Jump to content

UWM Academic Rebrand Concept


Recommended Posts

Not too long ago, it was (correctly) brought up that my alma mater is a branding nightmare. Although the discussion focused on the athletic brand, we don't fare much better academically. Just take a look at our "seal."


Not hard to see why we're in serious need of a rebrand. Eventually, I'll be posting an entire academic identity package, but I feel that it's not nearly as powerful without context and I won't have access to photoshop for another week. But for now, here's my idea for a new seal.


-The background in the top portion forms a large M for Milwaukee.

-The only date on the seal, 1885, signifies the year the university was originally founded as the Wisconsin State Normal School.

-The foreground forms the shape of a book, which symbolizes the university's scholastic ambitions.

-The words "Elimu" and "Sayari" are Swahili for "Knowledge" and "Universe" respectively. Most university crests use Greek or Latin, but I felt Swahili was more appropriate here since UWM has the nation's oldest Africology department... a fact that isn't promoted nearly as much as it should be, IMO. It can also represent the university's commitment to relatively newer fields of study in general such as LGBT Studies, 21st Century Studies, etc.

-The leaping panther in the bottom represents the school's mascot and the energetic spirit of the student body.

The seal, like the rest of the identity package I will be unveiling, is designed with an eventual rebrand to "University of Milwaukee" in mind, but for now, I'll kindly seek C & C on the seal by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

really nice...can't wait to see the institutional logo - not sure i dig the swahili vs. greek/latin, but i understand why you went that route - if the institutional logo is as well thought out and executed as the seal, it should be very good

the book/M is particularly nice and i like how 1885 reads as 1885 vertically and horizontally - it's not necesarily a design element, per se, but that could have been problematic with the other dates...

1 9

5 6 I could see where there might be some confusion here...is this 1596 or 1956?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.