THE spokespeople at Charles Sturt University (CSU) have not so far been convincing with their arguments to support a change of name.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Now we have a story about the University of Western Sydney’s experience with a name change (Western Advocate, January 17).
Their case for change is about as woolly-headed as CSU’s.
Such as “rebranding reaffirmed our position as a world-class university”.
Really? How are you able to evaluate such a claim? More importantly, what does it mean?
And then “the change was just one element” … “a significant investment in the student experience”.
They must have fished deeply into the barrel of spin to think that one up.
Are they really serious in saying that a change of name would make a difference as to how students think about the name of their uni?
To think that people are being paid high salaries from taxpayers to write such meaningless nonsense.
READ MORE:
If the reasons advanced so far are the best the administrators at CSU can present for a change of name, one has to wonder about what else goes on that they have not announced to the community.
I think a spot of gardening leave would be in order for the thinkers.
One must also hope that the PR departments of the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard are not reading this stuff otherwise they might end up getting some funny ideas.
I note that Oxford (founded in 1326), Cambridge (founded in 1209) and Harvard (founded more recently in 1636) haven’t fared too badly with the same names.
I doubt that their past and present students would relish the thought of a change.
Perhaps therein lies the lesson for today.
