Academic myths...

B

BEESerk

Flats Noob
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
694
I laid out ALL of the availabe majors several years ago, and no one could disagree with my premise that we absolutely offrer many AND most "liberal" degrees. They are there, and anyone who has about 15 minutes can figure it out.

I'll go pull that info out again when I get a chance just for the sake of argument if need be.

Of course ALL of our degrees are centered around the Mission of the Institute. Therefore individual degrees may be (and most likely are..) little bit harder than at other schools. However, the point is that GIT offers plenty of degrees that are atrractive to LOTS of candidates.

This academic talk is nothing more than crap. Crap it is. I have said it from day one on the Hive when GOL was god, and people said that our academics prevented us from "taking the next level". Nothing has changed in the balance of things.

Are SAT's and AP progress at higher standards? Probably so. Is our capacity to accept SA's different than under Ross, O'Leary, and Curry? Hell no. If you think different, than please contact me privately to discuss it. If you think things are truly different, then our President is truly hiding an incredible standard that is unknown to the masses and the financial lifeblood of this athletic program.

I don't take too much credence in what the "sports media" has to say, however Chuck Smith said something that made LOTS of sense and the more I thought about it the less I could disagress with him....



"If academices was the end all be all, then Mississippi State would be winning MNCs". And I'm gone...........
 
So explain this then. I have two kids in college and another going in two years. We've spent quite a bit of time looking at schools of different kinds. Tech is the ONLY school that we've seen that requires 4 higher level maths for admission. That's for ALL degrees. You can disagree all you want, but unless you can show that's wrong you don't know what you're talking about. A liberal arts major that requires 2 calculus courses isn't really liberal arts compared to most schools. Plus, if we allow kids in without 4 maths and they have to take another course to prepare themselves, they still have to take calculus to stay on progress towards their degree. Tell me another school with that requirement.

I do think that we should allow Chan more leeway in who he offers and then hold him and the academic advisors responsible for those kids doing well in class. But you haven't shown anything that's an academic myth except for what the degrees at Tech are called.
 
Plus Duke students have to take

4 classes versus 5 classes every semester to stay on track to graduate. If you went to college you know the difference between 12 hours and 15 is huge.

Then add in that like 2/3rds of Duke classes are free electives versus ~1/3 at GT. Do you remember if free electives were generally easier or harder than core classes?

What a joke of a post.
 
BEESerk: I would appreciate it if you would explain your comment "If you think things are truly different, then our President is truly hiding an incredible standard that is unknown to the masses and the financial lifeblood of this athletic program". Please tell us "exactly" what that comment is referring to. I consider myself and my family to be very vested in this program and I would like to know exactly what is going on.

Thanks!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Tech is the ONLY school that we've seen that requires 4 higher level maths for admission.

[/ QUOTE ]


And this is some recent change??? Did Tech decide it didn't have high enough standards recently and raise the bar? I must have missed that press release.

Yes... I know that Tech is harder than most schools. I said that. However, that has not changed since the inception of this school. I simply challenge the premise that things have changed dramatically all of a sudden. If they have changed dramatically, then Clough is certainly hell bent on killing our football program and we all need to wake up and realize it instead of accpeting DB's PR crap.
 
Go to the Hive and read Gregg Garrett\'s comments

He posted today.

They track very closely what I have heard for sometime now.
 
I got a BA in graphic design and I applied to Tech to go into their new Computational Media program.

My BA required 2 lab sciences (for non-science majors) and one College Algebra

Obviously, I got turned down by Tech saying that even though I have a degree I can't come in until I take Cal I and Cal II plus two other science based lab classes. My labs don't count and these 4 classes have to be taken at another school.

So since then I've been going to GPC to get the Cal and Labs taken care of only to reapply when I'm done.

Bottom line, it's a hard school to get into. Granted it should be, but I don't see why a HS player can't take the math at Tech he missed in HS. As long as they learn it, isn't that what's important?
 
Re: Plus Duke students have to take

[ QUOTE ]
What a joke of a post.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your attempts at logical thought are a joke. Now that we got the childish internet attacks out of the way...

Greg Garret's post on the hive just confirmed exactly what I was saying...

NOTHING HAS CHANGED when it comes to our academic requirements. In the past we simply had an athletic administration who did fight the hill. GG said exactly what I said. The academics have not changed, the balance of power has changed. The shift in power is going to kill this program by DB's own admission. DB pretty much admitted he is not going to fight the hill. Basketball can't support the entire GTAA, current facilities, and all of the "olympic" sports. We are already losing money. We are close to a financial tailspin.

I am an academic snob actually. However I think that if we are proud of the fact that we flunk out a third of our popoulation, the that means we shouldn't give a rat's arse about the graduation rate of athletes. It is a hypocrisy.

If DB isn't willing to challenge the Hill, then get ready for D1-AA.
 
Re: Plus Duke students have to take

[ QUOTE ]
However I think that if we are proud of the fact that we flunk out a third of our popoulation, the that means we shouldn't give a rat's arse about the graduation rate of athletes. It is a hypocrisy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have always felt this way myself.
[ QUOTE ]

If DB isn't willing to challenge the Hill, then get ready for D1-AA.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly, I think this may be coming, and I think we're all powerless to do anything. It seems that the fans/alumni are being kept in the dark about EVERYTHING and by the time things get announced, they've already happened.
I'll miss GT, cause if this crap keeps happening, then its just not GT anymore.
 
Re: Plus Duke students have to take

[ QUOTE ]
Greg Garret's post on the hive just confirmed exactly what I was saying...

[/ QUOTE ]

so what

[ QUOTE ]
NOTHING HAS CHANGED when it comes to our academic requirements. In the past we simply had an athletic administration who did fight the hill.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right...our academics have not changed. However, the requirements for graduation rates by the NCAA have changed...and if you do not meet them you WILL LOSE SCHOLARSHIPS. Our paltry grad rates in the late 90's would have resulted in lost scholarships.

Can you please just go back to BuzzOff where you guys can all snuggle up together.
 
Re: Plus Duke students have to take

[ QUOTE ]
Can you please just go back to BuzzOff where you guys can all snuggle up together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad to see the Hive PR machine is alive and well here to. I don't have the first clue about where the Buzzoff forum is located, nor do I care to visit there. I support GT and its SA's unquestionably, but I am not a myrmidon either.

Will you support our program if it moves to D1-AA?
 
It must suck to be so wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
however it seems that the approach by the school towards the student athletes has swung hard to one side - I'm sure that some changes were needed but as has been indicated from several sources it has really changed dramatically to one side.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that means there has been no change to you, fine. Greg says there has been a dramatic change as pointed out by several sources.

If we had guidelines that were broken often, (14 players including JH in the Gator Bowl alone) and now they are enforced, THAT IS A CHANGE.

Only extremely selective reading combined with ignorance would allow one to claim Greg says there has been no change.

He even gives the same prediction I've been giving. We probably have to hit rock bottom for the Hill to change.
 
Re: It must suck to be so wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
He even gives the same prediction I've been giving. We probably have to hit rock bottom for the Hill to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, we are now on the same page. Please read what I have said again. I NEVER said there has been no changes. I said the Academics have not really changed. The balance in power is what has changed, and your GG quote states just that.

I absoluetly agree with you that if the Hill is enforcing certain standards (whether they are new ones or not we will never know because it has never been made public) then we are headed down a road that pretty much takes us out of competing in D1-A athletics.
 
Re: It must suck to be so wrong.

We have no choice in some regards though. The old standard for satisfactory progress was hours passed. It had nothing to do with whether you were on track towards a degree. This is why so many of O'Leary's players were eligible but didn't graduate. The NCAA has changed the rules so we have had to institute changes to try to comply. Why is that so hard to understand?

If we change our requirements for SAs we also have to convince them that 2 years of math is okay instead of the none they may have to take elsewhere. They will have to make up the math they missed in HS as well as meet the requirements for their degree. The only other scenario that seems like it would work is to eliminate some of the requirements from some degree programs.

Either way the academic issues that have been brought up are not someone's imagination and they are different from what O'Leary and Ross dealt with.
 
Re: Plus Duke students have to take

BeeSerk
Interesting that you have no counter to the NEW NCAA academic requirements and their impact on our program.

Plus...the effect of those new req's had they been in place in the late 90's when our grad rate fell like a rock.
 
Re: Plus Duke students have to take

[ QUOTE ]
BeeSerk
Interesting that you have no counter to the NEW NCAA academic requirements and their impact on our program.

Plus...the effect of those new req's had they been in place in the late 90's when our grad rate fell like a rock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that you don't either.

Please tell me you didn't seriously think I completely forgot about that issue and have now been blindsided by a left hook that I didn't see coming?
 
Tech may have not changed but the rest of the playing field sure has. The other schools have set up curriculli to be able to compete more effectively. Everything changed in the 60's when TV money came to call and college sports became a business.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, most of the football team has a decidedly darker hue than those of Tech's Golden Age in the 50's and early 60's. ...not that there's anything wrong with that... but they may not be looking at the scholarship opportunities in the same way as a guy who was happy to get a free ride at a good school.

I still believe the biggest obstacle we have to overcome is our "work hard" academic ethic compared to most other schools in this country. Kids now view school as an "experience" instead of an "education". The social aspect is VERY important and we still have an academic "that which does not kill you makes you stronger" attitude as an institution. That will turn off MOST potential student athletes at the get go.

Until we come down off our high horse and pony up a jock degree that doesn't try to bust student athletes balls then we will be at a disadvantage. But we need the "easy" degree.

Some people say that would lessen the value of a Tech degree. I call BS on that. The degree you get is more important that the name of the school. There's absolutely no denigration to a EE grad from having a mgt major or a sports management major for that matter.
 
Re: It must suck to be so wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
We have no choice in some regards though. The old standard for satisfactory progress was hours passed. It had nothing to do with whether you were on track towards a degree. This is why so many of O'Leary's players were eligible but didn't graduate. The NCAA has changed the rules so we have had to institute changes to try to comply. Why is that so hard to understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that completely, and the method to my madness is to get right at this issue. In relative terms, nothing has changed still. Did NCAA change their rules for eligibility? Absolutely! Does that affect Tech worst than most schools? Absolutely!

Is that any different than how things have always been? Absolutely NOT!


Yep, so GOL's players would be inelgible today. No arguing that point. Lets get beyond that, and talk about the corssroads which I think are before us. Are you willing to accept DB's statements that any hope of being competitive is long gone? Everyone so far seems to agree that DB was speaking the truth, but are mad because he actually said it.

[ QUOTE ]
If we change our requirements for SAs we also have to convince them that 2 years of math is okay instead of the none they may have to take elsewhere. They will have to make up the math they missed in HS as well as meet the requirements for their degree. The only other scenario that seems like it would work is to eliminate some of the requirements from some degree programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you have moved the whole debate to the realm of finding a solution to our problem, which is exactly what we need to be talking about instead of fighting with each other.

I am admitted academic snob. You mention maybe we need to drop the requirements on certain degrees. Perhaps that is what we need to do. I certainly would not be opposed at this point. However, I don't think the process to do that is something that can be done a short amount of time.

I do think we need to seriously lower the admission requirements for our SA's. I don't think it is fair to hold them to the same standard's as regular students for admission. Whether people admit it or not, SA's aren't exactly held to the same standards as regular students one they are here anyway (granted the new rules may seriously change that). I believe in giving people a chance. I also believe CCG would not bring in the dredges of society. I think he would make every attempt at brining in quality young men of good character that he thinks could represent GT if given the chance.

Lets give CCG the real chance he needs to succeed. If that means we may have to rethink the standards we have in some of our curriculums, then I am willing to start that process if it is our intention to compete in D1-A football.

[ QUOTE ]
Either way the academic issues that have been brought up are not someone's imagination and they are different from what O'Leary and Ross dealt with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't disagree with you on this, but I simply say that we have always issues and it has been proven that we can deal with it. So lets deal with the new circumstances. That is what GT is all about.
 
Re: It must suck to be so wrong.

So if your point on this was to get to a discussion of ways to manage our curriculum within the new NCAA rules, why didn't you just say that? People have attacked you based on what you posted, which was basically crap IMO. What you've come around to is a reasonable discussion of what we might be able to do to compete.

My concern is that is nothing changes in terms of requirements, we're still setting kids up to fail if we relax our entrance requirements. They will still have to meet the same standards after they are admitted that every student does, but they will be on a schedule mandated by the NCAA. It seems to me the only real solution is a major or majors that don't require the level of math the rest of our programs do, primarily for SAs. I'm not sure Tech will ever take that stance.

The only other solution is to put more money into the academic support programs and encourage Gailey to take more chances on who he recruits. We'll have to baby sit kids through their studies to make them successful. Is that where we want to be? Maybe it's time for a joint program with Ga State?

The biggest thing that's changed of course is the graduation requirement. Before it was embarrassing if we had low grad rates ala O'Leary. Now it can kill a program.
 
Re: It must suck to be so wrong.

I am starting to hear rumblings about more resources needed for academic support. If this means that AA provided academic tutoring is crumbling, we really do have a problem that needs to be addressed.

If I am way off about the health of the tutoring program, please set me straight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top