A Talk with Campus Leaders

doesn't management not require calc?

also, students can take calc at any school in ga and the credits transfer. you can't get easier math than at GPC, so my pity isn't exactly flowing.
 
midatlantech said:
MIT has less than 100 trees on the whole campus

...

Personally, I wouldn't want that
Click to expand...

midatlantech said:
I will say it again. MIT is a think tank stuck in a bunch of cold concrete.

...

I wouldn't have sent my kids to Tech
Click to expand...

midatlantech said:
I never said anything about engineering prowess and lack of trees
Click to expand...

seriously-face.jpg
 
You can't expect MIT to have many trees. Their mascot is the beaver.
 
cajunjacket said:
The separation between MIT and GT, although only a few spots in the rankings, is still quite large. There is another whole tier of higher learning institutions filled with the MITs, Harvards, and The University of Chicagos of the world. We aren't part of that tier, and we're wasting our time if we're trying.

I think that's what midatlantech is referring to when he says Thank God. If you're at that level, you don't have [successful] D-IA sports. Stanford is the only real exception to this rule, but it becomes clear once you look at their majors: http://facts.stanford.edu/undergraduate.html. A lot of those degrees are relatively easy, but it doesn't degrade the Stanford name.

For the same reason, removing the Calculus requirement out of a single major will not degrade the reputation of our top engineering programs.
Click to expand...


Yes this is all correct. I do not think that Tech is really competing with MIT for top engineering status. We are far removed from that. And I don't think the state's mission for the school was for that originally, nor now.

Like it or not, the two schools aren't close to each other in nature:

MIT: 6400 Undergrad/6500 Grad
GT: 13000 Undergrad/ 6400 Grad (and undergrad is growing rapidly).

The basic charters are different. Tech has done well under that charter but it is more of a university than a think tank. Universities offer a lot more services than think tanks. We are not MIT, nor Cal Tech and personally I think that is a good thing.

Now my central theme was clear: If Tech wants to become those schools, I'm all for it. We aren't right now, nor do I see us as going in that total direction.
 
midatlantech said:
Yes this is all correct. I do not think that Tech is really competing with MIT for top engineering status. We are far removed from that. And I don't think the state's mission for the school was for that originally, nor now.

Like it or not, the two schools aren't close to each other in nature:

MIT: 6400 Undergrad/6500 Grad
GT: 13000 Undergrad/ 6400 Grad (and undergrad is growing rapidly).

The basic charters are different. Tech has done well under that charter but it is more of a university than a think tank. Universities offer a lot more services than think tanks. We are not MIT, nor Cal Tech and personally I think that is a good thing.

Now my central theme was clear: If Tech wants to become those schools, I'm all for it. We aren't right now, nor do I see us as going in that total direction.
Click to expand...

Overall, I would agree. However, individual programs are beginning to compete directly. AE undergrad for example overtook MIT for a while a few years ago. As far as the nature of the schools, the vision of GT moving forward (as has been pointed out in other threads) is to move towards a 50/50 undergrad/grad split. The current situation and direction are two different things. This is one reason why you saw the approval of UGA's engineering programs.
 
midatlantech said:
Yes this is all correct. I do not think that Tech is really competing with MIT for top engineering status. We are far removed from that. And I don't think the state's mission for the school was for that originally, nor now.

Like it or not, the two schools aren't close to each other in nature:

MIT: 6400 Undergrad/6500 Grad
GT: 13000 Undergrad/ 6400 Grad (and undergrad is growing rapidly).

The basic charters are different. Tech has done well under that charter but it is more of a university than a think tank. Universities offer a lot more services than think tanks. We are not MIT, nor Cal Tech and personally I think that is a good thing.

Now my central theme was clear: If Tech wants to become those schools, I'm all for it. We aren't right now, nor do I see us as going in that total direction.
Click to expand...


It would be nice to hear more from Bud Peterson and Dr. Bras on this topic.

As a MIT alum, Dr. Bras seems set on "re-making" GT in the mold of MIT. I'm just not so sure that is the appropriate mission for GT.

I remember a lot of campus turmoil when Crecine wanted to "re-make" GT.

In an era of ever-declining quality of high-school education, allowing SA's to shif some of the Math & Science req's to their Sophomore year doesnt seem to be asking too much. I'm not sure I see how the "quality" and "rigor" of GT is compromised.

I think I would I prefer GT to more like Stanford, than MIT.
 
GATechAE07 said:
Overall, I would agree. However, individual programs are beginning to compete directly. AE undergrad for example overtook MIT for a while a few years ago. As far as the nature of the schools, the vision of GT moving forward (as has been pointed out in other threads) is to move towards a 50/50 undergrad/grad split. The current situation and direction are two different things. This is one reason why you saw the approval of UGA's engineering programs.
Click to expand...


Not sure I understood what you meant.
Can you explain further?
 
3GT said:
As a MIT alum, Dr. Bras seems set on "re-making" GT in the mold of MIT. I'm just not so sure that is the appropriate mission for GT.
Click to expand...

This initiative started way before Rafeal Bras.

I remember a lot of campus turmoil when Crecine wanted to "re-make" GT.
Click to expand...

What you're seeing today IS a direct result of Crecine's initiatives.

In an era of ever-declining quality of high-school education, allowing SA's to shif some of the Math & Science req's to their Sophomore year doesnt seem to be asking too much. I'm not sure I see how the "quality" and "rigor" of GT is compromised.
Click to expand...

If you let athletes do it, you have to let everyone do it.

I think I would I prefer GT to more like Stanford, than MIT.
Click to expand...

Stanford is not a STEM school. Conversely, GT never has been and never will be a liberal arts university.
 
GATechAE07 said:
This initiative started way before Rafeal Bras.



What you're seeing today IS a direct result of Crecine's initiatives.



If you let athletes do it, you have to let everyone do it.



Stanford is not a STEM school. Conversely, GT never has been and never will be a liberal arts university.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the input.
 
3GT said:
Not sure I understood what you meant.
Can you explain further?
Click to expand...

Tech is not currently on equal footing with MIT; the school's direction/plan/etc. aims to close that gap. In doing so, Tech will no longer be able to satisfy the state's engineering needs. As beej has pointed out numerous times, the engineering graduates you see coming out of Tech today are considerably different from the graduates you see coming out of SPSU (and for that matter UGA) in terms of readiness for hands-on engineering work. As a response, UGA's programs were in part formed to fill that void as Tech becomes more of a research oriented Institute.
 
GATechAE07 said:
Tech is not currently on equal footing with MIT. The direction the school is on aims to close that gap. In doing so, Tech will no longer be able to satisfy the state's engineering needs. As beej has pointed out numerous times, the engineering graduates you see coming out of Tech today are considerably different from the graduates you see coming out of SPSU (and for that matter UGA) in terms of readiness for hands-on engineering work. As a response, UGA's programs were in part formed to fill that void.
Click to expand...

Lol, Tech's engineers are way more "ready" for "hands on engineering work" than SPSU or UGA grads, they just leave the state for higher paying jobs.
 
MtownJacket said:
Lol, Tech's engineers are way more "ready" for "hands on engineering work" than SPSU or UGA grads, they just leave the state for higher paying jobs.
Click to expand...

That really depends on who you ask, what field you are in, and whether or not the student co-op'd; you should find beej's post on the issue. That said, leaving the state for different work reinforces my point about no longer filling the state's engineering needs.
 
Oh öööö I just spilled water on my degree. It is now diluted. Maybe I should grind up some Viagra and sprinkle it on it to increase its potency.
 
Guys I just realized that the "tree" theory is wrong. The number of trees is not indirectly related to quality of academics. Stanford's mascot is the tree, and they have good academics AND athletics.
 
For reference:

THE MISSION

Technological change is fundamental to the advancement of the human condition. The Georgia Tech community—students, staff, faculty, and alumni—will realize our motto of "Progress and Service" through effectiveness and innovation in teaching and learning, our research advances, and entrepreneurship in all sectors of society. We will be leaders in improving the human condition in Georgia, the United States, and around the globe.

:pop:
 
DressCheeseSideSeaboard said:
For reference:

THE MISSION

Technological change is fundamental to the advancement of calculus. The Georgia Tech community—students, staff, faculty, and alumni—will realize our motto of "Calculus" through effectiveness and innovation in calculus and calculus, our calculus, and calculus in all sectors of calculus. We will be leaders in improving calculus in Georgia, the United States, and around the globe.

:pop:
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top