Balsy

And like most things in the world of Resume building...the data will be mined and cherry picked to support whatever narrative they want to prove.

I agree. I have been doing a lot of thinking lately how cool it would have had an old stadium "Rubber Bowl" feel with a new stadium. But I'm guessing that'd be too expensive/don't have the space?

Universities are plagued with "outsourcing". Why give to students, what you can pay for profit industry for. This has been a major complaint of mine throughout my career as a student and now in education. The No. 1 resource for communities, universities, industries...is their people/students. UTILIZE THEM! But that'd make to much sense in the "experiential learning" goal.

Lets hope we can take 1, or both of them!

Akron's already a Confuscious institute. That's pretty big when it comes to having opportunities for global experience. A standing we hopefully don't stand to lose because of this "Polytechnique" nonsense.

ZippyRulz we also should give a flying flip about what the proponents of rebranding have to say about it. Here's my commentary, as a person who is opposed to it. A lot of my commentary is from being in education myself. We hear claims like these all the time, just replace polytechnic with flipped classroom, blended classroom, online classroom, engaging classroom etc...(whatever the lingo of the day is). And more often than not, it's a fad, that isn't well supported by actual peer-reviewed studies. Most educational research isn't very reliable because of the inability to reproduce findings. "Polytechnic schools provide a mindset, not just a skill set" I don't fully agree with what he's argueing here. Does switching to a polytechnic school mean that you're going to focus on bringing in professors who are deeply invested in their field AND the university? Contingent faculty are not that, and that's the direction Scarborough has eluded to. Replacing intro level classes with MOOCs and "success coaches" rather than having classroom classes with graudate level, or higher, professors teaching the class. A mindset is not built by providing resources, names or internships. A mindset is built by surrounding the learner with teachers who encourage the student to want to learn, problem solve etc. I attended UA before it was rebranded as a Polytechnic. The disciplines where I learned a mindset were because of the professors that I had. The better the faculty, the better the mindset. But also in the sciences, such as chemistry, you do have to have a certain amount of skills training. Which is why those entry level (freshman level) classes and labs exist, of which UA is suggesting should be taught in a MOOC. "It's a great marketing tool" Is it really though? Is it the Polytechnic part that really is the marketing tool? Or is it the amount of peer-reviewed research is published by undergraduates? I'm not buying that students are attracted to it because it's a Polytechnic. They're attracted to it because of the amount of undergraduate research. The point I'm trying to make here, is that whether or not your a university or a polytechnic should not dicatate the opportunities given to students. Why bother rebranding with "Polytechnique" and not just increasing the level of undergraduate opportunities to conduct research? So do you really stand out because your a polytechnique, or is it because of the research opportunities.

At least we didn't make this list like two of our MACtion companions did!

Now THIS is the way to go about "rebranding"! (athletics anyways).

Damn you Dave. You always have a way of calming everything down. But I highlighted the portion of what you said above. The only thing I'd that this is why it's so important to have transparency. If you genuinely include everyone in the conversation, keep an open and fair conversation, these stances that are built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings can be avoided. Everything about this UA Rebranding has not been that, which is the problem. I know a-zip and other members may not agree with this when I say it: I'm actually a pretty open minded person. I just don't apprieciate bullshit. Especially when it comes to something that is as important to me as UA is.

No. I'm complaining about decisions that are being made without peer reviewed research, that's open for public debate discussion and criticism. There's a difference between peer reviewed research, that's open for public debate discussion and criticism...than research conducted by a for profit firm or business. Claims are only as good as the facts that back them up. When you cannot debate, discuss and criticize the methods used in research...than it isn't good research. "Trust me, my numbers are good" isn't good enough for me, sorry. And spending $100,000 on private, non-transparent, research into a new name is absolutely a gross missuse grant of funds. How about we improve the quality of our education before we consider rebranding with names. You're damn right I"m going to complain about this. Education is important. It's what universities are supposed to do. Stop wasting money on bullshit. Use that $100,000 grant funds to fund a team of grad students AT YOUR OWN UNIVERSITY to research that question for you.

It's so sad. Fund a new lab, or do research that you won't release to the public so it can be verified for it's validity, to change the name to "Ohio's Polytechnique University". a-zip, if you want to know what the problem in education is. THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S WRONG IN EDUCATION.

That is correct, Bill Gates is a billionaire, not an educator. The problem in education isn't teachers, or education...it's the number of people (especially billionaires with no experience in the manner) sticking their hands into it. Nor is his fluff piece on how online education moves students to the front row actually supported by reality. Attrition in online courses is far worse than traditional classes. Bill Gates Talks a Big talk, but unfortunately, reality doesn't bend to how much money you have. Entrepreneurs have been claiming revolutions in education for over a hundred years, all of them were incorrect. Online classes devalue what education actually is. Education is a process, and a system NOT facts and information. The "Interesting" read I've already addressed, and posted the link to in previous threads. Extraodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. The writer doesn't actually understand education (he often refers to "knowldege" being the purpose of education...it isn't). Transferance of knowledge isn't what education is.

And let's be very clear about something: the quality of education is decreasing in this country, largely due to time wasted on this bullshit, and the time wasted spent listening to billionairs like Bill Gates and Mark Cuban, who know nothing about it. Scarborough and UA are running a pilot program that is an example of the decling quality of education: majority online courses for those "gen ed" classes that will have the only interaction with people being the student with a "success coach" instead of the teacher of record or tenured faculty.

It isn't. We already know what the "rebranding" is because Scarborough's entire presentation last week was about it. The article about UA refusing to release the studies that have been conducted on the manner, which I've already mentioned numerous times. Calling Scarborough's arguement bullshit, because he's hinding behind "proprietary" to keep it a secret. If there's sound evidence of rebranding and the postitive impact it has on universities/the consolidation of universities, it's be published it reputable peer reviewed journals. It's easy to get the outcome you want when you pay for it. Side note: The asinine crap modern universities do. UA has the resources ON CAMPUS to conduct it's own studies and strategies. It's called the students. Universities are about creating young minds, and yet they completely ignore those minds and ideas to throw money into the private sector on bullshit.

I give a shit, that's why I'm upset about it. But LZip articulated it perfectly: critical thinking. How do you know Scarborough and and TW are smart? Holding a doctorate or a position of power does not make one smart. Intelligence is relative, and nearly impossible to quantify and qualify. But, even assuming we could quantify or qualify it, just because a "smart" person makes a claim or a project, doesn't make it a good one. Claims stand on their own merits, not on who suggested them or the qualifications of those who support them. A claim is only as good as the data, information and facts to support it. Just saying "don't doubt them...they're smart people" is an appeal to authority and an arguement out of ignorance. There are some very smart people on this forum, and in the public who are in opposition to Scarborough. Why don't you agree with them? That's the problem with appeals to authority and arguements out of ignorance, their inherently biased. Nothing from Scarborugh and TW on the rebranding of UA has ANY facts to support it. Scarborough has certainly made a good rhetorical case that some, like you, would agree with. But when pressed for data, information and facts to back it up, he's backpeddled behind "proprietary knowledge". I don't think anyone has pressed TW on the issue of changing to the Z, but what data, facts or information are there to support the move? The only thing we can find is ONE survey, that doesn't even pass academic credibility. I wouldn't let my high school students use that crap to draw conclussions, why should we let an athletic director of a D-I university do it? The Chapman Cheerleader comment was just a joke, it's not like I don't support Kyle Pohl.

That's because they are. What switching to the Z is suddenly going to "sell out" all over the country? But I guess I can let it go. You're the TW cheerleader. I'm the Travon Chapman cheerleader.

Lol Agreed on the first one. Trust me, if Akron becomes Ohio Tech, I'm going to be involved with the ZIps or the university.

I guess here's my point: I actually do like the Z. I don't like that it's seemingly replacing the A-Roo. I don't believe for a nanosecond there will be any measurable impact from this, so why change? There's plenty of things to fix with Akron athletics, and logos are the LAST thing that the AD should be wasting time on. W/E, it's a done deal. I'll still be sporting the A-Roo anytime I can. Sidenote: If the Z is replacing the A-Roo, they better start getting Z branded gear NOW. The store has like 1 thing the last time I went, and it wasn't that great.

That's an example of ADDING logos, not eliminating them. And to answer your question: From the Athletic Director himself! Go back to post #1. I flat out asked our AD in an email, pointing out that the A-ROO appears to be used less and less. I asked verbatum: "Is there a move to eliminate the "A-Roo"? Is there a marketing focus to move from the "A-Roo" logo to the "Z" logo? Pretty open and closed case. I got the response that is posted on #1.

If there's so many of them...name them? Yeah I sure remember when State Ohio University got rid of it's Block O logo and placed a a giant B in it's place in all athletics marketing! That sure brought out the fans to support the Buckeyes!

+1. If "Tech" schools and Universities were identical (which is always implied with whoever is saying that) why are we even bothering with a name change.

Totally missed the point. Why get involved with something, and build an identity with something, when everything about it keeps changing. THAT's the problem. Changing a logo may seem insignificant...it's not. It's huge. I've been saying for a long time we need to be encorporating ALL of our logos, because it is something that makes Akron unique. I thought they were finally doing it with the new football gear, encorporating the Roo and the Z....but I didn't think it'd be in the process of eliminating another logo. Yeah, start a new championship culture with the Z...I sure do remember when drug-dealing-gets-his-ass-kicked-off-the-team Alex Abreu was a center piece in the Z advertising, that was amazingly good press! Yeah! Championship Culture! Let's wear the Z logo uniforms and go out and lose another game on national television by 40 points! That'd be amazing! More school colors, encorporate ALL logos. Build some pride in EVERYTHING that we have, not eliminating things because a President and AD want to pad the resume a bit.

Here's the link for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

What logo do you think was run on national television when The Zips were playing in back-to-back National Championship games? Here's a hint: It was the most exciting thing to see my team's logo (THE A-ROO) plastered all over the ESPN broadcast.

Hence the reason why I said AFTER we won the national championship. But facts be damned, Z is going away. We're going to continue having fun having no identity. Good luck attracting any current students to support the team when you're changing logos everyother year! #ThinkSmall!