Oh boy. This part in particular, about branding in relation to colleges and college organizations is something that I have had many a conversation about. I'm fortunate enough to have become friends with my colleges Chief Communication Officer, and a big part of the reason that his job and university news positions exist is because of the branding push. Colleges make a very conscientious decision as to what their branding would be. Sure, a college might excel at liberal arts or engineering, but it goes much, much deeper than that. The push to be a brand is a push to determine the philosophy behind organizational hierarchies and recruiting efforts at university. "How can a prospective student see a 30-second commercial and immediately connect with us?". "How can we as an organization exude and function in a manner that reflects our branding?". College is a big business, and every university needs to have a firm brand in order to attract students and potentially more importantly, to keep alumni involved. It's my opinion that a university that has a brand that appeals to alumni and keeps them interested after graduating is in a great position. Alumni donations are a huge part of the money train. Without the brand, every college is a faceless entity to people that aren't already invested in the college or considering it among other colleges. The enrollment drive and desire to keep alumni is what drives branding at universities. Oh, and international recruitment is a big part of that too but that's a whole extra 3 paragraphs. Anyway, I have a few presentations and other stuff courtesy of the CCO and companies that they go to for branding help, and to say that "something needs to change" is a daunting task. I'm almost tempted to post a recent commercial for my university that I was privy to well in advance and ask people to analyze it, and then discuss the branding that went into it.I really think that college sports are out of control in certain institutions, as is the idea that every university and college needs "to be a brand". It seems to me that the draw for most students and particularly international students, is "the brand" that institutions have cultivated due to their reputations for contributing to the liberal arts and the sciences. I don't know what the answer is, but something needs to change.
I'm glad to get a peek behind the branding push, so thanks. I understand the need for branding and that it's not something that can be left to be done later, but from what I understand from my own experience and the perspectives of people in my life who are affiliated with these institutions, is that undergrad education, that is, the primary product being sold, often suffers from a lack of attention. For example, often universities will employ professors who are outstanding in their respective fields, but teach few (if any) classes simply to sell people on the idea that they might learn from one such person. Also, universities will hire professors who might be excellent researchers or contributors to a given field, but in fact have little to no teaching experience or interest in teaching. My school has quite a few alumni who contribute very generously and in fact the current sports facility was constructed with alumni donations. However, my class was never able to use said sports facility for the entire time we were at school, as construction finished some months after our graduation. Also, my school is not known for attracting athletic types. What it is known for, is actors, TV presenters, comedians, writers, producers and other entertainment types. Why not spend the money on new equipment for the award-winning radio station, or the library, or another venue for the theater tech and musical theater majors, or hell, buying paper so that the writing students don't have to shell out for the pages and pages that they're required to print on a weekly basis? Perhaps you've seen Mac from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia wearing that Emerson Football shirt, which is a little dig at the sports situation at Emerson, as is our Quidditch team.
I am fairly privileged in that regard. It's true, that many research-focused universities employ a good amount of people that are researchers first, professors second. Education definitely suffers in these cases, as does it suffer (I'd wager) at universities that place sports as a consistent priority. My university is, at the moment (this is beginning to change), industry oriented. That is that our professors aren't necessarily researchers first. Many of my professors still have industry connections, and are also somewhat involved in policy making at the Federal level. I have one professor who is consistently making weekend trips to Washington DC to talk to one person or another. At the same time, we are constructing or have constructed 4 new buildings since I arrived. Two of them are academic buildings, one is support for our deaf students, and the last is a hockey arena. This arena is in the tens of millions of dollars, but half of that cost is donated from alumni. The two academic buildings are expensive as well, with new labs, and one of them is even Platinum Leed Certified, the other is gold I believe. It's all around support and expansion, so I can't complain too much. We're even working on funding a new radio station! That is coming entirely from fundraising though. The university has supported us by assisting in these efforts and holding the space for us, etc. That said, the bureaucracy really shines through in a project like this... Oh yes, I've seen that. It seems like Emerson's priorities aren't set on accentuating their strong points, but rather on making themselves a more all-around accessible campus. Maybe they're doing it to target a demographic that they don't already have, and are relying on their current facilities and prestige to continue to attract the types of people you've listed. Last, jesus. Quidditch. We have a team too. It's...interesting to watch. Also, we should definitely get together for a drink sometime.
Hmm. Looks like that link isn't working. I get the point though. It certainly seems that way, though it also seems like the changes they're making will draw more of the Fox News anchor type than another Maria Menounos, but what the fuck do I know? I'd be up for that.It seems like Emerson's priorities aren't set on accentuating their strong points, but rather on making themselves a more all-around accessible campus.
Also, we should definitely get together for a drink sometime.
That's interesting, what makes you say that? Let me know if there's any weekends in March/April that look good for you! Maybe we could even try a full-out Hubski meetup in New England.
Well, Emerson is kind of known as the school for students who feel like outsiders in high school; it's the art school for the weird/arty kids who are not visual artists. Those go to Mass Art. Or at least, that's the way it was when I went there. Also, it's a school with a large LBGT population, which of course is now a much more mainstream thing. My point is, Emerson seems to be trying to change their demographic a bit and what with its prominence as a broadcasting school and the rise of the pretty-faced TV anchor it seems like a confluence of interests. I don't know who else is in New England, but yeah, we could certainly throw that out there and see what sticks!