Leaderboard

There's many interesting things in that article, ZippyRulz, including a provost from Cal Poly talking about how nobody can even agree on the meaning of "Polytechnic", which surely will make "educating" about the new terminology even easier. So, if I have this right, we're making a change that's also being made for the supposed benefits, just like Washington State Tri-Cities, and other references to Wisconsin-Stout. Relatively insignificant and unknown branch schools. I can certainly understand how a school with an enrollment of 1,400 that's only been around since 1989 can take the risk of being pigeonholed. But, why us? I think the new motto should maybe be: The University of Akron - The Washington State Tri-Cities of the East.

It's really about the word "polytechnic" and the way they have gone about introducing it-- re-naming vs re-branding vs strategic statement. They let the conversation go off into a distracting places instead of saying "here's why this makes sense and here's how we are now changing everything to reflect this" (examples: you can go to lots of places to study the theory of political science or you can come to Akron and learn the theory and apply it as an undergrad in the Bliss; you can go get an engineering degree some place or you can come to Akron and get that degree plus real world experience applying it, etc.). It's not that there isn't quality liberal arts programs, it's that everything has a bias to the application of theory into the context of the real world. Strategy has to happen from the 'inside-out' (what are our core competencies and capabilities) and the 'outside-in' (what's the market need). Using 'polytech' makes sense from the inside-out-- it's consistent with what we have always been about. The fail is in the other side of the equation-- no one in the market is saying that Ohio is missing a 'polytech' because no one knows what that is. The word itself is a distractor because "the market" doesn't equate it to "great education with practical outcomes in mind".

One of Kato's former teammates at Champagnat, Wayna Clarington, says he will be joining the Zips after JUCO. Cornerback Jason Williams Jr. also played at Champagnat as well.

Just getting a chance to catch up on all the discussion here. I spent time this week with Arizona State president Michael Crow. He is really a force of nature and is using his platform as head of the largest University in the country to drive innovation and a whole new approach to higher education, one rooted in inclusion, quality, and student support with the goal of creating lifelong learners. Over 40% of ASU grads are the first in their families to go to college. Something like 85% have jobs within 30 days of graduating. The approach is focused on surrounding students with the support they need to push through obstacles and get their degree. This new approach has been recognized/validated by Starbucks, who chose ASU to be its academic partner in its College Achievement Plan, which will pay for any Sbux employee's undergrad degree. They chose ASU after a 12 month intensive review of practically every online program. There are something like 80 degrees that can be obtained online, fully accredited. Most recently, ASU started offering a fully online Electrical Engineering degree. There are many things that resonate in what I know about UA and what I have learned about ASU. This deep dive on higher education has only reinforced my POV that eventually UA and Can't need to merge, probably as a first step of merging CSU, YSU and NEOUCOM into a 'system'. If this had happened 20 years ago, this NEO U would have been in the position of: being chosen for the Sbux program among the likes of ASUwould be playing in the Big 10 (or if we had been blocked by OSU from joining competing at the same level in a different league or as an indy)and would be a 100K+ enrollment, $1 billion + endowment, top tier research, and globally meaningful institution that would be a real economic engine for NEO bringing in new people, new money, new ideas, new businesses, etc.I totally acknowledge that many wouldn't trade loyalty to UA for this envisioned future institution, but I think it is worth at least the thought exercise to get a better understanding the of trade offs of supporting the status quo. I do think president Scarborough deserves kudos for taking on these big issues early in his tenure. I like that he is providing strategic focus on the key threats and had identified and is pursuing what he views as the opportunity for the U, as an institution and brand. What I remain really concerned about is how this is being executed. Modeling the institution on a "polytech" is a great idea-- it's frankly what we are and have been. We don't have one of the largest and oldest co-op programs by accident. There is a reason that UA didn't have Can't State type protests in 1970 having to do with the type of students we attract and the reason why they are at UA. So, modeling UA fully on a polytech is totally logical-- a ready made, time tested guide to strategy and structure. It's an organizing principle. It does not, however, mean much to the general public so it does not help UA's brand in the near term. So, instead of thinking that adding "polytech" as a descriptor, or worse changing the name of the institution at this point, I wish instead he was saying "a polytech is XYZ-- this is our heritage and our future. It's a powerful idea that will get us to (fill in blank)." and then, instead of adding a confusing, ill-defined, little understood word as a tagline, I wish they were adding a highest level output of a polytech approach-- "thriving beyond theory" or whatever (I'm a strategist not a copywriter). You can use polytech to drive the structure and align around a 'big idea' (even if this particular big idea is 200 years old, big but not so fresh) but instead of announcing it and saying "we need to focus the brand" then completely confuse everyone, spend the next 2 years aligning everything at the school around this-- pushing beyond theory to practice, experience is key, etc. And then, with real proof points of how this new organizing principle is being applied, begin to talk about it and perhaps even consider a name change. This just hasn't been a very well-considered process, at least externally, culminating in the recent letter from the other presidents. We've succeeded in getting these NEO institutions aligned-- unfortunately, it is against us.