THE rationale offered so far to rename Charles Sturt University does not appear to have met the high standard of research that one would expect from an academic institution (“CSU mulls name change”, January 5).
What on earth is meant by “a refresh for our brand”? Could it be the same as soap powder, where the makers need to change the name/perfume in order to persuade the public to buy more? If CSU has not established itself in 30 years, plus that which it inherited from Mitchell College of Advanced Education, and Bathurst Teachers’ College, then it is time it gave the game away.
Similarly, “….to ensure we speak clearly and consistently to our students, etc”. Who writes this stuff? If the university hasn’t been speaking clearly for the last 30 years-plus, it’s time it employed somebody who can. And so it goes on.
If this is the case for change, then I give it 3/10 (or, in uni-speak, FF), to be rewritten with comment “must do better if you expect to pass public scrutiny”.
The public constantly hears about the shortage of funds for universities. CSU can’t be that badly off if it can afford to spend the high cost of a change (refer to costs incurred in the Mitchell College/CSU changeover, add cost of inflation over 30 years).
How can anybody realistically assess how a change of name will affect ‘the market’? Sounds like codswallop. If the university is desperate to spend money, one avenue would be the creation of scholarships for tuition/accommodation. That would appeal to the market, and maintain the brand, whatever that might be.
As for Mr Williams’ comments about Charles Sturt, I suggest he conduct more research (eg, read a book) to find out about Sturt. Let’s be realistic, history is history. No amount of lamentation about the past will undo it. Live with it, in the same way as some other countries in centuries past have done (notable examples: Britain, the USA, Canada, whose nations have since prospered over hundreds of years).
As for suggesting a change of name for the university will help reconciliation, what evidence has been produced to support that argument? I don’t think Mr Williams has made a case. If anything, I suspect he may have damaged it. Thus, his assignment suffers the same fate as that submitted by the university. It is marked accordingly, and returned for resubmission.