Belonging and Identity Across a Century of Polywogs

Introduction:

This exhibit argues that NYU Polytechnic yearbooks evolve from institutional records into student-driven collages of expression and identity, a shift shaped by both technological change and evolving social dynamics throughout time. By examining the 1909, 1959, and 2009 editions, the analysis traces how design, visuals, language, and tone reflect changing notions of belonging within the student body. Although all NYU Polytechnic yearbooks (Polywogs) are student-led publications, they do not exist independently of the institution or cultural expectations.

In 1909, the yearbook functions primarily as documentation, presenting students as a unified cohort through formal language and limited visual variation. Belonging is implied through alignment with shared institutional identity rather than individual distinction. By 1959, the yearbook shifts toward appreciation, incorporating more varied imagery and a broader representation of student life, suggesting a more active role for students in shaping how they are presented. Here, belonging becomes more visible and socially negotiated. By 2009, the yearbook emphasizes recognition, highlighting individuality, diverse experiences, and self-expression through expanded visual and design elements. Language shifts from being the focal point of these yearbooks to being supplementary to the images and candid moments of student life.

By using interpersonal and intrapersonal factors to frame belonging, this exhibit places the 1909, 1959, and 2009 editions in dialogue, showing how students perceive themselves and others within the institution.

The 1909 edition:

The 1909 Polywog presents the yearbook less as a reflection of student life and more as an extension of institutional identity. Printed yearbooks originated in the early 19th century, with early editions relying on simple formats like silhouettes, while mass-produced photographic yearbooks only became more common in the late 19th century^[1]. The 1909 Polywog exists within this transitional period, where visual capabilities were still limited and not yet the primary focus. As a result, the yearbook leans heavily on structured language and formal presentation, reinforcing its role as an archival record rather than an expressive medium.

             (Fig. 1. Polywog 1909 edition)

Design and Visual Expression

Design in the 1909 edition is minimal and basic. With printing technologies like letterpress and halftone^[2], which were common at the time, it is likely that both were used together in making the 1909 polywog. Halftone printing converts photographs into small dots of varying density, which allows images to be reproduced in ink. This can be seen in the portraits in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, where the shading appears slightly grainy and flattened rather than smooth. Uniformity across pages shows the limits of early photographic reproduction.

(Fig. 2. Polywog 1909, Board of Editors)                                  (Fig. 3. Polywog 1909, dedication photo)

At the same time, the overall structure of the page, including the identical oval frames, clean borders, and evenly spaced layout, likely points to letterpress printing. Letterpress relies on fixed, raised plates that are pressed into paper, which makes variation difficult and encourages repeatable designs. This explains why each student is presented in nearly the exact same format, with similar poses, framing, and positioning seen in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

Together, these methods do more than just print the page, they shape how students are represented. The halftone process limits how expressive the images can be, while the letterpress layout enforces uniformity across them. As a result, individuality is visually reduced, and students are presented as part of a structured whole rather than as distinct personalities. This makes the page feel less like a reflection of student life and more like a formal record of membership within the institution.

Language and Tone

The language throughout the student sections and opening greeting is formal, structured, and consistent, reinforcing a uniform tone. This is especially visible in the student portrait pages, where individuals are presented with short, standardized descriptions that focus on academic roles, affiliations, and achievements rather than personality or voice (Fig. 4 and 5). The phrasing remains consistent across entries, with little variation in style or expression, which limits opportunities for individuality as well. Students' identities are expressed through the institutional and cultural expectations of yearbooks, emphasizing what they represent rather than who they are.

This pattern becomes even more apparent when compared to the senior class page (Fig. 5), where students are grouped into a single photograph with names and achievements listed separately. Here, identity is further reduced, as individuals are no longer even paired directly with their own descriptions. The structure prioritizes organization and clarity over expression, reinforcing the idea that students are part of a collective rather than distinct voices within it.

(Fig. 4. Polywog 1909, Junior Students, pg:23)(Fig. 5. Polywog 1909, Senior Students section, pg:17)

         (Fig.6. Polywog 1909, Junior Students section, pg: 32-33 )

This same tone carries into the opening greeting (Fig. 7), which is written as a poem rather than a direct introduction. The phrasing “To all loyal sons of Poly” immediately frames the student body as a unified group defined by loyalty and shared expectations. The use of rhyme and formal structure reflects classical literary influence, similar to writers like Shakespeare or Byron which the students themselves adopt in shaping the tone of the yearbook. Rather than inviting personal interpretation or connection, the greeting sets a tone of order and alignment, positioning students within an already established academic culture.

Together, the language and structure across these pages show how identity is shaped through both institutional expectation and the limitations of print technology of that time. The repeated use of similar phrasing, formal tone, and fixed presentation formats limits variation in how students are described and understood. Instead of highlighting differences between individuals, the yearbook creates a stable and predictable way of presenting them, where meaning comes from alignment with shared expectations rather than personal expression. In this way, identity is not just described, but constructed through a combination of institutional expectations and technological constraint.

  (Fig. 7. Polywog 1909, Opening Greeting, pg: 2)

Belonging and Identity

Research on engineering education emphasizes that belonging is not simply about being part of a group, but is shaped through a combination of interpersonal interaction (such as engagement with peers and faculty) and intrapersonal perception (how students interpret their role and value within that environment)^[3]. These interactions help students develop a sense of satisfaction, value, and connection to their discipline, which ultimately reinforces belonging.

In the polywog 1909, however, these mechanisms are largely absent from representation. The dominance of a single, uniform identity minimizes visible interaction between students and removes cues that would signal relationships, collaboration, or shared experiences. Instead of showing students engaging with one another or with faculty, the yearbook presents them in isolation or as part of a fixed collective, limiting the visibility of the very interactions that research identifies as central to belonging.

At the same time, the lack of individual voice also weakens the intrapersonal side of belonging. Since students are described through standardized language and under certain expectations, there is little indication of how they perceive their own place within the academic community. Research suggests that belonging is strengthened when students feel a sense of value and personal connection to their discipline, but in this case, that sense of value is implied through institutional alignment rather than expressed through individual perspective.

This suggests that while students at the time may have experienced belonging in practice, the yearbook itself does not construct or communicate the conditions that typically support it. Instead, belonging is presented as something achieved through conformity and shared identity, rather than through interaction, perception, and engagement. As a result, the representation of belonging becomes constrained, not because it does not exist, but because the format and structure of the yearbook do not allow it to be fully expressed.

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 limited technologies at that time, identity is presented as collective rather than individual, emphasizing what students represent over who they are. This shapes how belonging is constructed, through alignment with shared academic values. In contrast to research that links belonging to interpersonal/intrapersonal 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 more with design, including the selective use of color in certain visuals and icons. This reflects not only advancements in printing technology, but also a growing emphasis on presentation and visual engagement (Fig. 8).

This change is important because it signals a shift in purpose. The yearbook is no longer just documenting the institution, but starting to shape how student life is experienced and remembered. With more space, variation in layout, and increased visual presence, there is a clearer attempt to highlight activity, participation, and the presence of students within the institution.

At the same time, this shift remains structured rather than fully open. While design becomes more expressive, it still operates within institutional expectations, creating a middle ground where student identity becomes more visible without being fully self-directed.

          (Fig. 8. Polywog 1959 edition)

Design and Visual Expression

Design becomes more prominent in this edition. Compared to 1909, there is a clear increase in candid visuals, layouts, and variation across pages. Student clubs, departments, and faculty are now presented with more attention to structure and display, showing a shift toward highlighting activity rather than just listing it (Fig. 9 and 11). 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 shift is supported by advancements in printing technology, particularly the rise of offset printing^[4], which became widely used in the mid-20th century. Offset printing transfers ink from a plate to a rubber surface before applying it to paper, allowing for more consistent image quality and easier reproduction of photographs at scale. This made it more practical to include multiple images and experiment with layout, which is visible in the increased number of photographs and more flexible page compositions. Full-color printing was also still costly and less common, so color is used strategically rather than consistently throughout (seen in Fig. 10 and 14).

Another shift in this edition is the increased presence of faculty within the yearbook (Fig. 10). Unlike 1909, where the focus is primarily on students as part of an institutional record, the 1959 Polywog begins to visually include faculty within departments and academic spaces. This expands the purpose of the yearbook from simply documenting membership to recognizing the people who contribute to the institution. As a result, the yearbook starts to feel less like a static record and more like an acknowledgment of a broader academic community, even if this recognition is still presented in a structured and formal way.

Together, these changes allow for a greater sense of engagement within the yearbook. Students are no longer framed individually and faculty is illustrated and appreciated throughout shown in shared spaces and activities, introducing interaction into the visual narrative. However, this engagement remains structured, reflecting a transition where technology expands what can be shown, but the institution still shapes how it is presented.

(Fig. 9. Polywog 1959, Civil Eng section, pg: 44-45)  (Fig. 10. Polywog 1909, Faculty section, pg: 10-11)

Language and Tone

The language also begins to shift in the 1959 edition. While it remains somewhat formal, it is noticeably less rigid and less dependent on classical references than in 1909. There is a greater emphasis on description and context, particularly in how departments, faculty, and academic spaces are presented (Fig. 11 and 13). Instead of relying on poetic structure or borrowed literary voices, the tone becomes more direct and explanatory. It reads more like a speech than a poem, making it more accessible and inviting to the reader, rather than distant or authoritative.

This change is especially visible in sections such as the dedication and departmental pages (Fig. 11 and 13), where longer passages of text are used to explain roles, highlight contributions, and provide context for what is being shown. The language works alongside visuals rather than dominating them, helping guide the reader through the content instead of defining it. This reflects a broader shift in how the yearbook communicates, moving from a language-driven presentation to a more balanced and engaging one.

At the same time, language is no longer the focal point of representation. Instead, it functions primarily as a tool to highlight departments, faculty, and achievements. This is reinforced by the absence of individual quotes for seniors (Fig. 12). However, this absence is not simply a limitation, it reflects a shift in purpose. Rather than prioritizing what students say about themselves, the yearbook emphasizes what they have done and how they are recognized within the institution.

This suggests that the role of the yearbook is changing. It is no longer purely a formal record of academic identity, but begins to function as a form of appreciation. Language no longer dominates or defines identity, but supports and reinforces what is being shown visually. In this way, meaning shifts from expression to recognition, marking a clear movement away from rigid institutional voice toward a more participatory, but still structured, representation of the academic community.

(Fig. 11. Polywog 1959, Chemical/Civil Eng Departments)      (Fig. 12. Polywog 1959, Aeronautical Eng Class)

                (Fig. 13. Polywog 1959, Dedication Passage)

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, like Anna Erdmann who was the first female graduate in 1907, they existed more as exceptions than as part of the broader student identity. ^[5]By 1959, increased enrollment and institutional recognition began to integrate women more clearly into the university’s structure.

However, this inclusion is uneven. While women appear in academic and institutional contexts, they are also framed separately in sections like the “Polywog Queens,” (Fig. 14)  or "Beauty Queens,” (Fig. 15) where recognition is based on appearance rather than merit. The contrast reflects how representation is constructed. Even if the yearbook itself was produced by students, the way content is selected and framed still reflects broader institutional and cultural expectations, where authorship does not necessarily mean autonomy.

The role of belonging becomes less straightforward in this context. Unlike 1909, where interpersonal and intrapersonal factors are largely absent from representation, the 1959 yearbook begins to show a relationship between the two. Increased visibility of students, departments, and interactions introduces interpersonal elements, which shape how individuals perceive their place within the academic community. However, the way these interactions are displayed, particularly for women, limits how they translate into meaningful self-perception.

As a result, the yearbook does not just reflect belonging, it helps shape it. While interaction becomes more visible, the framing of identity still constrains how individuals, especially women, can see themselves within the field. Inclusion increases, but integration does not fully follow. Instead, belonging exists in a negotiated space, where representation expands, but remains guided by institutional and cultural boundaries.

        (Fig. 14. Polywog 1959, Polywog Queen section)

        (Fig. 15. Polywog 1959, Beauty Queens section)

Takeaways:

The 1959 Polywog represents a transition point where the yearbook shifts from a purely institutional record to a more expressive publication that reflects student identity. 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 mediated, but they are still shaped by existing structures, making this a negotiated space between institutional influence and emerging student expression.

The 2009 edition:

(Fig. 16. Polywog 2009, Poly at a Glance)

(Fig. 17. Polywog 2009 edition)

The 2009 Polywog represents the most recent edition of the yearbook at what is now NYU’s Polytechnic School of Engineering, produced at a moment when the Polytechnic Institute was in the process of merging with NYU. This period marked a broader institutional transformation, where Polytechnic was being integrated into a larger university system and redefined in terms of identity, resources, and academic scope.^[6]

Unlike earlier editions, the 2009 yearbook feels less like a record of the institution and more like a culmination of everything it had become. It encompasses a wide range of student life, including classes, projects, clubs, faculty, and academic culture, almost as if it is showcasing students at NYU Poly in motion, capturing their routines, ambitions, and presence within the institution. In this sense, the yearbook becomes less about documenting structure and more about reflecting lived experience.

Design and Visual Expression

Design in the 2009 edition is significantly more advanced compared to both 1909 and 1959. The yearbook is well-preserved, fully in color, and heavily visual, with collage-style layouts that bring together departments, students, faculty, and activities across each page. Rather than isolating subjects, the pages are dense with images, mixing group photos, candid moments, and individual portraits in a way that creates a more layered and dynamic composition (Fig. 17, 18, and 19).

This shift reflects not only advancements in printing and digital layout software, which enable flexible page composition, image layering, and rapid editing, but also the broader evolution of design tools that allow text, images, and graphics to be combined seamlessly within a single layout.^[7] The consistent use of color, varied image sizes, and fluid layouts creates a more engaging visual experience, where the reader moves through the page rather than simply reading it. Unlike earlier editions, visuals are now the focal point of the yearbook and language is supplementary.

What stands out most is the visible diversity across these pages. Students and faculty from different ethnic, cultural, and academic backgrounds are presented together within shared spaces, whether in departments like Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering or in broader institutional acknowledgments (Fig. 18). This creates a sense of plurality that was largely absent in earlier editions. Identity is no longer presented as uniform or segmented, but as something distributed across a wide range of individuals and experiences.

As a result, the yearbook shifts from organizing identity to showcasing it. The institution is no longer framed as a single unified body, but as a network of people, interactions, and contributions. Design does not just reflect this shift, it actively constructs it, making diversity visible, integrated, and central to how student life is represented.

(Fig. 17. polywog 2009, clubs) (Fig. 18., Polywog 2009, Engineering Departments)                                                 

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. This shift suggests that the yearbook is no longer trying to define students through the institution, but instead reflect how students experience it.

This is especially clear in sections like the President’s letter and introductory pages (Fig 20 and 21), where language carries a reflective quality tied to the institutional transition. The President’s message emphasizes the ability to expand upon Polytechnic’s identity while integrating into a larger, more global system, framing the merger as growth rather than loss. This perspective is echoed in a student voice as well (Fig. 21), where Roger Eisenhardt class of  writes, “Life is an evolution,” reinforcing the idea that change is continuous and necessary.

Together, these perspectives create a dual narrative. On one level, the yearbook reflects the institutional transformation and expansion. On another, it highlights how students themselves navigate and internalize that change. The evolution of the institution is mirrored by the evolution of student identity, making the yearbook both a record of transition and a reflection on it.

As a result, the tone becomes more forward-looking and interpretive. It does not simply present what Polytechnic was, but what it is becoming. Language no longer defines identity, but frames it as something fluid and evolving, shaped by both institutional change and student experience.

(Fig. 20. Polywog 2009, Presidents Letter)                  (Fig. 21. Polywog 2009, Student’s Letter)

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. This increased visibility introduces stronger interpersonal signals, where students are seen interacting, collaborating, and participating across shared spaces, reinforcing a sense of presence within the institution (Fig. 17, 18 and 19).

However, this shift is also shaped by technology in a deeper way. By 2009, access to digital media and online platforms had already begun transforming how people interact and present themselves. Research shows that digital technology influences attention, memory, and social behavior, often distributing interaction across multiple spaces rather than concentrating it in one^[8].

This directly affects how belonging is formed. Interpersonal interactions, now spread across both physical and digital spaces, shape how individuals perceive their role within the community (intrapersonal perception). For example, a student who sees themselves featured in a department project, collaborates with peers in class, and also engages with those same peers through online platforms or shared digital spaces may begin to see themselves as an active and valued member of that academic community. At the same time, that perception is influenced not just by the interaction itself, but by how it is presented and reinforced across these different spaces. While the yearbook captures moments of interaction and diversity, it is no longer the primary space where identity or belonging is constructed. Instead, it becomes one of many platforms where identity is displayed. Students already exist within a network of digital environments that shape how they see themselves, making the yearbook a reflection of identity rather than its foundation.

This creates a different kind of tension. Identity is more visible, diverse, and expressive than ever before, but 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. This raises an open question: does this expansion create stronger connection, or does it fragment it? In this sense, the 2009 yearbook captures both sides, offering greater opportunity for expression and inclusion, while also revealing a more complex and less centralized experience of belonging. Rather than resolving this tension, it exposes it, showing that belonging is no longer something stable or singular, but something shaped across multiple spaces, interactions, and representations.

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.

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. At the same time, it raises questions about what future yearbooks begin to look like. Will there still be a physical yearbook, or will it shift entirely into digital spaces? Will identity continue to be captured in a single format, or spread even further across platforms? And as the student body grows and evolves, will the concept of a “yearbook” itself remain, or transform into something entirely different?

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 yearbooks 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, through both interpersonal interaction and intrapersonal perception. In 1909, belonging was largely imposed, with little visible interaction or individual voice. By 1959, it began to emerge through interaction, but is still shaped by how those interactions are framed. By 2009, it expanded across multiple spaces, where interaction is constant, but how individuals interpret their place within it becomes more complex.

It’s also clear that the role of the yearbook itself evolves alongside this shift. It moved from documentation in 1909, to appreciation in 1959, to recognition in 2009. As the student body grows and becomes more diverse, it also raises key questions: does increased visibility and interaction strengthen belonging, or does it make it more dependent on how individuals perceive themselves within an increasingly complex environment?

If interpersonal interaction continues to expand across digital spaces, how will that shape intrapersonal identity in future generations of students? Will belonging become stronger through constant connection, or more fragmented as it spreads across platforms? What will the 2059 Polywog look like, if there even is one? Will it still carry the same name, or exist in a physical form? And more importantly, will the diversity, creativity, and ambition seen in 2009 continue to grow, or evolve into something entirely different in an even more digital and connected world?

FAQS:

Q: There is a large gap between the timelines. What made you choose these dates?

A: Curiosity. Going through the yearbooks, the most recent edition of the Polywog was 2009. That made me interested in comparing it to earlier editions at meaningful intervals, roughly half a century and a full century apart. What I found was that the way these yearbooks are constructed reflects both the institution and its student body at that time. Rather than focusing on gradual change, I chose these points to highlight clear shifts in how belonging and identity are represented across different eras.

Q: Yearbooks are also influenced by ongoing events at that time. Why did you choose to focus on design/visuals and language/tone?                                                                          

A: The core elements that shape how a yearbook is experienced are its design, visual expression, and the language and tone used throughout. I focused on these because they directly influence how the student body is represented and how their stories are communicated. Rather than addressing external events directly, these elements reveal how those influences are translated into the yearbook itself. This allowed me to stay rooted in the yearbooks as primary sources, while also leaving room for future exploration of how broader events shape them.

Q: Why those specific primary sources out of the yearbooks?

A: Most of the imagery within each yearbook edition was fairly similar to what I described, so I focused on outliers like elements that diverged from the norm or revealed underlying attitudes and priorities. For instance, the “Polywog Queen” section in 1959, the opening greeting in 1909, and the student letter in 2009 each offer insight beyond their surface content, reflecting how identity, voice, and institutional influence were framed in their respective periods.

Q: If there were an extension to this exhibit, where would it go? 

A: While working on the exhibit, I found myself pulled toward other factors that also shape how yearbooks are constructed, such as broader historical events, shifts in media, and changing academic culture, including the evolution of printing methods and the gradual inclusion of women across editions. There are many directions this could extend into, especially when considering how external forces influence student life.

However, I chose to focus specifically on belonging within the yearbooks themselves. That focus is intentionally narrow, since belonging is difficult to isolate without acknowledging the many factors that shape daily life, but it also allows the exhibit to stay grounded in how identity is represented within the yearbooks rather than everything surrounding them.

Q: Are you overinterpreting limited sources?

A: Yearbooks are inherently open to interpretation, and it is possible to read too much into specific word choices or visual arrangements without knowing the exact intentions behind them. My aim wasn’t to recover author intent, but to analyze patterns of representation across editions.

References:

Primary:

Pollywog Yearbook. 1909. RG 030, Poly Archives Serial Publications Collection. Poly Archives, Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, New York University.

Pollywog Yearbook. 1959. RG 030, Poly Archives Serial Publications Collection. Poly Archives, Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, New York University.

Pollywog Yearbook. 2009. RG 030, Poly Archives Serial Publications Collection. Poly Archives, Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, New York University.

Secondary:

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/.

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 School of Engineering, 20 Mar. 2012, https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/womens-history-month-breaking-through-gender-barriers-science-and-engineering.

“Yearbook.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yearbook.

“Offset Printing.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/technology/offset-printing.

“Why Did NYU Rename Polytechnic to Tandon? Engineering Transformed.” NYU Poly Archives, https://www.polyarchives.hosting.nyu.edu/exhibits/show/why-nyu-rename-polytechnic-to-/-engineering-transformed-.

“Design Software History: The Evolution of Design Software from Early Tools to Adobe’s Innovations.” Novedge, https://novedge.com/blogs/design-news/design-software-history-the-evolution-of-design-software-from-early-tools-to-adobes-innovations.

“Letterpress Halftone.” Graphics Atlas, Image Permanence Institute, Rochester Institute of Technology, https://www.graphicsatlas.org/identification/?process_id=371.