Introduction:
This exhibit argues that NYU Polytechnic yearbooks evolve from institution-controlled records into student-driven expressions of identity, a shift shaped by both technological change and evolving social dynamics. By examining the 1909, 1959, and 2009 editions, the analysis traces how design, language, and structure reflect changing notions of belonging within the student body.
In 1909, identity was largely constructed and controlled by the institution, where students are presented as a unified cohort aligned with formal expectations. By 1959, this dynamic begins to shift, with identity becoming negotiated between institutional structure and emerging student voice, reflected in more relaxed language and evolving presentation styles. By 2009, identity is increasingly owned and performed by students themselves, with digital and visual technologies amplifying individuality, self-expression, and social presence.
Rather than neutral archives, these yearbooks function as constructed narratives of belonging. Early editions prioritize uniformity, hierarchy, and collective identity, while later editions emphasize individuality, informality, and visual storytelling. This transformation mirrors broader changes in educational and social environments, where participation moves from conformity toward self-expression.
By placing these editions in dialogue, this exhibit shows that yearbooks are not simply records of student life, but active frameworks that shape how students are represented, remembered, and understood within their time.
The 1909 edition:
The 1909 Polywog presents the yearbook less as a reflection of student life and more as an extension of institutional identity. Its black-and-white format and restrained visual design reflect the technical limitations of early print, but more importantly, they highlight a time where strong written language dominates over visual expression
Design and Visual Expression
Design in the 1909 edition is minimal and highly controlled. The lack of dynamic imagery or candid moments shows that the yearbook is not trying to capture lived experience, but rather to document and formalize it. Visuals are limited and standardized, reinforcing a sense of uniformity across the student body. As a result, written content carries most of the weight, making the yearbook feel more archival than expressive.
Language and Tone
The language throughout the opening greeting, senior and junior cohorts is formal, often poetic, and heavily influenced by classical references such as William Shakespeare and Lord Byron. This reliance on established literary voices suggests that students are not positioned as individual authors of identity, but rather as participants in a pre-defined intellectual culture. Personal wit or self-expression is relatively absent, and yearbooks at that time were meant to illustrate academic identity more so than student innovation. The listing of clubs and achievements reflects more of what the institution offers rather than what students themselves showcase.
The opening greeting addressing students as “loyal sons” reinforces the framing of the student body as a uniform collective, bound by shared expectations rather than differentiated identities. This aligns with early engineering education cultures, where belonging was tied to conformity and adherence to institutional norms rather than personal expression.
Belonging and Identity
Research on engineering education emphasizes that belonging emerges through a combination of interpersonal interaction and individual perception, particularly through engagement with peers and faculty. In the 1909 yearbook, however, the dominance of a single, uniform identity restricts the visibility of diverse experiences and limits the representation of meaningful social interaction. When students are presented as a collective rather than as distinct individuals, the conditions that support belonging become constrained rather than expanded.
This suggests that while the student body may have experienced connection in practice, the yearbook itself does not actively construct or amplify those interactions. Instead, it presents belonging as something achieved through alignment with institutional norms, rather than through a myriad of identities and social engagement.
Takeaways:
The 1909 Polywog shows that early yearbooks functioned more as institutional records than reflections of student life. Through formal language, uniform representation, and limited visual design due to tech innovation at that time, identity is presented as collective rather than individual, with emphasis placed on what Polytechnic represents over what students express. This shapes how belonging is constructed, through alignment with shared academic values. In contrast to research that links belonging to interpersonal engagement and individual perception, the yearbook offers little evidence of these dynamics, reinforcing a model of belonging rooted in structure rather than interaction.
The 1959 edition:
The 1959 Polywog marks a noticeable shift from the more rigid and archival nature of the 1909 edition. It is larger in size and begins to experiment with design, including selective use of color in certain visuals and icons, reflecting both technological limitations and a growing emphasis on presentation. This alone signals that the yearbook is no longer just documenting the institution, but starting to shape how student life is seen.
Design and Visual Expression
Design becomes more prominent in this edition. Compared to 1909, there is a clear increase in visuals, layouts, and variation across pages. Student clubs, departments, and faculty are presented with more attention to structure and display, showing a shift toward highlighting activity rather than just listing it. There is more evidence of student life through images and organized sections, suggesting that the yearbook is beginning to capture experience rather than just record membership. This aligns with the broader evolution of yearbooks from static records into more expressive formats.
Photo insert 2
Language and Tone
The language also begins to shift. While still somewhat formal, it is less rigid and less dependent on classical references than in 1909. There is more room for description, context, and a sense of personality in how students and activities are presented. Instead of relying entirely on borrowed literary voices, the tone starts to reflect the institution and its people more directly. This signals a move away from purely institutional voice toward something that begins to include student presence.
Belonging and Identity
The most significant shift comes in how identity and belonging are represented. With Polytechnic becoming officially co-ed in 1958, the 1959 Polywog introduces women more visibly into the academic space. While women had been present before, figures like Anna Erdmann show that they existed more as exceptions than as part of the broader student identity. By 1959, that began to change, with increased enrollment and presence.
At the same time, this inclusion is uneven. Women are often separated or framed differently, most clearly in sections like the “Polywog Queens,” where recognition is based on appearance rather than achievement. This reflects a broader cultural moment where women were entering technical fields but were still viewed through traditional roles. Historical accounts of Polytechnic during this period show that while female participation increased, it was often accompanied by lingering assumptions about gender and ability.
This creates a tension in how belonging is constructed. On one side, there is more diversity, more visibility, and more opportunity for interaction. On the other, representation is still filtered through institutional and cultural expectations. In line with research on belonging, which highlights the importance of peer interaction and individual perception, the 1959 yearbook begins to show these elements more clearly than 1909, but not fully. Belonging is no longer just about fitting into a single identity, but it is also not fully shaped by individual expression.
Photo insert 2
Takeaways:
The 1959 Polywog represents a transition point where the yearbook shifts from a purely institutional record to a more expressive and student-aware publication. Through expanded design, evolving language, and increased inclusion, especially with the introduction of women, the yearbook begins to reflect a more dynamic academic environment. However, this shift is still fragmented. Identity and belonging are no longer fully controlled, but they are still shaped by existing structures, making this a negotiated space between institutional influence and emerging student expression.
The 2009 edition:
The 2009 Polywog represents the most recent edition of the yearbook at NYU Tandon, created at a moment when the Polytechnic Institute was on the verge of its merger with NYU. Unlike earlier editions, it feels less like a record of the institution and more like a culmination of everything the institution had become. It encompasses a wide range of student life, including classes, projects, clubs, faculty, and academic culture, almost as if it is trying to capture the full scope of Polytechnic before a major transition.
Going through it, I found it interesting seeing early stages of courses like EG-1004 and past student projects.. It made me realize how far the institution has come, and how ideas that now feel standard were once just starting out. This does make me question what future yearbooks start to look like i.e 2046 or 2059? Will there be a physical yearbook? Will there be genius children making it into NYU? Will it still be called a yearbook?
Design and Visual Expression
Design in the 2009 edition is significantly more advanced compared to both 1909 and 1959. The yearbook is healthier in condition, fully in color, and heavily visual, with collage-style layouts that bring together different departments, students, and activities. There is a clear emphasis on expression, creativity, and variation. Rather than organizing content in a rigid structure, the design allows for a more dynamic and engaging representation of student life.
This shift reflects not only advancements in printing and digital tools, but also a change in purpose. The yearbook is no longer just documenting or even structuring identity, it is showcasing it. Students, faculty, and projects are presented with individuality, making the institution feel like a collection of people rather than a single unified body.
Language and Tone
The language in the 2009 Polywog is noticeably more direct and less formal than in earlier editions. It moves away from poetic or institutional tones and instead reflects a more modern and open voice. Descriptions of students, courses, and activities feel grounded in actual experience rather than framed through tradition or hierarchy. A diverse network of students has likely shaped how the institution wants to be presented and how its students are a reflection of that.
There is also less reliance on formal introductions or institutional messaging. Instead, the yearbook allows content to speak through visuals and short descriptions, reinforcing the idea that student presence, rather than institutional voice, is now central.
Belonging and Identity
The most significant shift appears in how belonging and identity are constructed. Unlike 1909, where identity is mediated, and 1959, where it is negotiated, the 2009 yearbook presents identity as something largely owned and expressed by students themselves. Students from different backgrounds, disciplines, and interests are all visible, contributing to a more diverse and individualized representation of the academic community.
However, this shift is also influenced by technology in a deeper way. By 2009, access to online platforms and digital media had already begun changing how people interact, communicate, and present themselves. Research shows that digital technology reshapes attention, memory, and social interaction, often shifting engagement from deep, face-to-face interaction to more fragmented and distributed forms of connection .
Because of this, the yearbook itself is no longer the primary space where identity or belonging is constructed. Instead, it becomes one of many platforms where identity is displayed. Knowing about Polytechnic or engaging with its community no longer depends on the yearbook, since students already have access to a wide range of digital spaces that document and shape their experiences. Technology has paved the way for the 2009 yearbook to showcase the entirety of the NYU body.
This creates a different kind of tension. While identity is more visible, diverse, and expressive than ever before, it is also more performative and dispersed. Belonging is no longer tied to fitting into an institution or negotiating within it, but to how individuals present themselves across multiple spaces, both physical and digital. More problems, or more opportunity?
Takeaways:
The 2009 Polywog reflects a shift toward a fully expressive and student-driven representation of identity. Through advanced design, informal language, and diverse visual storytelling, the yearbook showcases the capabilities and individuality of its students and faculty rather than the institution alone. However, this shift is shaped by the rise of digital technology, which changes how social interaction and identity are formed. As a result, belonging is no longer constructed primarily within the yearbook itself, but across a broader digital landscape, making it more visible, but also more fragmented and performative.
Final Thoughts:
Looking across the 1909, 1959, and 2009 Polywog editions has been more than just an exploration of yearbooks. It pushed me to think about how institutions shape identity, and how factors like technology, culture, and social dynamics influence what gets represented and what gets left out. What started as an analysis of design and language turned into a deeper look at how belonging itself is constructed over time.
It’s impressive to see how leadership has shifted into the hands of students, allowing them to define and showcase their own strengths. As the student body has grown and become more diverse, that shift only becomes more powerful, making the institution feel less like something that defines students and more like something shaped by them.
It also raises a question going forward: what will the 2059 Polywog look like, if there even is one? Will it still carry the same name, or even exist in a physical form? And more importantly, will the diversity, creativity, and ambition seen in 2009 continue to grow, or take on a completely different form in an even more digital and connected world?
References:
Hoehe, Margret R., and Florence Thibaut. “Going Digital: How Technology Use May Influence Human Brains and Behavior.” Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 2, 2020, pp. 93–97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7366947/#sec2
Polmear, Matt, and Nathan J. Hunsu. “Belonging in Engineering: Exploring the Predictive Relevance of Social Interaction and Individual Factors on Undergraduate Students’ Belonging in Engineering.” Journal of Engineering Education. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jee.20599
“Women’s History Month: Breaking through the Gender Barriers in Science and Engineering.” NYU Tandon SOE, Match 20 2012engineering.nyu.edu/news/womens-history-month-breaking-through-gender-barriers-science-and-engineering.