A Talk with Campus Leaders

[mmbt0ne]

I've been told that Terry Blum, when dean of management, went to Clough and told him that he could have a top 10 business school or a place to hide the football players, and asked him to choose which one he wanted. He dodged the question, unsurprisingly. I imagine the faculty over in Tech Square would like to raise the profile and rankings by making the program more rigorous.

Business schools aren't ranked by their undergraduate programs. The reputation takes a hit because we make fun of them with the m-train references, but that's slight and it's really about all of the influence the undergrads have on the rankings.

Even still, the College of Business 100% wants to make the undergraduate program something you have to apply into after being accepted into GT. That's how it is at most other schools, and it would significantly impact the "incoming class" stats (100+ SAT points on the 1600 scale).

 

[GT1992]

I am implying that this is the first time Tech has taken a shot at improving our position with recruits academically. Previous endeavors like an indoor facility were all within the athletic department. I'm not saying it will be easy; I rebuked those complaining it would dilute their degrees. I'm saying that it is progress.

Sent from my DeLorean using the Flux Capacitor

And I responded that it won't do that and you said I was reading something into your words?????

 

[MtownJacket]

Even still, the College of Business 100% wants to make the undergraduate program something you have to apply into after being accepted into GT. That's how it is at most other schools, and it would significantly impact the "incoming class" stats (100+ SAT points on the 1600 scale).

Thats because at most schools its one of the hardest majors. At GT its one of the easiest. I don't see that ever happening.

 

[gtphd]

Even still, the College of Business 100% wants to make the undergraduate program something you have to apply into after being accepted into GT.

This would help athletes. At universities, there are strong programs and weak programs. You apply to the university and as long as you're acceptable for the weakest program, you get in. Then your application then goes to individual colleges (engineering, science, musical theatre, etc.) when then either admits you or rejects you. They do this because it doesn't make sense to have the same admission process for an engineering major (where you're looking for math and science AP courses and high SAT Math) and Musical Theatre (where you might have an audition and look and recommendations from previous directors). This is what allows some universities to have top notch programs in some areas (e.g. engineering and business) while having very weak programs in others. UT-Austin is a good example.

If GT went to this type of system, your scores and grades would only need to be good enough to get into Ivan Allen, which would lower the admissions criteria (compared to the current system where you have to be qualified for the most difficult major, which is engineering).

 

[gtphd]

The reputation is also impacted by the caliber of the faculty, and although you can probably recruit a couple of faculty and guarantee them that they'll never have to teach an undergraduate class, it's not the majority of your faculty. Unsurprisingly, a lot of faculty don't want to be part of a department where the university views the department's role as being a place to educate athletes. This doesn't just apply to business; it's part of the reason Applied Physiology has steadfastly avoided creating any undergraduate programs that could be a place the administration might try to put athletes.

True, but undergraduate teaching is the last thing on the mind of a newly minted PhD from a top research school, unless they have a particular strong affinity for teaching (which you seem to have). Most of the time, all they care about are who the other faculty are, teaching load, salary, prestige of the school, summer support, and resources).

 

[ThisIsAtlanta]

This would help athletes. At universities, there are strong programs and weak programs. You apply to the university and as long as you're acceptable for the weakest program, you get in. Then your application then goes to individual colleges (engineering, science, musical theatre, etc.) when then either admits you or rejects you. They do this because it doesn't make sense to have the same admission process for an engineering major (where you're looking for math and science AP courses and high SAT Math) and Musical Theatre (where you might have an audition and look and recommendations from previous directors). This is what allows some universities to have top notch programs in some areas (e.g. engineering and business) while having very weak programs in others. UT-Austin is a good example.

If GT went to this type of system, your scores and grades would only need to be good enough to get into Ivan Allen, which would lower the admissions criteria (compared to the current system where you have to be qualified for the most difficult major, which is engineering).

Really good point.

 

[midatlantech]

This would help athletes. At universities, there are strong programs and weak programs. You apply to the university and as long as you're acceptable for the weakest program, you get in. Then your application then goes to individual colleges (engineering, science, musical theatre, etc.) when then either admits you or rejects you. They do this because it doesn't make sense to have the same admission process for an engineering major (where you're looking for math and science AP courses and high SAT Math) and Musical Theatre (where you might have an audition and look and recommendations from previous directors). This is what allows some universities to have top notch programs in some areas (e.g. engineering and business) while having very weak programs in others. UT-Austin is a good example.

If GT went to this type of system, your scores and grades would only need to be good enough to get into Ivan Allen, which would lower the admissions criteria (compared to the current system where you have to be qualified for the most difficult major, which is engineering).

I think the fact that we do not have a large offering of degrees, like most state universities, would never allows us to do this anyway. If you didn't get into Business Degree, there just aren't a lot of options left at Tech.

I do think it a good idea to create football majors which allows Ivan Allen to cruise at whatever their speed may be. Lowering admissiions standards across the board isn't going to happen, but having elite business degrees versus business for everyone is doable, I'd think.

 

[runningmann]

Thats because at most schools its one of the hardest majors. At GT its one of the easiest. I don't see that ever happening.

It's changed a significant amount over the last several years. A lot of engineers that take classes seem to struggle comparatively because of the emphasis on presentations and public speaking being a large part of the grades (at least in the upper levels). Between the name change, and the rapid rise in the rankings, its well on its way to compete with other school's business degrees.

I think current students would agree, its more difficult than many of the newer majors. Inta, applied languages, psych, stac, hts, econ and pub policy are all easier majors currently.

 

[runningmann]

I think the fact that we do not have a large offering of degrees, like most state universities, would never allows us to do this anyway. If you didn't get into Business Degree, there just aren't a lot of options left at Tech.

I do think it a good idea to create football majors which allows Ivan Allen to cruise at whatever their speed may be. Lowering admissiions standards across the board isn't going to happen, but having elite business degrees versus business for everyone is doable, I'd think.

They already kind of do this with concentrations. Operations and MIS are both degrees for more academic business majors, with classes that cross list with IE and CS. Marketing and General Management are where a lot of the "Easy A" classes hide.

 

[midatlantech]

They already kind of do this with concentrations. Operations and MIS are both degrees for more academic business majors, with classes that cross list with IE and CS. Marketing and General Management are where a lot of the "Easy A" classes hide.

Thanks.

As to the post above, if the business school is a lot about presentations, etc. it really has changed. I thought it was always based on mathematics and management, which made it often the M Train.

 

[runningmann]

Thanks.

As to the post above, if the business school is a lot about presentations, etc. it really has changed. I thought it was always based on mathematics and management, which made it often the M Train.

http://scheller.gatech.edu/programs/under/index.html

It used to be that way for sure, and there are a few classes still that way (Human Resources, business law, international business), but in recent years it's shot up the rankings. When I started school in 06, it was not in the top 50, but it currently is ranked 31st which is 20 spots ahead of UGA's Terry College, and will shortly be ahead of Emory after the ranking manipulation scandal. It's even more impressive when you consider how many schools have buisness majors. I don't know the actual statistics, but the current bsba students say that if you take the rankings percentile rather than absoulute, the business school is higher than many of the engineering degrees. ()

 

[a5ehren]

Thats because at most schools its one of the hardest majors. At GT its one of the easiest. I don't see that ever happening.

It's kinda funny if you look at the IRP reports. MGT is the only major with significantly more adds than drops.

It's changed a significant amount over the last several years. A lot of engineers that take classes seem to struggle comparatively because of the emphasis on presentations and public speaking being a large part of the grades (at least in the upper levels). Between the name change, and the rapid rise in the rankings, its well on its way to compete with other school's business degrees.

I think current students would agree, its more difficult than many of the newer majors. Inta, applied languages, psych, stac, hts, econ and pub policy are all easier majors currently.

I don't know about other CoE programs, but my last 2 years in ECE had a pretty big emphasis on presentations and professional writing.

They said the #1 feedback they got from employers was that our graduates were incredibly proficient technically but they didn't know how to write or speak to a room of people, so they dumped a ton of resources into it.

 

[ND_jacket]

True, but undergraduate teaching is the last thing on the mind of a newly minted PhD from a top research school, unless they have a particular strong affinity for teaching (which you seem to have). Most of the time, all they care about are who the other faculty are, teaching load, salary, prestige of the school, summer support, and resources).

A bit contradictory there, as you mention that teaching load is something they care about. I think for most that will include the consideration of whether they're teaching two graduate courses and a small, senior-level undergraduate course of bright students per year or two large classes of sophomore/junior undergrads including a bunch of undermotivated student-athletes and one small senior-level or graduate course. I do probably think about this more than most, and that's part of why I'm not looking at tenure-track jobs at top research schools. I'd also say that what you will teach and to whom you'll teach it is a big consideration for well-respected full professors that they might be trying to poach from elsewhere, and that's really where reputation is made.

 

[cyptomcat]

http://scheller.gatech.edu/programs/under/index.html

It used to be that way for sure, and there are a few classes still that way (Human Resources, business law, international business), but in recent years it's shot up the rankings. When I started school in 06, it was not in the top 50, but it currently is ranked 31st which is 20 spots ahead of UGA's Terry College, and will shortly be ahead of Emory after the ranking manipulation scandal. It's even more impressive when you consider how many schools have buisness majors. I don't know the actual statistics, but the current bsba students say that if you take the rankings percentile rather than absoulute, the business school is higher than many of the engineering degrees. ()

looks like Terry is 31st for undergrad too (usnews)

http://www.terry.uga.edu/news/rankings/

 

[MtownJacket]

looks like Terry is 31st for undergrad too (usnews)

http://www.terry.uga.edu/news/rankings/

I'm pretty sure he was referring to MBA programs where UGA is ranked 57.

 

[gtphd]

http://scheller.gatech.edu/programs/under/index.html

It used to be that way for sure, and there are a few classes still that way (Human Resources, business law, international business), but in recent years it's shot up the rankings. When I started school in 06, it was not in the top 50, but it currently is ranked 31st which is 20 spots ahead of UGA's Terry College, and will shortly be ahead of Emory after the ranking manipulation scandal. It's even more impressive when you consider how many schools have buisness majors. I don't know the actual statistics, but the current bsba students say that if you take the rankings percentile rather than absoulute, the business school is higher than many of the engineering degrees. ()

MGT is down from #24 not too long ago.

A bit contradictory there, as you mention that teaching load is something they care about. I think for most that will include the consideration of whether they're teaching two graduate courses and a small, senior-level undergraduate course of bright students per year or two large classes of sophomore/junior undergrads including a bunch of undermotivated student-athletes and one small senior-level or graduate course.

No, it's about the number of classes. Early asst. profs will teach large undergrad lectures and tenured faculty get the small grad electives. A couple of football players doesn't impact anyone's decision process.

 

[GoldZ]

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:

How is it, THIS mission statement doesn't allow for excellence in sports!?

Our "innovation in teaching and learning" needs a re-think, in order to serve "all sectors of society" and to "improve the human condition in Georgia".

Also, I'm guessing mit's mission statement reads a bit differently.

 

[DressCheeseSideSeaboard]

Also, I'm guessing mit's mission statement reads a bit differently.

Mission

The mission of MIT is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the twenty-first century.
The Institute is committed to generating, disseminating, and preserving knowledge, and to working with others to bring this knowledge to bear on the world's great challenges. MIT is dedicated to providing its students with an education that combines rigorous academic study and the excitement of discovery with the support and intellectual stimulation of a diverse campus community. We seek to develop in each member of the MIT community the ability and passion to work wisely, creatively, and effectively for the betterment of humankind.

 

[ramblinwise1]

There's definitely been a shift away from practical engineering and toward theory and research, even over the years I've been around Tech (since 1988).

Anecdotally, all you have to do is look at things like Wreck Parade entries and campus pranks over the years to see that a lot of Tech students no longer really know how to DO a lot of hands-on, practical stuff. Not that they're bad engineers, and in some fields (CS, CompE) the change is probably less evident. But in fields like CE or ME where you sometimes have to put on boots and a hard hat and go DO something, there's definitely a gap in practical application of engineering.

JRjr

This is sad. I guess a lot of it is a sign of the times, with less demand for "doers" because of the decline in manufacturing and now construction. I hope there are enough jobs for you young whippersnappers doing research.

I would rather see Tech trying to broaden its mission and not narrow it. I guess we do need another engineering school in the state after all. We have made our bed and now we must lie in it.

 

[gtphd]

I would rather see Tech trying to broaden its mission and not narrow it. I guess we do need another engineering school in the state after all. We have made our bed and now we must lie in it.

There's not a "Tech" issue, that's where engineering has gone as a field. As a result, you've seen the rise of Engineering Technology majors. That's what the state really needs, not a low-cost engineering major.