School needs to make up their mind

BuzzCzar

Defender of the Universe
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Messages
51,716
Well unreceptive to old ideas should refer to close minded as well right?
it does, but it doesnt make sense. what is your mind close to?

it is closed to new ideas, thus closed minded.

close minded? a door is not close, it is closed. same with your mind, unless it is the f**k rite
 

etc79

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
9,886
it does, but it doesnt make sense. what is your mind close to?

it is closed to new ideas, thus closed minded.

close minded? a door is not close, it is closed. same with your mind, unless it is the f**k rite
Mind blown...:wink:
 

midatlantech

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
6,682
Closed-minded is the more logical spelling of the phrasal adjective meaning intolerant of others or unreceptive to new ideas. Close-minded appears more often and is listed in some dictionaries, but it makes less sense than closed-minded. To say, for example, he is a close-minded man is technically the same as saying he is a man with a close mind. Close to what?

Still, close-minded appears in all types of writing, and it is sanctioned by dictionaries, so we’re probably fighting for a lost cause on this one.
It doesnt happen often by you but thanks for putting a smile on my face. I can go to bed now laughing.
 

goldmember

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Aug 20, 2002
Messages
1,423
im not making a value judgement about it. im saying there are three options

1) create a new major with less stringent academic requirements

2) help them cheat their way through

3) sign guys that meet requirements only

you are choosing 1). im just asking, not telling what you should pick

i just want to clarify the choices
We already have drastically reduced standards compared to regular students. If having a 1000 SAT and 3.0 gives you a good chance at graduating, why isn't this the standard for the regular students.

Based on your options above we are already letting them 'Cheat their way through'. What difference does a 1000 or 950 on the SAT make if the regular students average north of 1350.
 

BuzzCzar

Defender of the Universe
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Messages
51,716
We already have drastically reduced standards compared to regular students. If having a 1000 SAT and 3.0 gives you a good chance at graduating, why isn't this the standard for the regular students.

Based on your options above we are already letting them 'Cheat their way through'. What difference does a 1000 or 950 on the SAT make if the regular students average north of 1350.
here is why and it is very simple. the school has MINIMUM requirement that ALL students should meet in order to be able to pass

after that its a competition. while some students have super high SAT scores some can throw a baseball or jump to dunk or run over linebackers or play flute or do research on earthquakes in china

the competition for spots involves more than just scores BUT you have to have high enough scores to show that you can pass the classes

are the tests the only indicator? no, so im ok with giving some borderline cases a shot. but to make a practice of it is a disservice to the student-athlete.

what we do now is nothing like cheating. we dont have fake majors, we dont make up fake classes, and we dont let people in that dont meet some minimum requirement

just because the average student at Tech scores higher, that doesnt mean that all are not meeting the MINIMUM

take Georgie, even with their easier minimums, they still have about 70 percent of the football team NOT meet the minimum requirements...
 

texstinger

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jul 12, 2002
Messages
8,816
- Contact Bud by the boatloads. He does respond.

- Give money to AA but not the school

- get a coach who can recruit for academics we have
now

- obtain degree programs that enhance the Institute
and, yes, will help us on the athletic front.

- Find ways to communicate to the hillnerds that we
are not taking their arrogant crap anymore. It is
more than just their school.

- tell the whiners to get off their high horse about
their precious degrees and make them take some
responsibility for their own ----ing success or failure
 

BuzzLaw

StinGTalk destroyer
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
11,893
Congrats, that is awesome. My daughter is graduating from Tech shortly. She brought her very desirable math skills with her to Tech primarily because of athletics. (Athletics attracted her to Tech long before her math skills made her valuable as a student.). I will add that she was made promises by coaching in her preferred sport that were totally a lie in the end.(she was also a D1 athlete but chose Tech and walked on).
Let me just say that Tech talks out both sides of its butt.

My Dad did physics research with Tech, he had five children through the school (my daughter chose a major that noone had done that yet). My daughters mother was a ChE, her aunts and uncles numbered another five that went through Tech. My sister and brother also married Tech engineering grads.
All of us enjoyed football firstly, my 87 year old Dad is at home right now enjoying his beloved Fighting Irish.

11 engineers, physics majors, all graduates. I am the last holdout. My daughter and I had a conversation recently. I think she is 20 years ahead of me with her frustration. And we are all from the state of Georgia. Very sad.
That is great!!.....my family
Has a long line of construction.....we have a well known GC firm in ATL since my grandfather opened in the 60's after his stint in the Korean War......my great grand father went to tech in the 20's-30s....never new him but let's just say he's a legend in my family. Don't get me wrong when I say this, my family did not go to Tech for any CHe or any high level engineering degrees...we went to tech to learn how to build....and it has worked well for us, I am extremely proud of your heritage at GT....wow!!
My whole family went to UGA except for me. I'd like to have a Happy Thanksgiving every now and then. If offering a basket weaving major allows that to happen, then I'm 100% in favor of it. While a few folks complain that it hurts our degrees, we can win some games.
 

goldmember

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Aug 20, 2002
Messages
1,423
here is why and it is very simple. the school has MINIMUM requirement that ALL students should meet in order to be able to pass

after that its a competition. while some students have super high SAT scores some can throw a baseball or jump to dunk or run over linebackers or play flute or do research on earthquakes in china

the competition for spots involves more than just scores BUT you have to have high enough scores to show that you can pass the classes

are the tests the only indicator? no, so im ok with giving some borderline cases a shot. but to make a practice of it is a disservice to the student-athlete.

what we do now is nothing like cheating. we dont have fake majors, we dont make up fake classes, and we dont let people in that dont meet some minimum requirement

just because the average student at Tech scores higher, that doesnt mean that all are not meeting the MINIMUM

take Georgie, even with their easier minimums, they still have about 70 percent of the football team NOT meet the minimum requirements...
You didn't address my 2 key points, what is magical about 1000 on the SAT that makes you be able to pass classes while below that means you must cheat your way through. The athletes scoring around 1000 are mostly significanlty inferior students to the the regular students. You are talking about the lower end of Georgia Southern profile there. They are obviously passing by heavy tutoring, jock friendly prof's, and lower standards. Most are doing inferior work compared to the regular students. This is obvious, but is somehow left out of all of these discussions.

The 2nd part is how having lesss rigorous majors affects research dollars. If it did, then why are there so many top tier universities in the bcs top 25. Why isn't it dominated by the Southern Miss's and East Carolina's of the world. Why is Texas and UCLA and Michigan's there (among several others). Doesn't seem to affect their research dollars.
 

KrazieJacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2002
Messages
8,936
What about the school has already made up their mind don't you guys understand? The game is up. GT doesn't give a ---- about football.
 

ramblinwise1

beware the zealot
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
18,344
If you guys really want to blame the Hill, why not start a letter writing campaign to Bud? Get a bunch of football-loving alumni and write a letter (or letters) to Bud promising to cut donations to Tech unless something changes. It might help, it might do nothing, but it's a better plan than bitching about it on a message board.
Actually there's a good chance that having it immortalized on a popular message board is far superior to sending a letter that can be crimpled and thrown into the trash. But I do indeed plan on sending a letter to Bud, just to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 

GoldZ

Dodd-Like
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
6,253
You didn't address my 2 key points, what is magical about 1000 on the SAT that makes you be able to pass classes while below that means you must cheat your way through. The athletes scoring around 1000 are mostly significanlty inferior students to the the regular students. You are talking about the lower end of Georgia Southern profile there. They are obviously passing by heavy tutoring, jock friendly prof's, and lower standards. Most are doing inferior work compared to the regular students. This is obvious, but is somehow left out of all of these discussions.

The 2nd part is how having lesss rigorous majors affects research dollars. If it did, then why are there so many top tier universities in the bcs top 25. Why isn't it dominated by the Southern Miss's and East Carolina's of the world. Why is Texas and UCLA and Michigan's there (among several others). Doesn't seem to affect their research dollars.
Because winning football enhances a school's academic and research goals vs lessening degree values. Many on here don't get it and more importantly the snobs on the Hill don't. 60 Minutes did a good expose on this last week, with college presidents recognizing the value of their sports programs, that their academic programs alone could never achieve. (Now, here comes the lame ass "mission statement" rebuttal--brace yourself)
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
27,236
The best part of this thread is the people saying our attitude towards athletics and insistence on high quality majors is going to somehow hurt us or allow U[sic]GA to pass us.

This despite the fact that not only is our school healthier academically than it has ever been, but also growing continually more diverse, with a rising business program that is already recognized as very good and expands our appeal to good students who aren't just STEM-focused.

Apparently our strategy of maintaining a rigorous academic curriculum for everyone in the school and adding top notch programs to diversify is stifling us academically. What we really need are some dumbed down majors so that we can get people (not just limited to athletes) into the school who aren't very strong academically so we can...well, I'm not really sure, but if we don't do it U[sic]GA will become a better school than us!

Actually, maybe that's not the best but the scariest part of the thread, because some people genuinely seem to believe it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
 

BainbridgeJacket

F*** Joe Biden
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
16,013
The sad thing is my nephew is gifted and looking at schools right now. He wants engineering, but also wants to do music. Folks say that we dont need to water down what we are about with more degrees. BS IMO, he would have been a great asset to Tech; both parents graduated, one a PhD, and he has similar potential. Folks that are so close minded is going to kill our school.

The experience of Tech is what made the best mark on me and helped in my business success. Even a football player can learn big time just from the experience. We are so arrogant now in how Ma Tech tries to choose what is best for the student. Thomas Friedman was bragging about Tech by saying how wonderful it was that the Tech student was being allowed to create their own program. If a football player wants to enjoy the Tech experience and write his own program, what is wrong with that and why is it different?
There are actually some music classes they're starting to offer. I forget the names of the one I took. Remember the commercial with the robot and the drum girl? The robot is programmed to improvise its own music and play along with human counterparts.
 

midatlantech

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
6,682
The best part of this thread is the people saying our attitude towards athletics and insistence on high quality majors is going to somehow hurt us or allow U[sic]GA to pass us.

This despite the fact that not only is our school healthier academically than it has ever been, but also growing continually more diverse, with a rising business program that is already recognized as very good and expands our appeal to good students who aren't just STEM-focused.

Apparently our strategy of maintaining a rigorous academic curriculum for everyone in the school and adding top notch programs to diversify is stifling us academically. What we really need are some dumbed down majors so that we can get people (not just limited to athletes) into the school who aren't very strong academically so we can...well, I'm not really sure, but if we don't do it U[sic]GA will become a better school than us!

Actually, maybe that's not the best but the scariest part of the thread, because some people genuinely seem to believe it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

Take a look at Techs AA Annual Report and you will see monies moving between athletic and academic programs. Take a look at Notre Dames rise academically. Money does move between programs and is easily laundered through Chairs, infrastructure, etc that the academic side would otherwise have to purchase.
 

wesleyd21

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
16,144
or someone could start a firebudpeterson.com website.

Leave it up there until Tech gets a new major.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
27,236
Take a look at Techs AA Annual Report and you will see monies moving between athletic and academic programs. Take a look at Notre Dames rise academically. Money does move between programs and is easily laundered through Chairs, infrastructure, etc that the academic side would otherwise have to purchase.
So the answer to why we need a better football team to help our academics is so that we can make money off of football which we can launder over to the school to buy stuff?

Do you realize our endowment is currently sitting at 1.6 billion dollars? Exactly how much do you think our football program would move over to the academic side if we put a focus on improving it?

Before you answer, keep in mind that Texas's athletic department, which has had great success recently and has a much bigger fanbase than we ever will no matter how well we do, has operating revenues of about $150 million a year compared to operating expenses of $130 million a year, leaving a profit of only $20 million a year.
 

goodbyte

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
1,305
This could be a big reason why DRad left?
But he said that he grew up watching Clemson football in rural Pennsylvania and was a huge fan of the Tiggers when he was just a wee lad. Why would he lie? :hsughcry:
 

cuzjacket

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
447
I guess we will see how good of a business school we are when the football program becomes a money loser in the years to come. Season tickets sales will be way down next year, and I don't see us doing well with walk up sales to counter it either. Football can be an asset or a drain on the school. Its going to have to be a drain before anything happens I'm afraid.
 
Top