School needs to make up their mind

The M-Train

Helluva Engineer
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
2,298
Seriously, who makes up the "Hill"?

Bud? Who else? And who are they to have the power to push around those who pay their salaries?

Roll Call - devote it all, as soon as can be done, to the AA for a couple of years. If some alum will not go along with that, don't let them in the pool.

Research $ - contact the gov't agencies & corporations and make sure they know how the money has been wasted here. Make the Hill take a hit. Did we not have someone from the Hill embezzle some money a few years ago? Use political pressure ( and donations) until they get the message that their freeloading has a price. Cut off our nose for a while to save our face.

Stop all academic donations. Give to AA only.

Redo any trust / wills you have to the school. Make sure it goes to AA - ironclad the MF. Make sure nerds on the Hill know about it.

Do what you can to get endowments decreased / changed.

We, in the short term, need to cut ourselves and bleed some until a greater disease is taken out.

What specific names make up this "Hill"? Turn it into Hell.
You are ----ing retarded. You would purposefully damage Tech just so we can suck less at football? What the hell is wrong with you? Dumbass. Tech is what it is today (nationally and internationally recognized research institute) because of academics, not because of what 11 men do on a field 12-14 times a year.

The best solution is the one proposed by gtphd. A large, alumni backed study with recommendations for both the AA and the Hill. Shooting ourselves in the foot just so some people will be less butthurt on ST after ugay beats us in 1 sport is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

You went so far beyond full retart that there isn't even a term for it. Jesus.

EDIT: There is a term for it, it's called being a ugay fan. And that's what you are for even suggesting such a ----ing moronic idea.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
27,234
Seriously, who makes up the "Hill"?

Bud? Who else? And who are they to have the power to push around those who pay their salaries?

Roll Call - devote it all, as soon as can be done, to the AA for a couple of years. If some alum will not go along with that, don't let them in the pool.

Research $ - contact the gov't agencies & corporations and make sure they know how the money has been wasted here. Make the Hill take a hit. Did we not have someone from the Hill embezzle some money a few years ago? Use political pressure ( and donations) until they get the message that their freeloading has a price. Cut off our nose for a while to save our face.

Stop all academic donations. Give to AA only.

Redo any trust / wills you have to the school. Make sure it goes to AA - ironclad the MF. Make sure nerds on the Hill know about it.

Do what you can to get endowments decreased / changed.

We, in the short term, need to cut ourselves and bleed some until a greater disease is taken out.

What specific names make up this "Hill"? Turn it into Hell.
Wtf?? Trolling?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
 

GoldZ

Dodd-Like
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
6,253
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
Good points andrew, but the vast majority of people suggesting expanding our majors are not talking about bringing in dumb students, and I suspect you are well aware of this. In our exchanges you never seem to embrace the fact that where we are now in snobbishness, and where we could/should (imo) be, is a far cry from true factory practices. Of course, I very likely have not read all of your posts.

We can win and sometimes win big with a relatively small increase in numbers of gifted athletes. Especially at 3 or 4 difference making positions. We just won't be able to do it as often as the factories. THIS is our ceiling, not the self imposed midget house we now live in.

We didn't become, as you say, "healthier academically than we have ever been", overnight. As recently as 2000 we wrapped up TIAR, ok? And we did it with young men who wouldn't even be cleared for a recruiting visit today. Was your degree tarnished? Have we still gone on to become healthier academically than ever?

Regards,
Z
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
27,234
We didn't become, as you say, "healthier academically than we have ever been", overnight. As recently as 2000 we wrapped up TIAR, ok? And we did it with young men who wouldn't even be cleared for a recruiting visit today. Was your degree tarnished? Have we still gone on to become healthier academically than ever?

Regards,
Z
We did wrap up TIAR in 2000, and then we had flunkgate in 2002 (or was it 2003?), where ten football players were found academically ineligible at once.

Regardless of whether that type of event tarnishes a degree's image, something like it happening again would be extremely damaging to the football program because the NCAA has gotten much harder on academic progress since then.

Where we differ is the difficulty of the curriculum. From what I gather from your posts, you think that we are not even clearing players for a visit even though they wouldn't fail out. I think that those players you are referencing would have a high probability of failing out given Tech academics.

Not all of them, of course, but too many to do it. Trying to do it leads to fake courses, cheating, etc, when it turns out that many players can't keep up academically, because the answer of the AA isn't going to be, "Well, they can't do it, I guess they'll fail out." It's going to be "Do whatever we can to keep them eligible."

I'm all for giving as many exceptions as we can, given that they can complete our curriculum without failing out at a rate that would kill our APR. As you say, there's no reason to self-handicap ourselves arbitrarily, especially when just having more football exceptions won't do anything to the academic side (again, assuming they can actually do the work so that we don't invite a UNC situation).
 
Last edited:

ramblinwise1

beware the zealot
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
18,344
I imagine that there are a LOT of committees and advisory boards filled with nerds and socialist profs that Bud would have to deal with to make such a change, but he should try to do it anyway.

I hope you guys are right proclaiming the way to go is to be a "research" university. I see a place for that, but I would not put all my eggs in that basket. If you ignore the political universe then those other schools who want to take your research money will out politic you in the end. You can't sit back smug in the lab and think you're doing great.

I'd rather hear about Tech alums starting up businesses and innovating in the real world than the laboratory. I'd rather see more Tech CEOs and fewer Tech pHDs in the Alumni Magazine.

Also, I imagine the government teat is a lot of that research money and there could be some dramatic realignment of those funds in the near future.
 

GoldZ

Dodd-Like
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
6,253
We did wrap up TIAR in 2000, and then we had flunkgate in 2002 (or was it 2003?), where ten football players were found academically ineligible at once.

Regardless of whether that type of event tarnishes a degree's image, something like it happening again would be extremely damaging to the football program now because the NCAA has gotten much harder on academic progress since then.

Where we differ is the difficulty of the curriculum. You think that we are not even clearing players for a visit even though they wouldn't fail out. I think that those players you are referencing would have a high probability of failing out given Tech academics.

Not all of them, of course, but too many to do it. Trying to do it leads to fake courses, cheating, etc, when it turns out that many players can't keep up academically, because the answer of the AA isn't going to be, "Well, they can't do it, I guess they'll fail out." It's going to be "Do whatever we can to keep them eligible."
What concerns me, is that imo the probability is very high, that you know full well that flunkgate involved a lot more than a failure of giving exceptions a chance and then supporting them, yet you still present it as evidence of---there's nothing we can do.

Do you believe Joe H, Josh N, D Smith, and D Thomas were harmed or caused harm, by virtue of being given a chance? Remember Calvin Tiggle and Marco Coleman's contributions to our MNC team? That MNC did nothing---nothing, but help Tech's overall academic goals.

I'm sorry that you have had bad experiences trying to assist certain players academically, but a lot of us have done so with positive results, especially while we were still in school. The difference is in how badly the young man wants it and what kind of work ethic history he had in the classroom before being admitted.
 

Diseqc

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
47,788
I'd rather hear about Tech alums starting up businesses and innovating in the real world than the laboratory. I'd rather see more Tech CEOs and fewer Tech pHDs in the Alumni Magazine.

Also, I imagine the government teat is a lot of that research money and there could be some dramatic realignment of those funds in the near future.
Then chose a different ----ing school to pull for. Tech is a research engineering school. You want something else.
 

cyptomcat

Hibernating
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
68,891
I'd rather hear about Tech alums starting up businesses and innovating in the real world than the laboratory. I'd rather see more Tech CEOs and fewer Tech pHDs in the Alumni Magazine.

Also, I imagine the government teat is a lot of that research money and there could be some dramatic realignment of those funds in the near future.
Tech is doing all of these too. Also has been expanding majors in economics, public policy, etc.

Do you believe Joe H, Josh N, D Smith, and D Thomas were harmed or caused harm, by virtue of being given a chance?
How did these players impact our APR (or graduation rate) or would impact our APR (or graduation rate) in today's world when GT is a lot more of a tough environment than 15 years ago for a business, LCC or HTS degree? That's the real problem.

I don't know the details, but that should be the discussion.
 

ramblinwise1

beware the zealot
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
18,344
Then chose a different ----ing school to pull for. Tech is a research engineering school. You want something else.
Sorry I was here first...

I didn't say research was not important, but I don't think its the most important thing. I remember back in the 70s the AJC did a survey of CEOs of Georgia companies and Tech grads outnumbered UGAy grads by a wide margin. And that was just instate.

I wonder how we'd stack up now.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
27,234
Sorry I was here first...

I didn't say research was not important, but I don't think its the most important thing. I remember back in the 70s the AJC did a survey of CEOs of Georgia companies and Tech grads outnumbered UGAy grads by a wide margin. And that was just instate.

I wonder how we'd stack up now.
I bet very well, nationally. In Georgia maybe not so much. There's no doubt we've become more of a national school as our profile has risen and the world has flattened.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
 

GATechAE07

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
6,881
Sorry I was here first...

I didn't say research was not important, but I don't think its the most important thing. I remember back in the 70s the AJC did a survey of CEOs of Georgia companies and Tech grads outnumbered UGAy grads by a wide margin. And that was just instate.
Comments like this make it clear that many in the older generation of alumni have no idea what becoming a nationally respected university requires, nor what an education from a top tier research school means or entails. If you want to go back to being a cute, regionally known technical engineering school, that's fine. Don't expect for the degree to command as much respect as it does now though.
 

QuadF

Dodd-Like
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
11,354
I bet very well, nationally. In Georgia maybe not so much. There's no doubt we've become more of a national school as our profile has risen and the world has flattened.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
I think it's interesting that we're recruiting internationally. it'll be interesting to see if we can pick up more recruits across the us.
 

TechSBP

Dodd-Like
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
6,862
I've long argued that we should either move to Division III if we want to be consistent with CalTech, MIT, Hopkins. OR, if we want to be more in line with Michigan, Washington, Stanford, Cal, that we should take the steps necessary to win (loser standards, better programs to place athletes in good jobs after graduation, etc).

We need to make up our minds and do one or the other. Half-way gets us nowhere.

As I see it, we are a research university. Sport isn't really that important to our mission anymore, and hasn't been since the early 80's. I prefer going to Division III in football.

That said, I'll still support the program. But if we are going to stay in Division I we need to recognize that a) it isn't about education; b) adjust academic requirements to compete; c) pay players legally (through good jobs when they finish playing); d) commit to winning.
 

ramblinwise1

beware the zealot
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
18,344
I bet very well, nationally. In Georgia maybe not so much. There's no doubt we've become more of a national school as our profile has risen and the world has flattened.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Actually more of our alumni stay in state now than in the 70s when 50% of our grads left state. The largest single employer of Tech grads now is probably Ga Tech.
 

ramblinwise1

beware the zealot
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
18,344
I've long argued that we should either move to Division III if we want to be consistent with CalTech, MIT, Hopkins. OR, if we want to be more in line with Michigan, Washington, Stanford, Cal, that we should take the steps necessary to win (loser standards, better programs to place athletes in good jobs after graduation, etc).

We need to make up our minds and do one or the other. Half-way gets us nowhere.

As I see it, we are a research university. Sport isn't really that important to our mission anymore, and hasn't been since the early 80's. I prefer going to Division III in football.

That said, I'll still support the program. But if we are going to stay in Division I we need to recognize that a) it isn't about education; b) adjust academic requirements to compete; c) pay players legally (through good jobs when they finish playing); d) commit to winning.
That is essentially what I am saying. I could be happy either way actually but if I had to choose, I'd try to compete in Div I. But what we are doing now is silly. And I hope you meant "lower standards"
 

dressedcheeseside

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
5,900
from a former GT student and varsity athlete (same guy who does the technical analysis of our offense):

Changing our academic program in any way for the purpose of enhancing our chances on the athletic field is backwards thinking. What is more important? How far would you be willing to go? Would cheating be acceptable if dumbing down doesn't work?

Personally, I would rather do the absolute best we can while maintaining both our academic standing and specialization. I am very proud of my school and my degree. We are competitive now and, most likely, will remain so. Now, I could support doing some things like increasing recruiting budgets and such to facilitate better recruiting, but I want only TECH MEN joining our programs. I was given an athletic scholarship to TECH while barely making the minimum academic requirements that the general student population had to make.

I fought and scratched my way to a Tech BME degree while playing varsity sports the entire way. Nothing, at no time, was ever given to me in order to grease the tracks. There was no sympathy or favors provided me by professors when I had to miss classes or tests traveling. In fact, I would say that the exact opposite was closer to being the truth. The GTAA did a good job providing tutors but the work was all mine and I had to earn every bit of it. Having gone through all that made me a better man.

GT (and the GTAA for that matter) is in the business of making better men and women who are ready for the world. I don't want to get to the point that I feel guilt for having used a kid for my viewing pleasure, let him graduate illiterate and incompetent only to end up a ditch digger or worse. Nor do I want to take a single baby step in that direction. I understand that we love our sports in this culture. I sure do.

I hate the SEC and everything they stand for and in no way do I want to achieve success with their model. Lets do what we do, and do it better than we do it now (I thought about correcting that last sentence, but it sounded like such a good Yogi Berra that I left it alone)

-Boomergump
 

wesleyd21

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
16,143
I've long argued that we should either move to Division III if we want to be consistent with CalTech, MIT, Hopkins. OR, if we want to be more in line with Michigan, Washington, Stanford, Cal, that we should take the steps necessary to win (loser standards, better programs to place athletes in good jobs after graduation, etc).

We need to make up our minds and do one or the other. Half-way gets us nowhere.

As I see it, we are a research university. Sport isn't really that important to our mission anymore, and hasn't been since the early 80's. I prefer going to Division III in football.

That said, I'll still support the program. But if we are going to stay in Division I we need to recognize that a) it isn't about education; b) adjust academic requirements to compete; c) pay players legally (through good jobs when they finish playing); d) commit to winning.
We already gots those!
 

KrazieJacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2002
Messages
8,936
from a former GT student and varsity athlete (same guy who does the technical analysis of our offense):
"We are competitive now". I didn't see anything Saturday that would cause me to agree with this. This guys is saying throw money at the issue. That is not going to work when the fan base continues to shrink.
 

ElCidBUZZingFAN

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
24,540
Seriously, who makes up the "Hill"?

Bud? Who else? And who are they to have the power to push around those who pay their salaries?

Roll Call - devote it all, as soon as can be done, to the AA for a couple of years. If some alum will not go along with that, don't let them in the pool.

Research $ - contact the gov't agencies & corporations and make sure they know how the money has been wasted here. Make the Hill take a hit. Did we not have someone from the Hill embezzle some money a few years ago? Use political pressure ( and donations) until they get the message that their freeloading has a price. Cut off our nose for a while to save our face.

Stop all academic donations. Give to AA only.

Redo any trust / wills you have to the school. Make sure it goes to AA - ironclad the MF. Make sure nerds on the Hill know about it.

Do what you can to get endowments decreased / changed.

We, in the short term, need to cut ourselves and bleed some until a greater disease is taken out.

What specific names make up this "Hill"? Turn it into Hell.
I get the sense you didn't go/graduate from Tech.

***Full disclosure: I didn't either.***

Anyway, to suggest this as a non-grad is so lame brain retarded.
 
Top