School needs to make up their mind

[stingem103]

True, however, neither does admitting you are sick of athletics. I will say though, it does explain a LOT of your posting history on this topic. And yet, you claim to be a big "fan". A fan of what exactly? You must absolutely love RICE and Duke football, huh?

Tell us andrew.......why does Tech play D-1 football? Seriously. What should the AA mission statement say vs what it actually says? This should be interesting.

 

[QuadF]

Would really love to hear how this would work in more detail. No seriously. Stanford seems to the only other example that is successful making this type of argument and being competitive at the FBS level. Beej has personal knowledge that Stanford is an easier academic experience once you get in, and they have a much wider choice of majors. And as others have pointed out, they don't really do that well over time, a few good years then a few miserable years.

In case you missed it, Tech has tried to recruit nationally for higher talent, its just never really worked very well. Please tell us more.

that's why we started importing talent from other counties.

 

[ND_jacket]

Twice you mention that athletics are not important for the kind of students that we want. I will tell you flat out, that is bs, unless you are only focusing on the top asian students (which we are).

My point is that if someone refuses to consider Tech because of the absence of Division I athletics, then they're probably not the type of student Tech wants. Is it a bonus that some consider? Sure, and that's fine. I know grad students for whom the scale was tipped in Tech's favor when picking a school because of the opportunity to go somewhere with DI athletic programs. However, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have come without the programs.

My son had a 2300 SAT/800 Math but wanted a school with activities, particularly sports (actually I told him I would never had gone to MIT after actually seeing it). He works for a technology company now in San Fran with a ton of nerds. And a lot of them play full court basketball, pingpong, billiards, get together for football Sunday, etc.

Don't conflate engaging in or intrest in athletic endeavors with a need to have university-sponsored athletics. I have a lot of friends who went to or work at elite liberal arts colleges (Oberlin, Kenyon, Harvey Mudd, Colgate, Davidson, Wellesley, etc.), and their students, because of the size and nature of the institutions, tend to have high participation rate in intramural and D-III athletics. They like sports, but they didn't find a D-I athletics program a feature they needed in their college/university experience.

Additiionally, like it or not, but Tech is a state university who is supported big time by the state. We compete for state funds, we compete for state congressional support in getting research grants. And this state chooses as its states activity to be football and by not playing, all we do is further alienate ourselves and hurt our chances down the road.

Tech honestly doesn't get support that could be described as "big time" from the state. Before the financial crisis, it was under 24%. I suspect it's more like 17% now.

As to getting research grants, as I stated up thread, the congressional delegation has zip to do with getting NSF and NIH grants. The only ones that they have any influence over are USDA grants, and those are all going to Athens.

 

[andrew]

True, however, neither does admitting you are sick of athletics. I will say though, it does explain a LOT of your posting history on this topic. And yet, you claim to be a big "fan". A fan of what exactly? You must absolutely love RICE and Duke football, huh?

Tell us andrew.......why does Tech play D-1 football? Seriously. What should the AA mission statement say vs what it actually says? This should be interesting.

A fan of GT football, I fly in for the games.

At this point, I think we play D1 football because we always have. If you look at it objectively there's no way we would choose to involve ourselves in an activity which directly rewards schools who cater to substandard students.

D3 football is actually much more in line with what the missions of GT is.

 

[cuzjacket]

A fan of GT football, I fly in for the games.

At this point, I think we play D1 football because we always have. If you look at it objectively there's no way we would choose to involve ourselves in an activity which directly rewards schools who cater to substandard students.

D3 football is actually much more in line with what the missions of GT is.

Then let's sell Bobby Dodd Stadium to Georgia State and move on. Great academic degrees and a successful athletics program are not mutually exclusive. It's about pride in your school to be the best at everything.

You know what you call a Doctor who graduates next to a jock majoring in PE at a football factory? ........ You call him Doctor. Sure doesn't cheapen his degree. Why would it cheapen an engineering degree?

 

[gtphd]

You know what you call a Doctor who graduates next to a jock majoring in PE at a football factory? ........ You call him Doctor.

By that stretch, a doctorate from the University of Phoenix is the same as a doctorate from Harvard.

 

[cuzjacket]

By that stretch, a doctorate from the University of Phoenix is the same as a doctorate from Harvard.

When did Phoenix get a football team?

 

[KrazieJacket]

Then let's sell Bobby Dodd Stadium to Georgia State and move on. Great academic degrees and a successful athletics program are not mutually exclusive. It's about pride in your school to be the best at everything.

You know what you call a Doctor who graduates next to a jock majoring in PE at a football factory? ........ You call him Doctor. Sure doesn't cheapen his degree. Why would it cheapen an engineering degree?

You will soon find out that wanting a good football team makes you the next to be voted off nerd island.

 

[goldmember]

A fan of GT football, I fly in for the games.

At this point, I think we play D1 football because we always have. If you look at it objectively there's no way we would choose to involve ourselves in an activity which directly rewards schools who cater to substandard students.

D3 football is actually much more in line with what the missions of GT is.

Lets be honest here and I would love if some that share your mindset would respond rather than ignore this point because its an important one in this discussion. Our revenue sports already caters to substandard students when compared to the regular students, substantally substandard on average.

You do understand that right?

If you concede that point and I don't see how you couldn't because it's obvious, then what is all of this talk of cheapening the degree or academic integrety. There is no academic integrety in Div 1 sports if you measure it that way. If our degress can be cheapened by having athletes that would have no business in school otherwise then its already happened. Letting in more 950 SAT guys instead of 1000 wouldn't change that.

 

[goldmember]

A fan of GT football, I fly in for the games.

At this point, I think we play D1 football because we always have. If you look at it objectively there's no way we would choose to involve ourselves in an activity which directly rewards schools who cater to substandard students.

D3 football is actually much more in line with what the missions of GT is.

D3 football is much more in line with the mission of all universities, nothing unique about GT there.

 

[KrazieJacket]

D3 football is much more in line with the mission of all universities, nothing unique about GT there.

But but but you just don't get it. GT is a public school that would be better served to have only foreign students in attendance.

 

[goldmember]

Honest question here, with the talk of a national research university versus a regional technical based education, when did this happen? Hasn't GT been a national research university for some time now? I mean decades? What changes does this mean at the undergraduate level compared to say the mid 90's when i was in school?

Are schools like UCLA, Texas, Michigan, Wisonsin, etc.. not national research universities?

 

[KrazieJacket]

Honest question here, with the talk of a national research university versus a regional technical based education, when did this happen? Hasn't GT been a national research university for some time now? I mean decades? What changes does this mean at the undergraduate level compared to say the mid 90's when i was in school?

Are schools like UCLA, Texas, Michigan, Wisonsin, etc.. not national research universities?

GT is different.

 

[GATechAE07]

Honest question here, with the talk of a national research university versus a regional technical based education, when did this happen? Hasn't GT been a national research university for some time now? I mean decades? What changes does this mean at the undergraduate level compared to say the mid 90's when i was in school?

Are schools like UCLA, Texas, Michigan, Wisonsin, etc.. not national research universities?

In academic circles, GT wasn't as well respected as it is today until President Crecine shifted the academic focus of the university. Clough continued the transition and as a result, GT is now a major player. Tech was always known as a good school in most households, but it wasn't a tier one research institute.

 

[goldmember]

In academic circles, GT wasn't as well respected as it is today until President Crecine shifted the academic focus of the university. Clough continued the transition and as a result, GT is now a major player. Tech was always known as a good school in most households, but it wasn't a tier one research institute.

Okay, fair enough, no way of knowing if that is true or not but lets say that it is. Wasn't that the mid 80's? Our revenue sports admission standards were more lenient up until about 12 years ago. It seem like the shift to a tier oen research institute wasn't a driving factor, or having those 950 guys prior didn't seem to hurt our progress in that regard.

isn't like the entire Big 10 and Pac 12 littered with tier one research universities? Is the University of Florida or the University of Texas?

 

[GATechAE07]

Okay, fair enough, no way of knowing if that is true or not but lets say that it is. Wasn't that the mid 80's? Our revenue sports admission standards were more lenient up until about 12 years ago. It seem like the shift to a tier oen research institute wasn't a driving factor, or having those 950 guys prior didn't seem to hurt our progress in that regard.

isn't like the entire Big 10 and Pac 12 littered with tier one research universities? Is the University of Florida or the University of Texas?

It was the late 80's, but really didn't hit it's stride until Clough. Tech's peer institutions are MIT, Cal. Tech, Stanford, etc. Florida, Texas, and the like don't enter into the discussion.

 

[andrew]

Lets be honest here and I would love if some that share your mindset would respond rather than ignore this point because its an important one in this discussion. Our revenue sports already caters to substandard students when compared to the regular students, substantally substandard on average.

You do understand that right?

If you concede that point and I don't see how you couldn't because it obvious, then what is all of this talk of cheapening the degree or academic integrety. There is no academic integrety in Div 1 sports if you measure it that way. If our degress can cheapened by having athletes that would have no business in school otherwise then its already happened. Letting in more 950 SAT guys instead of 1000 wouldn't change that.

As I've said before, I don't think that giving football exceptions cheapens the degree at all, assuming they can make it through the curriculum.

Adding new, easier majors to be able to keep athletes in school is what would cheapen the degree, because those majors will be available to people other than athletes and would change the makeup of graduating classes. I happen to think that's what it would take for us to be consistently competitive in football.

D3 football is much more in line with the mission of all universities, nothing unique about GT there.

Yes, that is true. That's why I said big time college sports are starting to sicken me.

isn't like the entire Big 10 and Pac 12 littered with tier one research universities? Is the University of Florida or the University of Texas?

GT is far better than those schools. A lot of people on this board don't seem to realize how good it is. We are one of the best STEM schools in the nation, with many top ten and even top five programs.

 

[goldmember]

It was the late 80's, but really didn't hit it's stride until Clough. Tech's peer institutions are MIT, Cal. Tech, Stanford, etc. Florida, Texas, and the like don't enter into the discussion.

I am sorry but you will have to provide some more detail as to why our peer group is only small, elite private schools and why our peer group doesn't also incldue other prestigious public universities who also have strong athletic programs, many of which are more prestigious that GT.

Are you saying the BIG 10 schools and PAC 12 schools don't generate the amount of research that we do? Cal Berkely isn't a peer? Michigan or Wisconsin aren't peers? Why? I am genuinely trying to understand but it can't just be because you say it's so.

 

[cuzjacket]

You know, sometimes the the under dog is the under dog by his own doing.

 

[SoCal Jacket]

In academic circles, GT wasn't as well respected as it is today until President Crecine shifted the academic focus of the university. Clough continued the transition and as a result, GT is now a major player. Tech was always known as a good school in most households, but it wasn't a tier one research institute.

AE 7s, I.ve been following the discussion with some interest that's bleeding outside of football (yes, I saw the other posting "elsewhere"). However, just for due diligence to those of us who learned in the period of transition when the use of scientific calculators instead of slide rules for exams was the hot debate, I must ask for the specific authority for your limitation of Tech's reputation prior to President Crecine (1987-94) and President Clough (1994-2008).

I believe that many of us from the earlier period led by President Petit (1972-86) was also a period of increased stature as a national research institution. In fact, in such leading areas of the time, Georgia Tech led in competition with MIT, Cal, and others in placement of nuclear power research, aerospace engineering, and design, as well as electrical, early computing, and architecture.

(Partially derived from:
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1416)

While our accomplishments in that period may seem antiquated and quaint from our contemporary perspective, these were the zenith days for NASA, Naval nuclear propulsion and power, as well and many other technological areas for which Georgia Tech was heavily involved.

Nevertheless, thank you for the stimulating and thought provoking points regarding the continuing leaps in engineering at the Institute.