Either the Utah Technical College at Provo-Orem or the Utah Technical College at Salt Lake should change its name to avoid confusion and maybe now is a good time to do it, with a “community college” designation in the works for the two schools. This could be an appro priate time also for recommitment by the Utah Board of Regents to the prime mission of the institutions to teach technical and vocational skills. -The board did this in a general way at its July meeting at which preliminary approval was Even the community co ege concept. But a specific and official statement is needed to cool apprehensions that the change will expand the general education curriculum at the expense of the “vo-tech” role. State regulations currently require that the technical schools offer 75 percent of their courses in vocational education with the option of 25 percent in general education. Utah Tech at Provo Orem offers an associate of science degree, presumably accepta le at most four-year colleges and universities. This was instituted under a current three-year trial of expanded general education within the 25 percent. Tech can accommodate many overflow students from BYU as well as others who like the atmosphere of a smaller college or prefer not to leave Utah Valley. The board believes many of the general education students will find their way into beneficial vocational program. The plan has merit. But expansion beyond Tech’s 5.000 enrollment of the past year ought to be acconzgp ished in line with tl1e 75- percent ratio as long as “vo-tech” students are available. To move sub slantially away from that policy would short-change the purposes for which e school was founded and funded. When the board of regents gave preliminary ap proval to recognizing the two technical schoos as community colleges (like the three other Utah twoyear institutions), Chairman Kem Gardner suggested picking “more suitable” names. Regent George Hatch cautioned against “rash action” and said it’s “easier to change a school’s role than its name.” True. there are problems in a change, but not insurmountable ones. The local Utah Tech has gone through the process a number of times-from the original Central Utah Vocational School to Utah Trade Technical Institute in 1963 and to Utah Technical College at Provo in 1967 twith the Provo’rem substituted when the new Orem campus became a reality). Actually, if Utah Tech at Salt Lake changes its name. there’s probably no need for the Provo’rem school to switch. But any new name, in the Herald’s view, certainly should embody such a word as “vo cational,” “technical,” or “occupational” to identify the dominant role. An example might be “Utah Vocational Arts College,” just one of many possibilities. The need for one of the two technical colleges to change its name to eliminate confusion has been evident for years, say long-time officials at the Prov0’rem school. To illustrate one problem: During a blizzard, radio and TV media announced the Utah Technical College lat Salt Lake) had cancelled that night’s classes. But they neglected las frequently is the case) to specify “Salt Lake” and many students at Provo Orem staged home though the wea er wasn’t that bad here. Former President Wilson W. Sorensen was on the right track years ago when he prolposed a new name after tah Tech at SaltLake refused to yield. But state education officials vetoed the idea. Our Provolrem college is well-equipped to teach the standard occurational skills and crafts p us such sophisticated classes as computer-graphics and electrical and automation technology. As foriner State Senator Ernest H. Dean has suggested, it would seem a good idea for a cross-section of interests represented in the college to study the renaming and policy clarification issues and offer recommendations to the Board of Regents and the Legislature; Any such move should be made before the community college plans are finalized.