Interdisciplinary Studies at Tech?

No. I want the athletics to do well, I'll support them with every breath I take, but if it means compromising academics, then no.
 
Lets be honest guys, Interdisciplinary Studies at Tech would be a kick in the curlies, the "Institute Core" part of a GT degree is more challenging than pretty much anything at Generic State.

I seriously doubt something like that would attract anymore SAs than we already have, and it certainly wouldnt keep them for more than a year or two.
 
Since Georgia Tech's SA graduation rate is last among all ACC schools (~54%), could you not make an argument that we are actually doing more harm than good by having such difficult academic programs? Would it not be better to have a degree in a "jock" major than to not have a degree at all?

Just asking.
 
A wider range of majors would attract a wider range of excellent student-athletes who just aren't interested in engineering. Interdisciplinary Studies isn't the answer, but majors that more good students can relate to could be. Let's break out of the tunnel vision that says that if it isn't engineering-related it isn't any good. The academic standards can be just as high as thery are now - just different subject matter appealing to a wider selection of potential SA's. On a related note, isn't adding majors a university system decision? How likely is it that the UGag-dominated Board of Regents is going to provide GT with the means to really threaten their alma mater?
 
just getting more majors like social sciences majors and physical education and administration majors would help too. I have no problem with interdisciplinary majors, and I don't see how it corrupts academics. This will also attract some prelaw or premed students.
 
cyptomcat said:
I have no problem with interdisciplinary majors, and I don't see how it corrupts academics.
Click to expand...

It isn't the major that corrupts the academic integrity. It is how the original question was phrased. You don't add a major to become more competitive at sports. You add a major if it advances the mission of the school. If that helps sports, then fine. But sports should not be the driving cause.
 
Easier majors are a way to get better talent on the field and have a better chance of winning but another way to win is to scheme around your lack of size, speed, and talent. Purdue, TTU, WVU, Tulsa (this year), Navy are all doing this and we will try it with PJ's offense. I just think our current academic requirement, despite being very challenging, do allow for SA's who are talented enough to come in and run a system that will equalize the playing field when matched up against more talented teams. So no I don't think we needs basketweaving majors to be succesful given PJ's offense (fingers crossed on the two minute drill).
 
I would rather disband the athletics then sacrifice the academics at Tech. Adding jock majors hurts the Institute as a whole, by devaluing the education. I love the football team, and I would love to see us win every year. But the school itself is vastly more important. Besides, we've already got INTA and the M-Train.
 
Allen Koholic said:
I would rather disband the athletics then sacrifice the academics at Tech. Adding jock majors hurts the Institute as a whole, by devaluing the education. I love the football team, and I would love to see us win every year. But the school itself is vastly more important. Besides, we've already got INTA and the M-Train.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.

You can also look at this from the birds-eye, University System of Georgia level. Why are there not engineering schools at UGA? Because GT is the instrument at the research university level that fulfills that need for the system. UGA and Georgia State have programs that fulfill other needs for the system.

This is not a flawless theory, but having 2 or 3 high level institutions that cover the same educational needs is a little superfluous and a waste for a state this size.
 
I think we should add a jock major, but make it as hard as the other majors. Just make it interesting to jocks.


Sports Engineering
Classes include:
Acoustics (stadium noise)
Biomed (prosthetics)
Nutrition Chemistry (build a better Gatorade)
Investment Banking (how to turn your millions into tens of millions)
Web Media / HTML Programming (cnnsi.com)
Public Speaking (sports journalism)

We could easily create an interdisciplinary program at Tech that would actually TEACH jocks stuff. Stuff they'd probably be really interested in. Stuff that normal students might be interested in too, actually.
 
we already have Rocks for Jocks in the Earth Sciences
 
Personally, I think that Tech should add some education majors. They could easily do it in science, economics and math. I was accepted at Tech and if they would have had some kind of education major then I would have went there because I really wanted to teach and coach. Probably would have walked on too, although its not very likely I would have ever gotten anywhere near the field lol.
 
I am proud of my Tech Degree but I do not think it would be diminished any way if there were a PE degree at Tech any more than a UGA law degree is diminished by jocks taking PE at UGA. Everyone knows, including business, that this is a nothing degree not to be taken seriously. I think Tech should push for a broader curriculum.
 
Tech is an engineering school though. From a purely educational stand point, if a Georgia student wanted an engineering education, he would apply at Tech. If he wanted a liberal arts degree(albeit printed on toilet paper) he would attend UGA. Bluntly, the Institute is not for everybody. And it would be touch sledding to convince the Board of Regents that we should adopt curricula already available at other universities in the state.
 
I am proud of my Tech Degree but I do not think it would be diminished any way if there were a PE degree at Tech any more than a UGA law degree is diminished by jocks taking PE at UGA.
Click to expand...

The PE degrees at UGA *do* diminish UGA law degrees. Especially when Conan O Brian is using the Jim Harrick Basketball Quiz in his opening monologue.
 
GTYellowJacket12 said:
Easier majors are a way to get better talent on the field and have a better chance of winning but another way to win is to scheme around your lack of size, speed, and talent. Purdue, TTU, WVU, Tulsa (this year), Navy are all doing this and we will try it with PJ's offense. I just think our current academic requirement, despite being very challenging, do allow for SA's who are talented enough to come in and run a system that will equalize the playing field when matched up against more talented teams. So no I don't think we needs basketweaving majors to be succesful given PJ's offense (fingers crossed on the two minute drill).
Click to expand...

Guys, nobody is advocating "easier" majors, "jock" majors, basketweaving, etc. etc. Make the academics as tough as you please, just provide homes for the real SA's out there who don't want engineering. Real SA's won't mind the rigor.

However .... the point about duplicating offerings already available at multiple other university system units is very valid - the Board of Regents are unlikely to permit it, especially as it would increase competition for their alma mater.
 
The very idea of a college altering their curriculum to have a better athletics program is absolutely absurd. I think we should add sociology and philosophy as well so we can get our pothead numbers up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top