OPINION: Lessons to be learned from naming in the education sector

 

Name changes for a number of well-established educational institutions have made the headlines in the last couple of months. The School of Law at King’s College London has just been renamed The Dickson Poon School of Law, and a full page ad in the New York Times Global Edition proclaimed that America’s fourth oldest medical school, Dartmouth, is now The Audrey and Theodor Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth.

These two name changes were made in recognition of the “named” donors’ generosity, but the decision to rename poses great risks for the brands—most critical of which is the near-term ability to attract additional donations to their respective school or faculty.

Dickson Poon, a Hong Kong-based businessman, gave £20 million, which according to information on the King’s College website is the largest single donation made by an individual to King’s College and to a UK or European law school. This donation is 50 per cent of the total amount set for an investment programme that will be used to help “King’s School of Law to grow in the field of transnational law, create research positions and a scholarship scheme.” Note the reference to “King’s School of Law”. More importantly, who will give the other £20 million to a school now so completely “owned” by a single, living individual?

The question prompted by these two recent name changes is whether this will become the defacto “carrot” for fundraising? If you give a substantial amount, the institute will “rename” some prestigious or well-established entity within the university. This is very different from putting your stamp on something completely new, even something “tangible” like a building, and then undertaking the hard work to build a reputation for the newly minted entity.

When the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Hong Kong was renamed the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine in recognition of the donation from Li, who is ranked #9 (as of March 2012) on the Forbes billionaires’ list, alumni loudly voiced their concerns about losing a sense of affiliation as a result of the name change. St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, on the other hand, chose to honour Li’s generosity by using the donation to fund a new endeavour: The Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute.

In the case of Dartmouth, Geisel, known worldwide as author and illustrator “Dr. Seuss”, is indeed a Dartmouth alum from 1925, although not in medicine. A recent piece on National Public Radio in the US, written in Dr. Suess style, queried the consequences of the name change:

But I have a question (and maybe it’s strange):
With this new name will the school itself change?
Will students write poems and skip their exams
Or learn to prescribe green eggs and green ham?
If your dear father’s heart has come to a stop
Will your Dartmouth-trained doctor advise, “Hop on pop”?

The most fundamental definition of "brand" is that it is equal to “reputation”. So, should a law school with a close to 180-year history turn over its reputation to someone else? To weigh the merits of doing so, you examine the institute’s “equity”. What is it that the school or faculty is known for? Will that change (unintentionally) with a change of the name—as questioned above? How long has the name been around? What is the level of familiarity (particularly if it has such a stellar ranking as The Dickson Poon School of Law has among the top 10 UK law schools)? In general, does the institute have a positive, solid reputation in the marketplace?

A case for a name change could be made if association with the named benefactor were to truly raise the stature of the institute. For instance, is the school’s or faculty’s reputation fairly solid, but it is not as widely known as it should or could be? Would the association with the benefactor create this halo effect for the institute? Has the institute suffered a crisis or been damaged in some way due to a scandal—and hence a name change might preserve or resurrect the “good bits” of the operations of the school or faculty? Would the association signal an intentional change of direction that is needed for long-term viability of the institute?

It’s a tough call. Universities want to show their appreciation for the donations that will take them into the future. Maybe that is the key: the donor’s name is attached to something new as per the Toronto hospital example. Maybe it should have been the new Dickson Poon Centre for Transnational Law or the Geisel Pediatric Medicine Programme (given the fact he wrote children’s books.)

Before renaming something that lots of other people—staff, administrators, parents who paid for their children’s studies, graduates who now represent that university in the real world—have all contributed to in their own “small” way, board decision-makers need to weigh the pros and cons very carefully. To guide them in their decisions, they should establish rules of engagement for gift giving. These rules should serve the long-term interests of their own brands first and foremost.