A Talk with Campus Leaders

[cyptomcat]

from a poster on bbuzzoff:

During presentation with question session on Friday for Alum with President Peterson, I asked him the following:
“I live in Virginia and saw how the applications and stature for VT went up when Beamer started to win. Is it possible to have a major that will be more accommodating to help our football recruiting? I have noticed that Notre Dame has their Arts and Letters degree which is what allows them to get to a 98% graduation rate without hurting their academic reputation.”

He said that we were adding, “History, Sports and Technology” that would help a bit and deferred the question to the Provost for Academic affairs (Dr Bras ). Dr Bras talked for a bit about the major and how it would be tailored to the interests of athletes but still be technology related. It is reportedly on page 6 of the current Technique. (I didn’t get a copy and just looked for it on-line at Technique - The South's Liveliest College Newspaper and couldn’t find it yet. If anyone has any other info it would be appreciated.)

I asked if we could defer calculus to the sophomore for that major and from their reaction, it was clear that this had been discussed. (Thanks Cracker.) The answer was no, because they don't want to dilute the academic rigor of GT. There was scattered applause throughout the crowd.

Later, I saw Provost in the hall and we talked some more:
• His principal point was again that we weren't going to dilute our academic standards. We are going to do it our way.
• He made the valid point that athletes may do better in History, Sports and Technology since they are naturally interested in the field. I think this is true, but it’s hard to get interested in Calculus if you are really only interested in sports. Calculus is an obstacle for many athletes. ( I loved math and took 14 quarters worth.)
• Stanford is the model of how it should be done. To which I said that they had some easy majors. He said that all the majors could have academic rigor and indicated that his son went to Stanford. I need some help here. Could someone look up the majors for the Stanford football players and comment on the curriculum.
• I liked the Provost and believe that we both want to get GT to define the technological research University of the 21st century. He believes that the academic mission is the most important (we agree). But I don't believe he understands the DNA and psyche of what drives public perception. He said that MIT is the best university in the world and doesn't have a football team.

 

[TechinItEasy]

 

[ThisIsAtlanta]

 

[etc79]

 

[gnats67]

Peanut butter and Jam. Where are all the guys that look like Obama?

 

[MtownJacket]

Pretty sure MIT has a division III football team, but his point remains.

 

[GTLaw02]

Announcement re: Sports, Society and Technology

 

[NatiJacket]

Peanut butter and Jam. Where are all the guys that look like Obama?

But no go ahead, keep making PB&J comments

Also, I highly doubt that "History, Sports and Technology" is a real thing

 

[wesleyd21]

So incremental change (at best), is to be expected.

 

[ThisIsAtlanta]

Peanut butter and Jam. Where are all the guys that look like Obama?

 

[ThisIsAtlanta]

Announcement re: Sports, Society and Technology

Also, I highly doubt that "History, Sports and Technology" is a real thing

Hi, I'd like you to meet the post above yours.

 

[BuzzCzar]

 

[DressCheeseSideSeaboard]

For HTS:

Mathematics

Students complete one of the following mathematics sequences: MATH 1711 and 1712; MATH 1501 and 1502; or MATH 1501 and 1711. MATH 1501 or MATH 1712 must be completed in the student's first 30 credit hours at Georgia Tech.

 

[NatiJacket]

Hi, I'd like you to meet the post above yours.

Hi, I was busy finding black MIT football players!

But also, I was right. 'Sports, Science and Technology' makes more sense than 'History, Sports and Technology'. The latter would be a much more odd grouping of topics.

From the link:
"Why does "sport" matter in society today? What valuable and /or detrimental roles do sports play in the life of individuals, cities, and nations? What policies promote or hinder sports and wellness in communities? What key questions does sports studies need to address in order to remain relevant in changing times?"

 

[cyptomcat]

Hi, I'd like you to meet the post above yours.

I thought that was a typo too, very interesting that we are thinking about a program with sports in the name.

I can see all this sports visualization (stats etc.) lumped in there. That would be really cool. CS already has courses on that.

We also have courses on journalism and media technology, with sports emphasis, they might go in here too.

 

[ThisIsAtlanta]

I thought that was a typo too, very interesting that we are thinking about a program with sports in the name.

I can see all this sports visualization (stats etc.) lumped in there. That would be really cool. CS already has courses on that.

To be perfectly honest, if they did some crossover with CS to introduce some stats and things like that, I'd be interested in that program. At that point I would already do just about everything this major entails in my spare time, so I might as well get a degree out of it.

 

[BuzzCzar]

there should be a track in the HST program which studies the use of technology in sports, and the influence of sports on culture and then back on technology

sports are used as marketing vehicles, vehicles of diplomacy, relate to international business and cooperative efforts in charity and business and many more influences

technology has impacted sport and sport has in turn affected technology

but still, dont drop the calculus. it aint that hard

edit:
after reading cyp's comment, i think a sport psychology track in the psychology school would be very interesting and could work with the Homer Rice Total Person center in doing things like visualization and mental preparation

 

[33jacket]

Pretty sure MIT has a division III football team, but his point remains.

again thats the problem. We aren't MIT. We are GT. We strike a balance between ultra dork scientists and a school that competes in football. Our history is practical engineers, and we produce a ton that can walk and chew gum at the same time. Hence why they are CEOs and MIT is in NASA.

Any analogy to MIT is a total fail by our leaders. Stanford is an ok analogy with a school that doesn't require calculus but still can have rigor.

for some reason rigor to GT is the presence of calculus and THAT IS DUMB and the root problem. You can have a great degree, with good rigor and not require calculus or other courses that turn off many, not just SA.

 

[BuzzCzar]

i do believe Georgia Tech has put more men in space with NASA than MIT, i guess you dont understand Georgia Tech as well as you think you do

NASA and aerospace
Name Class year Notability References
Eric Boe 1997 NASA Astronaut (STS-126, STS-133) [115]
Michael R. Clifford 1982 NASA Astronaut (STS-53, STS-59, STS-76); Former US Army lieutenant colonel [116]
Jan Davis 1975 Retired NASA Astronaut (STS-47, STS-60, STS-85); current director of the Safety and Mission Assurance directorate at Marshall Space Flight Center [117]
James Henry Deese 1935 NASA administrator [118]
Ben T. Epps 1904 Known as "Georgia's First Aviator" was an American aviation pioneer. In 1907, he built a monoplane of his own design, now known as the Epps 1907 Monoplane, followed by other original monoplane and biplane designs. [119]
Gabriel Georgiades 1979 Professor of Aerospace Engineering at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. [120]
L. Blaine Hammond 1974 Retired NASA Astronaut (STS-39, STS-64) [121]
Charlie Hillard 1958 American aerobatics pilot, and the first American to win the world aerobatics title. [122]
Scott J. Horowitz 1982 Retired NASA Astronaut (STS-75, STS-82, STS-101, STS-105) [123]
Ellis L. Johnson 1960 Coca-Cola Chaired Professor in the H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Georgia Tech [124]
Susan Still Kilrain 1985 Retired NASA Astronaut (STS-83, STS-94) [125]
Robert S. Kimbrough 1998 NASA Astronaut (STS-127); Among the first candidates selected for astronaut training in the United States following the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster [126]
Charles Kohlhase 1957 Worked for forty years at NASA/JPL leading the design of several robotic deep-space planetary missions. [127]
Timothy Kopra 1995 NASA Astronaut (STS-127); Flight engineer and science officer of the International Space Station ; US Army lieutenant colonel [128]
Sandra Magnus 1996 NASA Astronaut (STS-112, STS-126, STS-119, STS-135); member of the ISS Expedition 18 [129][130]
William S. McArthur 1983 NASA Astronaut (STS-58, STS-74, STS-92); veteran of three Space Shuttle missions; veteran of one mission to the International Space Station via the Russian Soyuz capsule [131]
Alan G. Poindexter 1986 NASA Astronaut (STS-122, STS-131) [132]
James R. Thompson, Jr. 1958 Director of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center located in Huntsville, Alabama from 1986 to 1989, and NASA's deputy director from 1989 to 1991. [133]
Joe F. Thompson 1971 Aerospace engineer and chaired professor at Mississippi State University known for contributions to the field of computational fluid dynamics. [134]
Richard H. Truly 1959 Retired NASA Astronaut (Approach and Landing Tests, STS-2, STS-8); Retired Vice Admiral in the United States Navy; 8th Administrator of NASA (1989 to 1992); head of the Georgia Tech Research Institute (1993 to 1998) [135]
Douglas H. Wheelock 1992 NASA Astronaut (STS-120, Soyuz TMA-19, Expedition 24/25) [136][137]
John Young 1952 Retired NASA Astronaut (Gemini 3, Gemini 10, Apollo 10, Apollo 16, STS-1, STS-9); First commander of the space shuttle, one of 12 men to walk on the Moon on Apollo 16 [138]


EDIT: ok, so MIT has produced 31 astronauts which may or may not be more than GT but in any case its pretty close. My point remains, we have ALWAYS been the dorks at NASA and had football. About as many dork at NASA as MIT, despite your false characterization

 

[MtownJacket]

again thats the problem. We aren't MIT. We are GT. We strike a balance between ultra dork scientists and a school that competes in football. Our history is practical engineers, and we produce a ton that can walk and chew gum at the same time. Hence why they are CEOs and MIT is in NASA.

Any analogy to MIT is a total fail by our leaders. Stanford is an ok analogy with a school that doesn't require calculus but still can have rigor.

for some reason rigor to GT is the presence of calculus and THAT IS DUMB and the root problem. You can have a great degree, with good rigor and not require calculus or other courses that turn off many, not just SA.

Are there not a ton of Georgia Tech CEOs? Is there not a ton of GT involvement with NASA?

I don't claim we will ever be MIT top to bottom, but GT engineering is right there with them.