Adding majors

Should GT add majors?

  • Total voters
    115
Akinji07 said:
6 hours shy of electrical degree, i finished with mgt. But i still took more engineering classes than your CS ass.
Click to expand...

Hey I may be CS but my job title says software ENGINEER :laugher:.
 
Just the dumbest argument in the world. Mr. X applies for a job with his Biomechanical Engineering degree from Stanford. Company Y laughs in his face...well Mr. X, your Biomechanical Engineering degree from Stanford doesn't mean jackshit. You guys have majors for Drama and Public Policy.
 
QuadF said:
The curricula desired is not for challenging degrees, it's for easy degrees. This is where the crossroads comes into play.

Do you add challenging degrees to expand the degrees knowing it won't help the football team, or do you add fluff degrees for the football team?

Name the curriculum that tech needs for recruiting that isn't fluff.
Click to expand...

Exercise science or physiology would appeal to SAs and regular students, me included.
 
This thread is going full retart.

From my dealings with a number of faculty and administrators at GT, here's what I know: any degree added to the institute will garner the same level of respect as any engineering degree currently offered at Tech. For proof of this fact you need look no further than the business school and the public policy program. The idea that new degree offerings are going to suddenly make your GT degree any less valuable is flat out idiotic.
 
andrew said:
Hey I may be CS but my job title says software ENGINEER :laugher:.
Click to expand...

i wasn't saying anything to you. Some snobs can only feel better about their standing in the world, if they think they're better than other people so I was talking to him in terms he can understand. It's like saying hey look at my truck, it's so much bigger than your dick.

Let's compare salaries too, it'll show whose opinion we should care about more.
 
GoJackets89 said:
Exercise science or physiology would appeal to SAs and regular students, me included.
Click to expand...

The problem is that they appear to be different from GT's core academics. The primary benefit I see is appealing to SAs, hence the disagreement.
 
Akinji07 said:
i wasn't saying anything to you. Some snobs can only feel better about their standing in the world, if they think they're better than other people so I was talking to him in terms he can understand. It's like saying hey look at my truck, it's so much bigger than your dick.

Let's compare salaries too, it'll show whose opinion we should care about more.
Click to expand...

I was just curious if you were lobbying strongly for non-engineering programs because you weren't an engineer. No offense intended.
 
JacketFan77 said:
This thread is going full retart.

From my dealings with a number of faculty and administrators at GT, here's what I know: any degree added to the institute will garner the same level of respect as any engineering degree currently offered at Tech. For proof of this fact you need look no further than the business school and the public policy program. The idea that new degree offerings are going to suddenly make your GT degree any less valuable is flat out idiotic.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong, but I have some doubt about this. How many years was the management degree a mediocre degree? Only in the past 10 years did it really shoot up the rankings and gain national respect. Why did this happen? The GT name? Nope. The College of Management raised big money and wrote some big checks to improve the level of faculty. Sure there is a level of GT engineering-piggybacking, but I think the rise to a top 25 business school is more due to the big monetary investment.

With that said, adding a few more majors won't effect the engineering school. The post above about Stanford is a perfect example. The Econ and INTA degrees aren't holding back the IE program. I wouldn't expect a few new majors with a couple hundred students having a big impact on whether GT still produces top notch aerospace engineers. I'm pretty sure Lockheed and NASA won't care either.

Ideally, I'd like to see a medical school or a nursing program, but I have no idea how feasible that is and don't have any idea what the monetary investment would be and if the Institute and state could swing that.
 
JacketFan77 said:
This thread is going full retart.

From my dealings with a number of faculty and administrators at GT, here's what I know: any degree added to the institute will garner the same level of respect as any engineering degree currently offered at Tech. For proof of this fact you need look no further than the business school and the public policy program. The idea that new degree offerings are going to suddenly make your GT degree any less valuable is flat out idiotic.
Click to expand...

Those programs have been ranked nationally as good programs by us news; they aren't merely good by proxy.
 
05GTCorndog said:
Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong, but I have some doubt about this. How many years was the management degree a mediocre degree? Only in the past 10 years did it really shoot up the rankings and gain national respect. Why did this happen? The GT name? Nope. The College of Management raised big money and wrote some big checks to improve the level of faculty. Sure there is a level of GT engineering-piggybacking, but I think the rise to a top 25 business school is more due to the big monetary investment.

With that said, adding a few more majors won't effect the engineering school. The post above about Stanford is a perfect example. The Econ and INTA degrees aren't holding back the IE program. I wouldn't expect a few new majors with a couple hundred students having a big impact on whether GT still produces top notch aerospace engineers. I'm pretty sure Lockheed and NASA won't care either.

Ideally, I'd like to see a medical school or a nursing program, but I have no idea how feasible that is and don't have any idea what the monetary investment would be and if the Institute and state could swing that.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with you about the value of investment, but 10 years is about what I would expect for a new program to rise to prominence.
 
This debate is getting really heated... lets make it less personal.

Tech won't add b.s. degrees. Why not? Let's say Tech adds Puppetry Arts. How many potential Puppetry Arts students have 700+ Math SAT scores and AP Calculus? Right, basically none. So that program will either be empty or Tech will need to decrease the academic requirements to get into that program.

If Tech decreases academic requirements for admission to that program, that hurts the value of all Tech degrees. "My cousin got into Tech with a 1700 SAT score and 3.1 High School GPA!" If Tech lets the program operate with very few students (maybe just a few athletes), the BoR will be upset with the cost per student of the program and will shut it down.

The schools with the "easy" majors who do it well - UNC, UVA, Michigan, etc. run their programs by having very high admission standards but still attracting a large number of applicants. It took those schools a very long time to get to that point (50+ years) and it isn't something Tech can do overnight. If Tech does this, it will be one program at a time, and will be a very strategic expansion. It won't be "hey, let's add Communications, Education, Nursing, and Art History to get some football players."
 
05GTCorndog said:
Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong, but I have some doubt about this. How many years was the management degree a mediocre degree? Only in the past 10 years did it really shoot up the rankings and gain national respect. Why did this happen? The GT name? Nope. The College of Management raised big money and wrote some big checks to improve the level of faculty. Sure there is a level of GT engineering-piggybacking, but I think the rise to a top 25 business school is more due to the big monetary investment.

With that said, adding a few more majors won't effect the engineering school. The post above about Stanford is a perfect example. The Econ and INTA degrees aren't holding back the IE program. I wouldn't expect a few new majors with a couple hundred students having a big impact on whether GT still produces top notch aerospace engineers. I'm pretty sure Lockheed and NASA won't care either.

Ideally, I'd like to see a medical school or a nursing program, but I have no idea how feasible that is and don't have any idea what the monetary investment would be and if the Institute and state could swing that.
Click to expand...

My concern is over enrollment. I'd rather enroll students in programs we have that are really good, not just try to add more degrees for more options. That doesn't mean don't ever expand, but I don't think expansion for expansion's sake is good.
 
QuadF said:
Those programs have been ranked nationally as good programs by us news; they aren't merely good by proxy.
Click to expand...

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Of course they're not good by proxy - they're good because the institution put together a good product. That's my point. The Hill isn't going to put an inferior product on the market. Whatever degrees, if any, Tech decides to offer, they will be quality.
 
05GTCorndog said:
The College of Management raised big money and wrote some big checks to improve the level of faculty. Sure there is a level of GT engineering-piggybacking, but I think the rise to a top 25 business school is more due to the big monetary investment.
Click to expand...

There was more piggybacking than you'd imagine.

Tech's CoM is highly ranked overall because two programs are extremely highly ranked: Technology Management and Operations Management (i.e. Supply Chain Management). These programs piggy back on Tech's reputation in Technology (from CompE and CS) and Supply Chain (from ISyE). Tech's reputation in those areas increased the school's specialty rankings and were used to get donations to people in those areas of industry.

In addition, Tech was able to get a lot of high scoring GMAT students early because Tech's name appealed to engineers who wanted to earn an MBA. Those students are what really shot Tech up in the rankings. Even today the majority of the MBA class has engineering degrees.

That's not to say it wasn't planned - the CoM administration knew their strengths and played to them very well.
 
QuadF said:
The problem is that they appear to be different from GT's core academics. The primary benefit I see is appealing to SAs, hence the disagreement.
Click to expand...

I've taken calc and chem(physics sequence is also suggested) in my core, but that is mainly for grad school requirements for PT school. GT could just make it required, which would just help the student with getting admitted to grad school and keep that calc requirment for all of GT's majors.
 
i think we should merge computer science back into electrical engineering. Doesn't sound like it needs to be separate major really. We're an engineering school.

Most electrical engineers I know can code too, but they can also build the computers.
 
Guys. Hey guys. Listen. Seriously guys.

We can't beat Georgia in football because they have easier different majors and stuff than we do.

Listen to this. Guys.

How about we steal their majors and then like all their players will come to GT now? Right man. Get it. We steal all their easy majors and then we're just like them. And then we win man. We go out and win from now on just like that. They can't compete with that, right.

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