next »

[oldfullprof]

I don't think anyone minds a little marketing.  Hell, we're all grown ups.  I was even a hospital marketing director before I finished my sociology PhD.  I like to think I'm pretty good at internally and sometimes externally marketing things my colleagues and I are doing on campus.

But "branding culture" as it's sometimes practiced is irritating.  It's not just pointing out areas of excellence...it's frequently logo worship...real dogpoop, I think, and the opposite of what campuses should be doing.  Also, as an academic, I could really care less about whether the campus has wireless or a great exercise facility.  This stuff is, and should be perceived of as, eyewash.  Much of what might appeal from a branding point of view is extremely secondary to the academic mission.

This stuff is also, dare I say, profoundly anti-intellectual.  As was the article...   

[goldenapple]

I was similarly disgusted by the article about branding.  The following passage showed the level of thought the shaped the argument:

"Professors typically bridle at the very word "marketing," much less "advertising," and for good reason. Marketing and advertising are means to employ persuasion, not toward the good, but amorally, toward a commercial end that may be socially beneficial or harmful. As academic rhetoricians, which all of us are whatever our disciplines, we mean to alert students to the wiles of persuasion and employ language for the discovery of what is real.

But the reality is that we in academe exist in a competitive environment, and while we are painfully aware of certain excesses and compromises that the competition among us encourages . . .  we also are aware that the competition keeps us working to provide a better education for our students. And, finally, isn't there something upper-crust elitist and deadening in refusing to offer ourselves and our institutions in an outgoing manner?"

Note how he first characterizes marketing as "a means to employ persuasion" and only then adds that it is in order to sell something and make money. Then there is the typical, and as the previous poster rightly observes, anti-intellectual juxtaposition of whatever it is that professors do in the classroom and reality.  Professors are "rhetoriticians" whose job is to alert students to the existence of real things. What we do as professors, in speaking and writing and above all in thinking, isn't something real. We know that, because . . . well, because our author waves away what professors do and says that we must turn our backs on that and face reality instead. Reality turns out to be market competition and salesmanship.

Now, I think Drew is perfectly fine university. And what the president is probably thinking is something like, "We're as good as a lot of other universities, so why don't prospective students know that? And why should we be shy about telling them? We need students, they need a good school. Everybody wins."

Unfortunately, his essay suggests instead that universities ought to create a brand -- a logo, a slogan, a cute picture -- and attract students using that. This brand won't in any way represent the real qualities or values of the university, but students can discover that later. If they don't know how to evaluate a school or how to judge whether it's right for them, that is a secondary issue. The important thing is that they buy first and think later. Of course, the president suggests here, none of this will affect the university itself. It's just a matter of presentation.

But of course, it does affect the university.I've had students in my classes who were quite disappointed by their "college experience" because it wasn't as "fun" as they had anticipated. The dorms weren't as nice as they could be, the urban neighborhood wasn't always safe, the dining options left something to be desired, the professors gave too much homework, and ultimately they weren't going to have a diploma from Harvard or some other designer brand. Many of these students were receiving a very good education -- some against their will. But they weren't attending the university that they had seen in the brochures.

And the on-campus rock concerts (yes, we actually have those) that took place on spring afternoons were annoying and actually disrupted their classes. Those concerts were going to look awfully good in the photos for next year's brochure, but in the mean time, the students in my classes were beginning to realize that there was a difference between what they wanted as students and what they wanted as teen-aged customers.