Middle Guy is doing his college applications right now, and mostly plans on going to a University of California campus, probably Berkeley or San Diego. So I’m watching news from the university system with some interest; particularly as it comes to student fees – which increased 14% this year.
They’re still good value, as U.C. runs one of the best university systems in the world. It should be better, and public policy would be served by making it better and adding to the social capital of our state, except for two problems: the state government is too broke to spend the money it should on improving the quality of the education there and broadening the availability of that education to students whose parents – unlike me – don’t have the means to send them there.
That’s the liberal argument.
Then there’s a conservative argument: that the university bleeds the money it does get through bureaucratic waste and inefficiency.
Go check out the home page for UCLA. Note the logo in the upper left corner? The one that says “UCLA?” That’s the new campus-wide logo.
The university administration spent $98,000 to get that logo – a slightly italicized Helvetica font “UCLA.” They paid this sum to Keith Bright Strategic Design.
The Daily Bruin, the student newspaper, has a good column on it:
“We did about 1,500 different explorations on UCLA,” said Keith Bright, a UCLA alumnus. “Out of that, we did probably 20 or 30 different identities and we picked out of those. Then we put them on various things and that got it down to six to four (designs) and this is the one that survived.”
UCLA could have paid me $50 and I could have typed out “UCLA” in Helvetica font, italicized it and it would’ve been a done deal. Here, I’ll try it: UCLA.
That looks pretty good, doesn’t it?
The logo will find its way onto the letterhead of every piece of UCLA stationary, though the athletic department will continue to use its famed cursive script. The logo, in conjunction with the university’s new commercial and the redesign of the UCLA Web site, signifies a push to re-image UCLA.
At a total cost of about $168,000.
Yeah, $168,000 is a drop in the bucket, and ‘branding’ UCLA isn’t a bad thing to do.
But UCLA has a strong brand, and right now, in an era when student aid, research grants, and budgets for facilities and personnel are so tight – is this really what we need to be spending $100,000 on?
That’s basically the full cost of sending one student to school for four years. Or tuition waivers for 40 students for a year.
One thing that defines liberals is a willingness to spend public money to build social capital – through infrastructure, better education, or other means.
But one thing that defines smart liberals is an insistence that the money be spent wisely, and in pursuit of the actual goals being sought.
It’s going to get worse instead of better.
The current perception of academia as running the philosophical gamut from leftist Democrat to full-bore revolutionary Marxist-Leninist is going to make it hard for centrist and conservative legislators to make a case for supporting the Universities. The fact that the perception is largely true means that even if the support is there the funds may not be used for the purpose intended, making the legislators more reluctant to spend.
Regards,
Ric Locke
So whose brother-in-law is he?
Money is a *SMALL* part of the problem. The big problem is the incompetent Folk on the Regents the last few years.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
If your argument is founded upon “bureaucratic waste and inefficiency”, then your condemnation of the university system would be better applied to the US government(note that the DoD Inspector General and the GAO have stated that the DoD cannot adequately account for billions of mis-allocated dollars.)
See, it is not only “liberal” institutions that are wasteful.
Forget the liberal versus conservative propaganda. The real issue is the “failed” policies of US institutions.
There are people across the gap, good hard working people who have worked hard to get their children to college. Speak to them, communicate, reaching one of them could bring another 1000.
I can heartily recommend Cal (there’s only one Cal and it’s in Berkeley). I graduated in ’87; worked hard, got good grades and had lots and lots of fun. Even though many of the faculty and student body lean hard left, independent thinking and scholarship is much more important there than political correctness. Gaudeamus igitur!
Don’t overlook UCSB. Especially if the kid’s thinking engineering science. Very-undergrad-friendly science depts and they get the kids through in four years. Sent middle daughter there while fist and third went to Cal – a tougher place for science / engineering undergrads
The brand found here is *SO* much better.
http://www.usc.com
😛 LOL
(Class ’95)
It’s been several decades since I was enrolled at UCSD. I still live in the area and most heartily do NOT recommend that campus.
I think DoubleStandard’s arguement should be addressed, this is small potatoes compared to the Boeing scandal. Howabout a modern-day Truman commission, A.L., or would that threaten GOP fundraising too much?
But as far as UCLA goes, I’d argee that $168,000 is a “drop in the bucket” when you’re branding a multi-billion dollar entity that relies on its identity to stay competative and recieve grants.
Schools need marketing, too. This is just a really poor example of the trade.
Happily – or unhappily – SAO, a modern Truman commission would impact both parties pretty much equally. They jostle for places at the trough, but almost all of them sup there.
A.L.
You’re probably right, but let’s have one anyways.
I would recommend UCSD as an ideal campus in Califonia, along with Berkeley and Stanford.