my original post. It's a lateral move; I think it does nothing to keep nor to remove the U-C moniker. There's really no reason to change it. And even if the cost is minimal, it is still a cost to remove and "rebrand," as it were. At a time in which the university is seeing large monetary cuts from the state, even a minimal waste of money is still a waste. Unless it can be shown that there will be some monetary gain to drop the U-C designator, there's no reason to do it. And who knows--there are a lot of people in Illinois that would rather distance themselves from Chicago and may be proud that such a world-class institution is located downstate rather than in Chicagoland.

As a side note, in the five years I was at UW-Madison, I never really saw a push to drop the Madison designator. A lot of people are actually proud to be located in Madison (and rightfully so). I don't see a benefit to be had from dropping Madison from the name.

[linicx]

The University of Illinois College of Medicine is a collection of hospitals rather than one school on one campus. Champaign doctors, for instance, are on staff at OSF in Peoria. UICM-P is located on its campus.

College of Veterinary Medicine University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is physically located at Urbana.

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

This is because the main med school for the University of Illinois system is located in Chicago (at UIC) and the main veterinary school is located in Champaign-Urbana (UIUC).