It's modernist, minimalist crap, indistinguishable from all the other modernist, minimalist crap. Everyone might as well rebrand as solid-color circle distinguished by a numerically unique RGB value.
Their old logo was much better, since it harkens back to a literal coat of arms, which isn't something you see every day.
Undoubtedly influenced by Oxford and Cambridge but it's a design style adopted by so many universities it's practically generic for 'some sort of university thing logo'. I don't have strong feelings about the new logo either way but the idea the old one is some distinctive masterpiece seems misplaced.
It's like the GP comment complaining about 'modernist, minimalist crap, indistinguishable from all the other modernist, minimalist crap' never ran across one of the most recognizable university press marks out there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Press#/media/File:MIT_Pres...
I am a big fan of modernism even minimalism done well. MIT is an engineering school and its logo fits. I just object to lazy or default minimalism.
Except that a coat of arms has got to be THE most common logo for anything university related. I don't like the new one at all, but if you'd showed me the old one and asked me what it was for I'd have had no idea. Not memorable or recognizable at all, even if it is their coat of arms.
And the generic geometric object with some subtle styling has got to be THE most common logo for anything period.
Which is, like, just your opinion, man.
Maybe here not there, but A quick google search suggests a university with a coat of arms logo is very common.
So no big deal.
Although. There is Steve Jobs line. Where's he's trying to get engineers on the original Mac to eek out just a slight faster boot. We're going to sell 100 million of these things, can you make it boot 25 seconds faster? If you do that will save cumulatively 90 years worth of time. That's a human life. Can you save a human life!
I mean it's dumb and maybe funny but a minor annoyance over a long enough time and enough people could be worth complaining about.
The new logo is not one I could take seriously.
Airbrushed and homogenised in favour of a tire.
Thus, it must change because the purpose of a university is not to retain cultures and histories when no one else cares, it's not to improve the mental capabilities of the students.
It purpose instead is to pursue equity in 2 senses: no especially talented people of the wrong* parents are allowed to gain inordinate skills and the foundation makes gobs of money.
(*) Determination of wrongness changes over time, and the adage "2 wrongs don't make a right" is considered tomfoolery.
Do the marginalised peoples include the native Britons who were conquered by the Romans? Or is there a cut off point in your view of history? If the now native Britons, like me, want to retain links to the past, then should that be disallowed?
I like the Latin inscription, as it keeps a connection with the past. Good and bad, it is history I want to be connected to. I find the idea that it needs to be airbrushed bizarre, and the idea that Latin is solely a tool of "oppression" a complete misreading of history.
Spend some time researching the subject and it will make more sense.