I had my AB214 presentation today. Basically, we are supposed to come up with a topic and pitch a proposal to Ulrike and the class.
Mine was NTU Open House 2009.
Ever since last year, I think NTU's Open House campaigns are frankly...well, crap. Utter crap. Our posters only feature students and these students look too posey-worsey with super-imposed/artificial backgrounds. We are frankly relying too heavily on the Open House to dispel (o.O) and counter any misconceptions that people have about NTU. And seriously, people don't really learn much from Open House, do they?
So I suggested some new measures that will increase the presence of NTU and stuff to counter these misconceptions.
Then, Ulrike commented, "Do you think it is worth the effort to go through all these troubles just to increase NTU's presence? Because after all, we are still receiving an over-whelming number of application every year. Just by looking at our global ranking, school's like SMU will definitely lose out regardless of how good their culture is. " Her underlying meaning is that students will choose us because of our ranking and having a excellent culture is secondary.
Due to time constraint, I was not required to answer that question and I didn't get a chance to comment on her comment. And I am kind of glad because I am pretty sure a NTU v.s. SMU debate might ensue since Ulrike is so pro-NTU and I am not. Opps.
But, what I don't get is, why is culture secondary? Why just rely on one factor to attract students? Putting our eggs in one basket, are we?
What would you choose? A school with a good global ranking(NTU) or a school that has an excellent culture (SMU)?
Personally, I would take the second choice. Then again, maybe because I really don't like NTU and the grass is always greener on the other side.
Shallow post. But what the hell. I have AB213 terms and theories swimming in my head now.
Mine was NTU Open House 2009.
Ever since last year, I think NTU's Open House campaigns are frankly...well, crap. Utter crap. Our posters only feature students and these students look too posey-worsey with super-imposed/artificial backgrounds. We are frankly relying too heavily on the Open House to dispel (o.O) and counter any misconceptions that people have about NTU. And seriously, people don't really learn much from Open House, do they?
So I suggested some new measures that will increase the presence of NTU and stuff to counter these misconceptions.
Then, Ulrike commented, "Do you think it is worth the effort to go through all these troubles just to increase NTU's presence? Because after all, we are still receiving an over-whelming number of application every year. Just by looking at our global ranking, school's like SMU will definitely lose out regardless of how good their culture is. " Her underlying meaning is that students will choose us because of our ranking and having a excellent culture is secondary.
Due to time constraint, I was not required to answer that question and I didn't get a chance to comment on her comment. And I am kind of glad because I am pretty sure a NTU v.s. SMU debate might ensue since Ulrike is so pro-NTU and I am not. Opps.
But, what I don't get is, why is culture secondary? Why just rely on one factor to attract students? Putting our eggs in one basket, are we?
What would you choose? A school with a good global ranking(NTU) or a school that has an excellent culture (SMU)?
Personally, I would take the second choice. Then again, maybe because I really don't like NTU and the grass is always greener on the other side.
Shallow post. But what the hell. I have AB213 terms and theories swimming in my head now.
2 comments:
Culture? You mean our mugger culture? On that I would have to agree with you; we are the undisputed #1.
hahas. but most people (that I know of) still link fun to smu and boring + chee-na to ntu!
Post a Comment