In the last few weeks, I've read with mild amusement a series of editorials claiming that Dartmouth needs to "brand" its name so that it will have the same verbal resonance as Harvard, Princeton and Yale. I'm amused because almost every reason offered is either asinine, immature or incredibly pretentious.
The main rationale seems to be a perceived lack of name recognition. Mr. Reidy decries the "anger, humility and frustration" ("Our Fate Is What We Make It," July 3, 2003) he feels when others don't recognize the name "Dartmouth." Mr. Sehgal, on the other hand, writes that all students would be "thrilled" if we were ranked number one by U.S. News and World Report. "Our prestige would soar," he says, and "we'd be snottier," because we "have to tell people how good we are."("On Dartmouth Branding," May 23, 2003) These, apparently, are good things.
Honestly, I think their own words do more to damage their cause than anything I could write: "A son or daughter of Dartmouth should be able to make waves like a man or woman of Harvard does with the name-drop." Suffice to say, one would sincerely hope these individuals are not insecure enough that they need the self-absorbed praise and recognition of others.
On to their other, mildly tangible claims. Both write that there would be numerous financial advantages to this brand name, because alumni would give more. But most alumni don't give based solely on the name recognition of their alma mater. Harvard and Yale receive more funds because: a) they graduate more students, and b) their alumni end up in very lucrative businesses (most money, of course, coming from graduates of the medical and business schools, both of which dwarf Dartmouth's grad schools in size). Alumni donate because they loved their undergraduate experience, and they want others to share in the unique education Dartmouth offers. A massive realignment of Dartmouth's erstwhile image as a small, intimate place would decimate alumni contributions. Graduates would no longer view Dartmouth as the same place from which they graduated, but would instead see the shift as a direct affront to Dartmouth's endearing qualities.
The other more nebulous arguments include attracting better students, more diversity, more speakers visiting campus and more applications. Well the students at Dartmouth are consistently top-notch, as are the faculty, and anyone claiming the speakers coming to campus are not as impressive as any other school in the nation must have his eyes closed. As for applications, the sheer number matters very little (unless, of course, you put all your faith in the U.S. News and World Report), since those most persuaded to apply solely because of an image are probably not the students who come for the love of Dartmouth, or the unique academic opportunities the College offers.
Mr. Sehgal's is also hypocritical, as illustrated in his column from June 23, "On Dartmouth Branding, Part II." In this one, he addresses Tuck Business School, claiming that it needs to specialize in one specific area in order to compete with other schools like Harvard and Wharton. It's strange, because the College does just this: it offers a distinct image, a singular brand that is very well-known on the national level, especially in educational circles. Perhaps this is Mr. Reidy's and Mr. Sehgal's greatest failing; they completely ignore that Dartmouth has a very robust, well-known brand. It is the image of a small school in rural New Hampshire, that offers an unparalleled undergraduate experience, replete with opportunities sorely lacking at other schools. It is the charm of the White Mountains, the town of Hanover and everything else associated with the school that draw students. It is not, however, a brand that emphasizes something so shallow as name-recognition (which is a foolish point in and of itself; Dartmouth is a very renowned school).
One final point. Mr. Reidy wrote, "Dartmouth is an amazing university." Need I even point out that Dartmouth never has been, and hopefully never will be a university. Dartmouth is a College. Any shift toward university status -- like Harvard, Yale, or Princeton -- would destroy the advantage Dartmouth has as a preeminent college. Instead, Dartmouth would become a second-tier university, unable to compete with larger, more established research universities.
So Mr. Reidy and Mr. Sehgal, I hope, for your sake, you learn to make it through life without the effusive, self-absorbed praise you seem so eager to elicit. And I also hope you realize that Dartmouth's brand as it currently exists is far superior to your rather insipid vision of a little Princeton nestled in the Upper Valley.
