The Name Game

There are issues that trouble communications people and marketing people that seem ridiculous to other people. I know this because I am a communications person and things have troubled me that any number of people on campus—faculty, student affairs personnel, alumni, faculty—have considering unimportant. Among these things are names. That right: names of things like buildings and schools and departments and offices. To be clear, I am talking about nomenclature and either the lack of it or the parallelism of it. 

Parallelism is at the heart of Alex Beam's complaint about the Kennedy School (old nomenclature) trying to align itself with the other professional schools of Harvard that are known, colloquially as the Business School and the Law School and on paper as HBS and HLS. The Kennedy School (KSG), apparently tired of being confused with the Kennedy Center and the Kennedy Library, decided to opt for parallelism (which would make communicators happy) and become HKS. It is not completely parallel, of course—that would require it to be HGS. But nobody could stand the Harvard Government School, even if it was just initials. Still, HKS does as Beam puts it, locate the school within the sphere of the other schools. For a university struggling to pull together, even as each tub is on its own bottom, such a move is symbolically important. All changes in nomenclature are awkward at the beginning. They feel funny on the mouth but, after several years pass and new students come along who don't know it any other way arrive, it begins to feel less strange. That is why branding and re-branding works. Because we are capable of moving on. And if a school at Harvard is trying to do that well, we should applaud it. Beam harkens back to the last branding effort at the Kennedy School (see, I'm not there yet) in 1981 as if to say, "This is happening too soon, people, they are frittering away over there, branding and re-branding." Not really. Twenty-five years is a pretty good run on a brand and let's get real. They aren't really re-branding. They are just changing nomenclature.

Tulane Makes Marketing Clear

Tulane University has a proved a very, very, very important marketing principle. There was a story on the front page of the Globe today, about how New Englanders have helped to aid in its renaissance. There were many moments during Hurricane Katrina and immediately in its aftermath that the administrators of the University must have wondered what would become of their school. Would students from across the nation ever come back to New Orleans? What had previously been a huge selling point—access to the culture of a great Southern town—seemed perhaps all but lost.

But that is not what happened. Tulane is not only thriving; it is turning away applicants in droves. Why? Because young men and women, captivated by the opportunity to make a difference in a place that needed them desperately, have shown up. Some came first as part of high school and religious groups and got to know the city; some wanted to be in a place where they could contribute. So they came and found solid academics, Southern hospitality, and way to feel good about themselves.

No high-priced consultants needed, no fancy viewbooks, no extreme measures. Why? Because when you have what people want, they come. They are pulled, not pushed. Tulane did not have wheedle or convince to struggle with its message because the message was clear and real. Any school that figures out pull and not push will also have no problems with marketing or messages. I'm not saying its easy. I'm just saying it works.

This is Also News...Good News.

Buried deep in the Business section, C3, today, slightly above the fold, comes this modest headline: Congress to look at college endowments. Well, it seems that Congress has been looking at some endowments for awhile now. The message is simple: some people in Congress think that elite US universities with multi-billion dolloar endowments should spend some of their money, say as much as private foundations must do to keep their nonprofit status. Legislation may be more directive and expect such institutions to help students directly, such as by providing more aid or or by creating limits on endowments as colleges raise tuitions beyond certain limits.

Here is the thing: Harvard, Yale—the two universities mentioned in the article—and any others that fall into the category should not have to be told anything by Congress or forced into doing the right thing through legislation. They should do what Princeton is doing and pay for the students' tuition.They should pick up the tab for students who want to teach or teach piano or edit books. How many billions do you need to run a university? What can you do with 1 billion? Let the legislators focus on health care or other issues. We should be able to monitor the ethics of of an embarrassment of riches ourselves.

Tufts Leads the Way

Now this is worthy of a front page story. Tufts University is, according to the Boston Globe, "offering graduates an unusual deal: Take a job as a public school teacher or social worker, or work for any nonprofit, and the university will help pay off their college loans for years to come." The article points out that while some law and medical schools have offered similar incentives this effort is unprecedented in its promotion of public service careers, for encouraging students in all majors, and for influencing students before they accept their first job.

The article goes on to describe the details and that Tufts does not intend to cover the entire debt. However, the plan is well thought out and couldn't be more important, exciting, impressive, and needed. This is true leadership. Tufts decision addresses the issue of crippling debt and the need for students to follow their passions, not just their pocketbooks. The decision speaks to higher education's purpose of serving society by producing educated leaders in all sectors, who in turn will serve as models and mentors for future generations of students. Other colleges and universities, especially the ones with healthy endowments, should follow suit. Students should choose Tufts for this very reason and parents and alumni should give generously to support such inspired leadership.

Why is this News?

September was relatively quiet as colleges and universities kept their heads down and let the students and faculty roll on in. Virginia Tech is testing out sirens and judging by my admissions counseling business the applications frenzy is well underway for the class of 2012. So I guess there really isn't any news for the Globe readership to chew on save for the editorial decision to run a story on Page One that the UMass Alumni Association isn't such a hot commodity. I get that UMass, as with many state schools, is late to the fundraising ball and, thus, late to develop their alumni's interest in the school post commencement. I just don't get why it is front page news or even news at all. It is not like alumni associations boast memberships of 80 to 90 percent of its graduates. Indeed, as the article points out, "the national average among 85 universities surveyed last year is a membership rate of 18 percent, but that figure is higher at many public state universities." How much higher? Penn State claims 34 percent.

Okay. So UMass needs to do a better job with their current students to ensure that they see themselves as part of a life-long community. So UMass needs to make up for years of neglect. Here is my question. Why is the state of the alumni association front page news?

Why is the Globe trying to embarrass UMass?

Virgina Tech, Fallout

The report from the panel appointed by the Governor in Virginia was released and called "scathing" by the New York Times reporter in the Globe of August 31. At issue, as predicted in this blog months ago, was the failure of the administration to cancel classes after the first two shootings. The President, however, now in the hot seat, is defending himself. Probably the first step toward eventual resignation. He still believes he did the right thing, "based on what [we] knew at the time. You have to understand how fast things were occurring"

I think the panel did understand how fast events were occurring and further understood that when two students are shot dead no matter what else is occurring you do not conduct business as usual. You freeze the moment in as many ways as you can to contain the unknown.

I appreciate that Virginia Tech administrators thought all the damage was done and that the perpetrator was off campus. But they were wrong. The campus police didn't have anyone in custody or admitting to the crimes; they had two dead people. It was the time to think the worst. It was the time for the director of communications to speak up and bring truth to power. It was the time for the director of public safety to speak up. It was the time for extreme caution. But instead there a hope for the best. Thishas been seen as a lapse in judgment because it was a career-moment judgment call.

So President Steger would be better served saying that in hindsight, yes, he should have closed the school. He should graciously see it the other way. And if the confidence of the trustees and faculty in him as a result of this incorrect call is so severely undermined that he will, with regret, step aside.

President Steger says the assailant, Cho, was solely to blame. Other reports have called for better systems to monitor the behavior of the mentally ill on campus. Invariably there are discussions about rights to privacy versus the role of the college in loco parentis. This is all well and good for future planning. But the President is simply not on safe ground here. It comes back to this. Would lives have been spared if classes had been cancelled? What would have happened if Cho had been frustrated in his ability to get into Norris Hall or found no one there when he arrived? The panel seems to think there could have been a better outcome; at the least the President's behavior would have passed muster. It is not that the President is to blame for the murders. It is that perhaps something, rather than no thing, should have been done.

The article continues with a comment by Larry Hincker, a university spokesperson, who says, in response to a suggestion in the report that the institution adopt key cards for most of the buildings, that the school would have to "think carefully" about such a change because it would influence the way people interact on campus. I can only hope this comment was taken out of context. Mr. Hincker needed to express his gratitude to the panel for highlighting those areas that would make his campus a safer place. He needs to acknowledge that while such changes might feel uncomfortable he has no doubt that they would make Virginia Tech a more secure campus. Which, by the way, right now, for Virginia Tech administrators, is Job #1.

A Cruel Time For College Applicants

I wish I could have more sympathy for Webster T. Trenchard's sympathy for the college applicant. In his August 23 op-ed in the Boston Globe he takes on one inconsistency in the college application process that he finds particularly problematic. Of all the issues there are, I'm afraid Mr. Trenchard's point is just not that strong and can be easily explained away.

He describes a common situation. Prospective students who visit college campuses or read the literature are told that SAT scores fall in a range and that institutions are looking for diversity and a complex suite of attributes that are indescribable by simply looking at grades and scores. Students are encouraged to apply because "you'll never know." Cynicism is put aside, and students and parents may pin their hopes often on a dream and not on their reality. Then comes the acceptances, when it appears as if grades and scores matter very much. Expansive welcomes turn into explanations of how students just weren't competitive in the pool.

Mr. Trenchard wisely understands that the admissions officers operate in a competitive environment themselves and are more than encouraged to bring in the most number of applicants as possible. After all, the more applicants who apply and are rejected, the more selective the institution appears in the all-important college ranking systems. He just doesn't want parents and students to get their hopes up and he feels their pain. He feels there is a discrepancy between the position of the admissions officers when they are selling and when they are accepting.

I would suggest to Mr. Trenchard that the admissions staff feel no such discrepancy and not only to do they believe that anything is possible during the admissions process but they have acceptances to back it up. College admissions offices are still reading individual applications and giving individual consideration to applicants. It is true that a student whose SATs and grades are radically below those required of an institution's stated standards cannot expect an offer of admission just because he or she has won an Olympic medal or brought peace to the Middle East. But where the student is within range or at the low end, such a student has a chance for consideration. And that is what the admissions officers mean: that kids have a chance. Maybe not your kid, but some kid. Further, no student is accepted in a vaccum. Each is indeed part of a cohort of applications against which he or she is compared. Admissions officers are creating a class. That is why a student with identical scores and grades from different coasts will get a different response to an Eastern school. Yet both sets of parents heard the same marketing pitch and both students had the same "chance." I'm not saying it is fair. I'm not sure the admissions staff is saying it is fair either.

So it has always made sense for students to apply to some schools from which acceptance seems likely, the proverbial "safety" schools and some which are a reach. It is imperative for parents and guidance counselors to understand that the process is fraught with uncertainly now precisely because the pool is so competitive and students are being encouraged to set their sights higher. But I have to say: you just never know. My cousin was accepted to Tufts University, notoriously high-faluting in its admission policy, and Oberlin and rejected from Wesleyan. Why? In another case, a male student from California was admitted to Wesleyan; a similar female student with superior grades from Massachusetts was rejected. We found out it it was a demographic decision: Wesleyan wanted men from California.

So parents can take the admissions officers at their word while understanding that it might not work that way for their child at that particular moment in time.