Being in the middle of a Higher Ed revolution, this is one question I face all too often: How does one build a new Higher Education brand? The obvious answers, research, league table standing, often do not work for those who are asking the question. The big budget, state sponsored Higher Education still around, but this is not where the action is. It is more on the fringes of Higher Education, driven by those 'Edupunks and Edupreneurs', as Anya Kamenetz calls them. Higher Education, as we know it, has become costly, inaccessible and a bastion of social privilege, rather than an engine of social mobility. And, therefore, in this day of middle class revolts, falling job rates and twilight of the age of conformity, a new Higher Education is happening at the fringes: It is here that the brand creation question gets asked most often.
And, this is therefore an important question to answer. Because there is so little these new Higher Education institutions can learn from the established Higher Education brands of today: Surely, there is no point (even if one has the means, hypothetically) to want to be Harvard if you are trying to set up a Higher Education institution in Kathmandu, Bangkok or Mangalore. This is because, to be successful in those settings, the Higher Education institution must be designed to be catalytic, of lifting its students from parochial constraints to global possibilities, rather than preservative, of maintaining the established system of privileges, practises and credentials. To be successful, this Higher Education institution at the fringe must ensure that its students have a better life than their parents, a benchmark, if applied, most of our top class universities will come short of.
However, since most people believe that to create a Higher Education brand one will take 400 years and the head-start and the resources of Harvard (or the blessings of a welfare state), most people don't even try. This leads to two things: The intelligent and well-intentioned abandon Higher Education and go do software instead; and, the charlatans of the world unite in Higher Ed, promising the non-existent and delivering nothing to students in most cases. While top end Higher Ed keep on preserving privileges, the fringe Higher Ed perpetuates deprivation, giving out essentially the same message, that education means really nothing, and you are who you are born.
I know I exaggerate, but that is to make my point. There are great things happening at great universities and they are changing our world. We sure need that, and this post is not my rebellion against the great universities. But we can hardly get the benefits of all the progress we are enabling unless we can create a model of Higher Education in the margins, the Higher Education that creates and enables most of the new knowledge workers in our societies. Without education for the new middle classes, there is little chance that we will move forward. Hence, I concern myself solely in this space, working to develop my fledgling company but also to engage, research and advice the new Higher Education institutions. What follows here is my answer to the question, how to create a Higher Education brand, new ones and serving the new middle classes, with limited resources and satisfying the requirements of its business investors.
First, I think there is a general misconception about what a Higher Ed institution really does, and the confusion comes from how we accredit the institutions. Because in most cases, we use a static model of accreditation, based on resources available against certain benchmarks, Higher Education is almost automatically perceived to be a system of delivery. It is seen as a set of classrooms, libraries and tutors, and intangibles such as the curriculum and services, which take the student out of school and get them 'trained' on certain skills, which the employers want. So, it is, in short, represent a labour factory. In this, one forgets the Higher Education institution, in its traditional, contemporary as well as futuristic settings (as experienced in MOOCs and elsewhere), is a community.
When the new universities are built, lot of focus goes into buildings and infrastructure, but very little on what kind of community the institution will foster. This is one sure way to get the branding wrong, because, as it turns out, an institution is really as good as its community. For older institutions, the community manifests in alumni and track record: For the newer institution, it is about values, engagement and conversations one is having.
Second, Higher Education is not about being skilled and stamped and delivered to the employers, but being admitted into a community of educated people. This is where Higher Education brands are really built: Not whether the education one received got him/her a sales assistant's job in the local shopping mall, but whether s/he can be admitted to the community of the educated. This is also how one's life gets better, becomes better, almost certainly, than their parents: They have a more sentient approach to their careers and lives, and become less amenable to outside forces and more conscious of one's own settings, and more able to change it. This point is mostly completely missed by Higher Ed institutions at the fring, and they assume that such luxuries such as being oneself should be left to the top institutions.
The point here is then that Higher Ed brands are not built on placement records, but by the institution's graduates being recognised as educated, which imply that they are able to live freely, in control of their lives. An institution trying to become a brand should therefore take this, enabled graduates, as their key objective. As one knows, if the graduates achieve this higher aim, employability will follow.
Third, like any brand, Higher Education brands need to have a differentiator, but the strategic realities are hardly comparable with any other consumer brand. For example, as a colleague always reminds me, there are no 'dominant' brands in Higher Ed, because the markets are so huge. Besides, the brand perception in Higher Ed is defined by selectivity, rather than market share. For non-selective, new institutions, the easiest differentiator is focus (not to confuse with Michael Porter's generic strategies, I use 'differentiation' in its broad, English language sense), wherein they focus on one area and should try to do it very very well. I have come across so many institutions which tend to launch with many 'schools', projecting an image larger than themselves and hoping that the students will find them authentic if they have a large portfolio. In my experience, the opposite tends to happen: The students take them as they are, confused! However, there are a number successful examples where an institution has focused on a narrow subject area and had done that very well, and emerged as a strong brand in the area and eventually in the Higher Ed sector in general.
Finally, the student experience, pedagogy and learning content, something that in the tech-fuelled new paradigm Higher Ed is taken for granted, remain defining components of a Higher Ed brand. Doing it well is important in Higher Education, because one can hardly get a second chance and so many institutions actually do it sloppily. And, in this, the execution aspect of Higher Education, the contrast with brands in other sector comes in sharp relief: A higher education brand is based on so many minute details, mostly outside the traditional manager's scope of work, that it becomes impossible to create and drive a brand building exercise without, metaphorically speaking, knowing every student by name and by face in an institution.
In summary, brand building in Higher Education is like building a high quality community, based on values and collaboration. Reputation, while not built overnight, can build up quickly once an institution got the community bit right. Then it is about purpose and values, delivering a focused offering and getting the details right, which are, in a way, key drivers of a community built around an institution.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.