<p>Is it common or acceptable now for colleges to display on their backdrop, for, say, an athletic news conference (or any other type), not only the college name, seal or logo -- all of which are perfectly appropriate -- but also that of a (what appears to be) corporate sponsor?</p>
<p>I have seen instances of this and I think it is appalling. Have others seen it too? How is that rationalized? Perhaps it only happens in the athletic sphere. If so, it not only bolsters the indictment of professionalism in college sports but also introduces an odious commercial element to it. </p>
<p>I am all for sports in college as they are an important outlet and help form the whole experience of what college should be -- but it is thoroughly revolting to see that some, for profit, corporation's name is boldly placed alongside that of an institution of learning -- which is or should be non-profit!!</p>
<p>What's wrong with it? Companies buy sponsorships of a football season etc. It's not a ton of money and they have no input or anything. It just means their logo appears in the stadium and, in some cases, at news conferences.</p>
<p>"What's wrong with it?"?! How about a conflict of interest for starters. What is a university or college's purported mission if not the study and dissemination of truth and knowledge? What is a corporation's purpose? -- to make money. Whether that be by good, bad or indifferent products is (as has been shown repeatedly and will continue to be shown) beside the point of making a profit -- which is a corporation's ultimate good.</p>
<p>The idea that a college would prostitute itself by serving as just another billboard for the business world is the antithesis of what education should be about. I do not care how much money a company "gives", it has no right to share billing with the college that benefits from it. Let them have their 'Walmart Professor of Aesthetics' (oh, the irony...). That is acceptable, but unless a corporation actually has a controlling interest in a college (of course, then it would hardly be worthy of the name) it has no business being displayed on the college backdrop.</p>
<p>It's athletics. Sponsors abound! Coke or Pepsi gets an "exclusive" in the stadium. So what. If a company wants to increase its brand awareness by sponsoring a football season, it does absolutely nothing to harm the integrity of the institution. It brings in needed revenue for some of these institutions. I guess you would rather have your tuition go up or get an extra "athletic" assessment??</p>
<p>It's UNSEEMLY to allow the sponsor to be as prominently displayed as the school. I am fully aware that athletics has sponsors and let them -- but that is not the point.</p>
<p>^^ It IS the point. You were talking about athletic news conferences. I have not seen a corporate logo associated with a university other than in an athletic context. Perhaps there are joint research projects, too.</p>
<p>I don't care what is being sponsored. What right does a for-profit business have to advertise its name on a not-for-profit premises (college campus)?</p>
<p>Furthermore, if you are saying it is okay because it's only used for athletics then you are belittling the overall importance of including athletics as part of the college experience.</p>
<p>Ps. - I never addressed you as MY Mommy, but if you WANT to be my mommy in this day and age it could probably be arranged...although I am not sure I would want YOU...hmm, I'll have to think about it...if you are prepared to give lots of warmth, comfort and understanding then I just might consider it...hmm...if not -- don't apply!</p>
<p>I certainly don't want to be your mommy.<br>
It's supply and demand. The schools/athletic departments want the revenue and the corporations get some exposure and their customers like it. Who cares? (obviously you)</p>
<p>"...and the corporations get some exposure..."</p>
<p>Wow, because they don't get enough of it anyway?!...please. I am talking about household names here, not some startup with no marketing budget -- get real!</p>
<p>What about NYU's Stern School of Business? (Guess who gave a lot of money.) What about MIT's Sloan School of Business? (Guess who gave a lot of money.) What about Northwestern's Weinstein College of Arts and Sciences? (Guess who . . .) and so on and so on and so on. </p>
<p>Yes, these names aren't corporations giving money, but what is the difference, really? That Mr. Sloan and Mr. Stern and Mr. Weinstein aren't selling anything? Au contraire: I think they've sold their name.</p>
<p>(Weinberg, not Weinstein, but your point still stands.) </p>
<p>Does something like the Ford Motor Company Engineering Design Center on a campus bother you? Personally, I don't see the big deal. Why shouldn't Ford have its name on it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What about MIT's Sloan School of Business?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What about it? Alfred P. Sloan was an 1895 MIT grad, early Chairman of GM and credited with the creation of the modern corporation. A Sloan Foundation grant established the MIT School of Industrial Management in 1950. In 1964, It was renamed in his honor well after his death, not unlike the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.</p>
<p>leanid, and what about corporate sponsors of other university programs which couldnt exist otherwise? The Buckeye Bullet race car which set the world land speed record for an electrically powered vehicle could not have happened w/o 20+ corporate sponsors. The car body rivals any NASCAR auto. I think most would be happy that student would have the opportunity to participate in such an exciting project.</p>
<p>I have no problem with a corporation giving enough money to establish a school and the like at universities. It's not as if the college then becomes a "walking billboard" for the corporation, and -- I presume -- the college is not then operating under the corpporation's secret agenda.
For better or worse, corporations are un undeniable and powerful presence.</p>
<p>What I find unacceptable is what amounts to showcasing a corporation's name right alongside that of the college it benefits at events that have nothing to do with the corporation, such as announcing a group of athletic recruits at a press conference, where the backdrop has alternating logos of the college and the corporation. Not acceptable at all...</p>
<p>leanid - you are the purchaser. You have the power of the almighty dollar behind you. If you don't like what you see then
a) don't buy the sponsor's products, or
b) don't go that school</p>
<p>Colleges are not-for-profit organizations. They have to generate revenue somehow. Tuition alone won't cover expenses anymore. How do you propose they stay solvent? </p>
<p>PS: Colgate University really is named after the toothpaste.</p>