A Talk with Campus Leaders

cyptomcat said:
It's not all that bad. It sounds like they are telling athletes to major in HTS, and then within that major, focus on sports by taking a lot of classes on that.

If this can help them become high school teachers/coaches more than management can, I am all for it.
Click to expand...

Would these guys really make good teachers and coaches? A lot of jocks , being natural athletes, just don't make good coaches. I don't even want to think about even some of our jocks being teachers, that thought scares me! Although, they would have no problem maintaining classroom discipline as an authority figure.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
I would expect the company that makes the pump/valve to use more esoteric tools in their R&D department. Most engineering in the real world is buying components off the shelf, choosing the right sizes and HP based on application and then installing the components as a system.
Click to expand...

That's a hell of a broad statement.
 
hiveredtech said:
I did not look through 11 pages of posts....but in case it has not been mentioned...the brilliant powers that be at GT have decided not to allow a B.S. in Sports and Technology. Instead it is a certificate program...kind of like concentration within another degree.

Again...no help in broadening the curriculum at GT. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

what in the world would a sports technology major include? it sounds like pure fluff.
 
tony-clifton-on-taxi.jpg
 
ramblinwise1 said:
Well, yes, it is a broad statement. Maybe we should ask everyone who's ever had the job title of "engineer" if they used quadratic equations as part of their job duties?
Click to expand...

i always think how your avatar matches the content of your posts. ridiculous idiocy
 
GoldZ said:
My post was in response to doers, ok?
Click to expand...

You're right, the curriculum does produce doers . The senior capstone course in particular is very well designed to encourage application of a theoretical foundation. That still has no bearing on the ranking though. ;)

To add to this, I'd actually characterize the AE fixed-wing capstone add being virtually worthless. Improving these sorts of courses would go a long way fixing the perception of theory-based curriculums.
 
GATechAE07 said:
You're right, the curriculum does produce doers . The senior capstone course in particular is very well designed to encourage application of a theoretical foundation. That still has no bearing on the ranking though. ;)

To add to this, I'd actually characterize the AE fixed-wing capstone add being virtually worthless. Improving these sorts of courses would go a long way fixing the perception of theory-based curriculums.
Click to expand...

I took statics from an AE douche. I wouldn't trust those öööös to put my fold down try in the up-right position.
 
Whether or not it's truly necessary, calculus is a great barrier against the slippery slope that leads to Fundamentals of Basketball. I'm completely in favor of keeping the calculus requirement. Learning that a line has a frickin' slope is no harder than it was learning to read--the comparative derivative of the learning curves is smaller. Trying to motivate the student-athletes academically through more interesting programs like SST is definitely worth trying before nuking the definitive engineering-school class. If they can enjoy the rest of their classes they'll be able to tolerate the one hard one.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
Well, yes, it is a broad statement. Maybe we should ask everyone who's ever had the job title of "engineer" if they used quadratic equations as part of their job duties?
Click to expand...

I think the point is not just it is a broad statement; it is a broad statement from a fairly narrow perspective.
 
I knew a Marine who was a "Sanitation Engineer". I'll bet he never even heard the word "quadratic".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top