New logo has wasted money and divided UCLA
What a crock of crap. The university spent $98,000 on this logo?
Why didn’t the chancellor just pick a font he liked and say,
“Bam, there’s the new logo”? It would have been
way cheaper, and he could have accomplished the same end result
““ ostracizing the student body and faculty from the
university by making image decisions without their input.
The students, faculty and other employees at UCLA are the ones
who are representing the university. Why didn’t they get a
say in what will be emblazoned all over their letterheads,
sweatshirts, backpacks and everything else that is associated with
their college career? And why does it cost so much money to pick a
logo?
I can understand the cost to implement the new logo onto
merchandise and other things, but to pay designers thousands and
thousands of dollars simply to pick a logo is absurd.
I hope that the cost of the logo is not one that is paid for by
student fee increases because the new logo is not something that is
going to improve the quality of learning at UCLA. The cost should
come out of the decision-makers’ pockets because most of the
students and faculty are happy with the logos we have.
On a separate but related note ““ the athletic department
is keeping it’s script logo, which is the most recognizable
and most classy logo of any on this campus. Maybe the university
should take a cue and stick with the elegant and successful logo of
the athletic department. University officials seem not to realize
that they can better spend $98,000 on something else.
John Tapia-Grassi Fifth-year, civil
engineering