University of California Alumni: Reflecting on the New Logo Rebrand

The University of California (UC) is a prestigious educational institution with a rich history and beloved traditions. However, the recent rebranding of its logo has sparked mixed feelings among its alumni. This article explores the reactions and sentiments of those who have fond memories of the old logo and the current redesign.

The Old vs. The New: An Emotional Divide

Mark, a UC alumnus, speaks for many when he expresses his dissatisfaction with the new logo. ‘Not a fan. I am all for re-imagining the brand, but this treatment is too informal.’ He believes that the redesign is a reflection of the school’s financial struggles, pointing out that ‘Our graphic design funding has been hit hard by the budget cuts.’

Many others share similar sentiments. ‘I liked the old logo. They probably sold it to another school to raise money,’ suggests one alum. Reflecting on the past, he fondly remembers the giant bronze UC symbol inlaid in the concrete outside the MU at UC Davis. He finds it regal and a source of pride, adding that he would always walk around it to avoid stepping on it.

Symbolic Meaning and Aesthetic Appeal

The new logo symbol raises questions. ‘I dont really care what the UC logo looks like - Ive never put it on anything and as an employer its not like we go and look up university logos ever,’ noted one respondent. However, the issue with the logo’s complexity is its printing costs. The new design ‘actually more expensive to print’, which seems contradictory to the UC's financial challenges. According to this alum, ‘blue is one of the slowest drying colors in print, which tends to cost additional money as well since it takes longer before you can put the printed pieces together.’ Therefore, unless the old logo is reused for printed materials and the new design for web, the cost implications are noteworthy.

Design Critique and Suggestions

While some alumni appreciate the potential modernity and authority of certain design elements, others point out that the new logo is clunky and in need of refinement. ‘Design-wise as a nondesigner, I think its got a lot of good stuff working for it but its clunky and needs more iterations.’ One familiarizes the token used in machines and advises that for such a significant institution, ‘we can demand something extraordinary.’ He suggests starting with the ‘little gradient snake C thing’ as a good starting point, recommending that everything else be thrown out in favor of this element.

The vertical balance and symmetry of the new logo are also questioned. ‘The vertical balance isn’t right and its too symmetrical.’ Contrasting with this, he believes that a truly simple shape requires a genius sense of proportions, akin to what an ancient potter might possess. Thus, the new logo, although imperfect, offers a promising foundation for improvement.

In conclusion, the new UC logo has divided the alumni community, with some feeling emotionally connected to the old design and others focusing on the practical aspects of the rebrand. For many, it remains a reflection of the institution’s evolution and challenges. As ‘unless they are going to use the old one on all printed material and the new one on all web material, I think that it was a poor choice from a financial standpoint’, the debate over the new logo continues among the UC alumni.

Sources:

Interviews with UC alumni University of California official communications regarding the logo change