UA rebranding

[zippy5]

The Purdue situation appears to be different from the others with a single college within the university being given the polytechnic name rather than the whole university. Similarly, Virginia Tech is different in being formally known as Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. I suppose this all fits in with the fact that there is no hard and fast definition of a polytechnic university that perfectly fits all.

Since an institute is not necessarily a university, institute should never be considered for use in any description of UA, which needs to be known as a state university. Americans have their own take on the English language, which of course derives from England, so the confusion of polytechnic with technical, technology, technological, etc., is understandable. Going strictly by American dictionaries, the primary definition of poly is a prefix meaning "many" and the primary definition of technic is "technique." So a literal American translation of polytechnic should clearly be many techniques.

By the way it turns out that Texas Tech is irrelevant to the conversation as it has never in its history been called a polytechnic anything but began life as Texas Technological College. I'm already beginning to feel a little smarter after studying up more on the subject.

Just wait til word gets out that Texas Tech is only interested in ONE techonology!

[skip-zip]

So, for those keeping score, I think this is where we stand.

Virginia Tech - Long standing Polytechnic University (Impossible to compare our situation to theirs)

Purdue - Will put a Polytechnic designation on their TECH SCHOOL ONLY (this surely won't help the tide of opinion in Akron)

However, there's still a Silver Lining.

Wisconsin-Stout and Washington State Tri-Cities are identified as our companions so far in this cause.....two completely unknown branch schools with a COMBINED enrollment of less than 10K between the two of them, and likewise nowhere close to the diversity of academic disciplines among their enrollees compared to Akron.

I guess we're going to be the Major Pioneer of something here, good or bad.

[Dave in Green]

Heck, in 1925 UA was a Major Pioneer in boldly naming its athletic teams after rubber overshoes. Polytechnic is a walk in the park compared to the pioneering spirit UA displayed in adopting the name Zippers.

[skip-zip]

Very true, Dave.

And back then, we were the little "Washington State Tri-Cities" of the college world. So, nobody probably cared much about the risk/consequences.

[Dave in Green]

Skip, as I posted earlier in this thread, Governor Kasich has publicly criticized Ohio universities for not having a culture of risk-taking. Ohio's Governor appoints members to the UA Board of Trustees, the university's governing body. Follow the chain of command and you begin to understand why UA is becoming more willing to take risks. The important consideration is that any risks taken be well planned to produce positive consequences and not done recklessly.

[skip-zip]

Dave, Again, I wish I had a Nickel for every failed marketing strategy I've witnessed in my career.

It seems as if you are at least somewhat comforted because certain considerations were taken. And that's fine. But, everyone who produces these plans believes at the time that they were "well-planned to produce positive consequences".

For example, I'm sure Purdue feels that designating ONLY the TECH SCHOOL was the right move. Different data maybe? Who is right? Nobody knows.

I'm just calling it like I see it at this point. And like I've pointed out, the model for "re-labeling" yourself with this kind of across-the-board designation, by any diverse school of any kind of size, is nonexistent.

[Dr Z]

Heck, in 1925 UA was a Major Pioneer in boldly naming its athletic teams after rubber overshoes. Polytechnic is a walk in the park compared to the pioneering spirit UA displayed in adopting the name Zippers.

Students, faculty, and alumni had a contest to choose a nickname for the university's athletic teams. I don't believe that is the case this time around.

[zen]

Students, faculty, and alumni had a contest to choose a nickname for the university's athletic teams. I don't believe that is the case this time around.

BOOM!

That just got hit out of the park

[a-zip]

BOOM!

That just got hit out of the park

So you think students, faculty and alumni should make strategic decisions on the direction of the University?

[a-zip]

Dave, Again, I wish I had a Nickel for every failed marketing strategy I've witnessed in my career.

It seems as if you are at least somewhat comforted because certain considerations were taken. And that's fine. But, everyone who produces these plans believes at the time that they were "well-planned to produce positive consequences".

For example, I'm sure Purdue feels that designating ONLY the TECH SCHOOL was the right move. Different data maybe? Who is right? Nobody knows.

I'm just calling it like I see it at this point. And like I've pointed out, the model for "re-labeling" yourself with this kind of across-the-board designation, by any diverse school of any kind of size, is nonexistent.

I don't think because there have been marketing strategies that have failed is a reason to do nothing. There have also been marketing strategies that have been wildly successful. I would also like to say that what UA is doing is much more than a marketing strategy. It is a fundamental change in delivering higher education and change to adapt to the financial concerns all schools are facing. Hopefully soon, we will hear more about the strategy and the reasons for it.

[Dave in Green]

This one caused a commotion, too.

The evolution of Zippy, The University of Akron’s mascot, began when the student council, under president Dave Frye and committee for a mascot chairman Bob Savoy (an All-American diver for UA), decided the University needed a mascot.

“Zippy” the kangaroo was officially declared UA’s mascot on May 1, 1953.

The selection of the kangaroo for a mascot brought forth the wrath of The Buchtelite and the Akron Beacon Journal as the name was chosen without the benefit of a campus-wide vote. There was support for the new mascot with defenders saying, “the kangaroo is fast, agile, and powerful with undying determination – all the necessary qualities of an athlete.”

It is difficult to imagine there was dissent back then seeing as how Zippy is one of, if not the, most beloved symbols of the University.

[a-zip]

AKRON Football - WE ARE IN THE TOP 10…..#1 IN OHIO!!!!

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/6/1/8678633/CHIPOTLE-RANKINGS

[zen]

So you think students, faculty and alumni should make strategic decisions on the direction of the University?

Yeah, the point was that they were just hit with it. Perhaps it shouldn't be fully in the hands of the people who have paid or are paying and working there, but the point made earlier about just foisting it on them from out from the clandestine murk of leadership was slammed home when someone walked into commenting on the naming of the mascot which appears to have been a much more transparent process, not to mention more democratic.

AKRON Football - WE ARE IN THE TOP 10…..#1 IN OHIO!!!!

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/6/1/8678633/CHIPOTLE-RANKINGS

That's the one to hang your hat on.

I'm sure Cardale really is transferring now.

[Dave in Green]

The democratic process in 1925 produced a name (Zippers) for UA athletic teams synonymous with BFGoodrich galoshes. Zippers had to be changed after it became embarrassingly obvious that the term came to mind every time a man stepped up to a urinal. There was no democratic process in 1950 when AD Red Cochrane autocratically changed the official name from Zippers to Zips.

[a-zip]

The democratic process in 1925 produced a name (Zippers) for UA athletic teams synonymous with BFGoodrich galoshes. Zippers had to be changed after it became embarrassingly obvious that the term came to mind every time a man stepped up to a urinal. There was no democratic process in 1950 when AD Red Cochrane autocratically changed the official name from Zippers to Zips.

RED DID THAT WITHOUT INVOLVING EVERYONE!!!! BLASPHEMY!! LOL

[K92]

The democratic process in 1925 produced a name (Zippers) for UA athletic teams synonymous with BFGoodrich galoshes. Zippers had to be changed after it became embarrassingly obvious that the term came to mind every time a man stepped up to a urinal. There was no democratic process in 1950 when AD Red Cochrane autocratically changed the official name from Zippers to Zips.

Yeah, but back then nobody. . .cared. . .about. . .Oh, never mind!

[a-zip]

Well, the Cleveland Cavaliers have a chance to bring NEO their first championship in…..I don't know….forever? Lead by Akron's own Lebron James….Anybody excited or have anything good to say? The University of Akron put out a post with Lebron giving Zippy a bump….nice move (cost effective).

[Zip_ME87]

Although I was upset about the way LeBron left for Miami (had the right to go, but didn't care for announcement on espn), he grew a lot from the experience, and I'm very proud the way he has led the Cavaliers this season. Great player. Great man. Very classy. I'd love to see him be responsible for bringing the NBA Championship to Ohio.

[LZIp]

Well, the Cleveland Cavaliers have a chance to bring NEO their first championship in…..I don't know….forever? Lead by Akron's own Lebron James….Anybody excited or have anything good to say? The University of Akron put out a post with Lebron giving Zippy a bump….nice move (cost effective).

The loss of Kyrie is depressing. If there is any type of silver lining, its that we have some experience playing without him in the ECF against the Hawks, and it seemed to work out well. I wouldn't bet against the Warriors at this point though.

[skip-zip]

Of course, I've always thought about the 51 years as such a long time without a title when you have 3 major sports teams, but someone really put it in perspective yesterday when they said that the Bay Area of Calif. has had 16 TITLES in that same period of time.

I love that the U of A is using this situation, and used a picture of LeBron with Zippy to make an Akron connection. Now there's a #TeamOhio connection that makes sense for us.

[Zip_ME87]

Of course, I've always thought about the 51 years as such a long time without a title when you have 3 major sports teams, but someone really put it in perspective yesterday when they said that the Bay Area of Calif. has had 16 TITLES in that same period of time.

I love that the U of A is using this situation, and used a picture of LeBron with Zippy to make an Akron connection. Now there's a #TeamOhio connection that makes sense for us.

Totally agree. With the Cavs being the only NBA team in Ohio. It would truly be an Ohio championship, not just Cleveland or NEO. #TeamOhio

[zip-O-matic]

I've been following this debate and wanted to chime in. It's a very pivotal time for Akron, and I'm not opposed to the renaming if it's part of a more holistic approach at improvements. What I have a problem with is this notion that following the Arizona State model is some magic path to success and increased relevance. Arizona State has become something of a joke and a diploma mill. Their increased size hasn't done anything towards making them more competitive with the U of Arizona. Size alone will not bring quality. OSU and Minnesota have been larger than Michigan for generations, but it's never been some magic formula for either school to equal or surpass Michigan in stature. Hell, MSU is considerably larger than UM, but it doesn't translate into MSU being an equal much less assuming the "flagship" mantle. And MSU is a university with a billion dollar endowment and AAU membership. Quality (and the financial resources that fuel it) competes with quality, not size. Here's an interesting and very thoughtful discussion on the Texas A&M board about their new Chancellor's goal to become an 80K undergraduate diploma mill. There are a lot of direct comparisons to Arizona State, and nobody is looking at that as a positive development.

http://texags.com/forums/5/topics/2624036/1

And here are some numbers relating to the economic resources of a merged NEO megacampus, and how it would compare with the rest of the state.

Endowment per student (undergrad and grad) at main campus

OSU: $61,000

UC: $36,000

Miami: $32,000

OU: $16,776

Akron: $8,373

Now add Can't State ($3695) and the amount for the combined campuses is $5615. You have a very large and very poor university. Throw in YSU and CSU and you add another 32,000 students with another $250M (shocked that YSU is equal to UA) in endowment, so the combined megacampus has an endowment/student of $5852--A third of OU, a sixth of Miami or UC and less than a tenth of OSU. Akron becomes less competitive from a financial resources standpoint through a merger.

Is the merged campus going to do better at fundraising from alumni? Probably worse in the short run as many are alienated by the changes. Is an 88K megacampus going to suddenly start attracting National Academy level faculty and more, higher stature research. Better students? The experience of ASU would say no. Their rush to become a 90K campus hasn't moved them up in rankings. It hasn't made them the campus of choice for the state's top 10% students vis-a-vis the U of Arizona; their recent freshman class profiles are about the same as Cincinnati's. And it certainly hasn't done anything to move them up into the upper echelon of PAC 10 research universities with the California schools and Washington. They haven't been accepted into the AAU and most likely will never be accepted into the AAU. Their endowment/student is worse than OU's and will get worse as they grow towards their goal of 90K students--and money is what buys quality whether it's an endowed professorship or a scholarship to keep that kid with the 32 ACT from leaving the state. Consider too that--unlike Cincinnati--the Cleveland political and business establishment has always been very comfortable with OSU assuming the state "flagship" role while focusing locally on Case and the Cleveland Clinic. This notion that the NEO establishment will rally around the merged universities in a manner that they have NEVER done for the individual universities is a lot of wishful thinking.

I am actually somebody that believes it was stupid public policy to have saved Akron as a stand-alone campus in the late 60s. It should have been merged with Can't State at the time. If that had been done, we very well might have something today similar to UC, but that ship sailed long ago. Today, there is fifty years of history of Akron as an independent public university. And while it faces serious problems and challenges, I am very skeptical that forming some merged 88K student diploma mill is the answer.

[Dr Z]

The loss of Kyrie is depressing.

Yeah I know what you mean, I was really looking forward to some kind of honey nut cherrios-type comment or better, since Klay Thompson is dating Kyrie's ex. Now that scenario is shot.

[LZIp]

I've been following this debate and wanted to chime in. It's a very pivotal time for Akron, and I'm not opposed to the renaming if it's part of a more holistic approach at improvements. What I have a problem with is this notion that following the Arizona State model is some magic path to success and increased relevance. Arizona State has become something of a joke and a diploma mill. Their increased size hasn't done anything towards making them more competitive with the U of Arizona. Size alone will not bring quality. OSU and Minnesota have been larger than Michigan for generations, but it's never been some magic formula for either school to equal or surpass Michigan in stature. Hell, MSU is considerably larger than UM, but it doesn't translate into MSU being an equal much less assuming the "flagship" mantle. And MSU is a university with a billion dollar endowment and AAU membership. Quality (and the financial resources that fuel it) competes with quality, not size. Here's an interesting and very thoughtful discussion on the Texas A&M board about their new Chancellor's goal to become an 80K undergraduate diploma mill. There are a lot of direct comparisons to Arizona State, and nobody is looking at that as a positive development.

http://texags.com/forums/5/topics/2624036/1

And here are some numbers relating to the economic resources of a merged NEO megacampus, and how it would compare with the rest of the state.

Endowment per student (undergrad and grad) at main campus

OSU: $61,000

UC: $36,000

Miami: $32,000

OU: $16,776

Akron: $8,373

Now add Can't State ($3695) and the amount for the combined campuses is $5615. You have a very large and very poor university. Throw in YSU and CSU and you add another 32,000 students with another $250M (shocked that YSU is equal to UA) in endowment, so the combined megacampus has an endowment/student of $5852--A third of OU, a sixth of Miami or UC and less than a tenth of OSU. Akron becomes less competitive from a financial resources standpoint through a merger.

Is the merged campus going to do better at fundraising from alumni? Probably worse in the short run as many are alienated by the changes. Is an 88K megacampus going to suddenly start attracting National Academy level faculty and more, higher stature research. Better students? The experience of ASU would say no. Their rush to become a 90K campus hasn't moved them up in rankings. It hasn't made them the campus of choice for the state's top 10% students vis-a-vis the U of Arizona; their recent freshman class profiles are about the same as Cincinnati's. And it certainly hasn't done anything to move them up into the upper echelon of PAC 10 research universities with the California schools and Washington. They haven't been accepted into the AAU and most likely will never be accepted into the AAU. Their endowment/student is worse than OU's and will get worse as they grow towards their goal of 90K students--and money is what buys quality whether it's an endowed professorship or a scholarship to keep that kid with the 32 ACT from leaving the state. Consider too that--unlike Cincinnati--the Cleveland political and business establishment has always been very comfortable with OSU assuming the state "flagship" role while focusing locally on Case and the Cleveland Clinic. This notion that the NEO establishment will rally around the merged universities in a manner that they have NEVER done for the individual universities is a lot of wishful thinking.

I am actually somebody that believes it was stupid public policy to have saved Akron as a stand-alone campus in the late 60s. It should have been merged with Can't State at the time. If that had been done, we very well might have something today similar to UC, but that ship sailed long ago. Today, there is fifty years of history of Akron as an independent public university. And while it faces serious problems and challenges, I am very skeptical that forming some merged 88K student diploma mill is the answer.

Great points. Thanks for sharing.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Some interesting points zip-o-matic. I wasn't trying to conflate what ASU has been doing with my frequently floated idea of merging UA and Can't. Two different things, but ASU's is instructive in a couple of ways.

All the rankings are based on exclusion-- who you don't let in. What ASU has done the past decade is tried to remain inclusive while also driving quality. The reality is that the rankings won't ever totally reflect the quality as long as they are based on exclusion. It's definitely not a 'diploma mill', has some top tier programs (see recent Fast Company for their ebola work or their work on the Mars explorer, etc.), and as their president says, the honors school has a better student quality profile and is larger than his prior school Columbia, but because it's inside a much larger U, doesn't get recognized.

Frankly, I put more weight in Starbucks (and soon Whole Foods) choosing them than the exclusion-based rankings, which I don't think mean much of anything and in the end are terribly distorting. I know I got a great education at UA regardless of where it is ranked.

I don't agree that looking at endowment per student is the right metric-- it is the size of the endowment that matters (stop snickering) and a combined UA-Can't-YSU-CSU would be close to $600M (for comparison Miami is $570M).

That larger size and scale does attract more stature and attention, particularly if you can't, or choose not to play, the "exclusion" game. The trajectory of ASU-- evidenced by the increase in funded research there or the validation by Starbucks-- demonstrates that scales doesn't have to come at the cost of quality.

I think your last paragraph is correct-- it probably shouldn't have been this way in the first place. I was thinking earlier about how ridiculously short-sighted it was to create NEOUCOM and then stick in Rootstown. It should have been built between UA and Akron City, incorporating City.

I don't agree it's too late to change it and ultimately benefit from creating a larger-than-UC like institution. One of NEO's huge issues has been it's lack of regional thinking and planning. A combination of these institutions would directly address this, creating something that actually unified the region. It stands to reason that doing that would likely unlock more support from the people and businesses in the region.