Interdisciplinary Studies at Tech?

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.
There currently is a home for SAs that want majors like communications, hospitality management, interdisciplinary studies, etc. It's UGA, or GSU, any other school not named Georgia Tech that offers them. If you don't want to be an engineer, or ride the M-Train, then this is not the school for you, no matter what you post in the 40. Athletics exist to enrich the school, the school does not exist to give athletes a home.
 
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.

don't forget HST and Public Policy. I really think we enough places to hide jocks now. We don't need the regents, we need these schools to ease it up a little.
 
And they are flocking to those homes in droves. We think we're very successful if we get 1 or 2 highly-rated recruits a year; the programs we would like to think we can compare to collect them like flies on honey. How many all-americans did Ohio State start Monday night?

Maybe PJ will be able to do more with the type of guys we get; maybe he can scheme his way into being a threat to top-flight programs, maybe not. If 7 wins most years turns out to be the best we can consistently do with the guys in our limited pool, if that's the price of maintaining the academic status quo, are you okay with that?
 
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?


This is reflective of the attitude we need if GT ever expects to connect with the majority of Georgians. Life is not all about engineering and the mission of the Institute does not have to be so narrowly focused. If you you think that the addition of a couple of liberal arts majors would cheapen your degree then you should "Lighten up Francis!"There currently is a home for SAs that want majors like communications, hospitality management, interdisciplinary studies, etc. It's UGA, or GSU, any other school not named Georgia Tech that offers them. If you don't want to be an engineer, or ride the M-Train, then this is not the school for you, no matter what you post in the 40. Athletics exist to enrich the school, the school does not exist to give athletes a home.

The atttitude of allen kohilic is total BS. Get over yourself and join the real world. Otherwise place your mechanical pencil back in your pocket protector and go crunch numbers as it is really f'ing obvious that you want an intramural program like Vanderbilt. You can not have both in football. But you can have both if you lose the holier than thou attitude and realize that your Shiate stinks just like that of the liberal arts majors.
 
The atttitude of allen kohilic is total BS. Get over yourself and join the real world. Otherwise place your mechanical pencil back in your pocket protector and go crunch numbers as it is really f'ing obvious that you want an intramural program like Vanderbilt. You can not have both in football. But you can have both if you lose the holier than thou attitude and realize that your Shiate stinks just like that of the liberal arts majors.

Attitudes like this, in my opinion, miss the point.

For starters, who the hell wears pocket protectors anymore?

Also, I don't see how an attitude of "academics should come first" implies that we want to be like Vanderbilt. I also feel it that it should be pointed out (again) that we do have liberal arts majors, conveniently located in the "Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts".

This whole "liberal arts majors are needed" argument is kind of a straw man argument to me anyway. Most of the joke majors I see on TV (like "interdisciplinary studies", "turf management", "apparel, housing, and resource management", etc.) aren't really liberal arts majors anyway. They also aren't engineering or science majors. They are football majors. What normal person would pay to go to school and major in "interdisciplinary studies" or PE? The answer is no one. These types of majors are exist exclusively to hide and protect athletes while they compete at their large, state university, whereupon they will be spit out at the end of their career likely to do some crappy job. (Remember some of the quotes from the Jan Kemp incident? Working at the post office would, indeed, probably be a pretty cushy job for some of these guys.) Georgia Tech should never have programs like this.

I realize some people in the thread were advocating the creating of academic programs that are rigorous and appeal to potential students that are not athletes and not interested in engineering. While I still disagree with your position, this post is not directed at you. (Also, again, we do have several liberal arts degrees now!)
 
What normal person would pay to go to school and major in "interdisciplinary studies" or PE?

Probably a majority of coaches on all levels majored in PE, still with that being said I do not think PE should be a Tech program. Still though, as I said before, a lot of SA and non SA would go to Tech if they had education programs in Science, Math and Economics. A lot of athletes want to coach one day and education is the easiest way to get into that.
 
[Georgia Tech should never have programs like this.

Could not agree more, but there must be a way, and I think we are our own bottleneck to finding it. The pool of kids owning 1340 SAT's and 3.5 GPA's who want to study engineering is way too small relative to the massive numbers available to the schools we would like to be comparable to athletically. I cannot see how widening that pool in a manner consistent with GT's traditional academics would in any way damage the Institute.
 
Almost no football recruit at Tech studies engineering, they study management, HTS, LCC and etc. As others said, we shouldn't change anything just for athletes. If they fit in, they fit in. After all this is THE GT team!

I am of the opinion that GT needs to expand more into non-engineering majors. GT would be a much more enriching institution if we had more diverse students. Student life would improve a lot and all diplomas would have an added value, we would graduate better students. Just as a notice, I am not talking about taking in low-quality students, I mean high quality non-engineering people. I have had many highest honor engineering students at Tech, and lack of breadth classes have always been an issue for them.

In the last decade, I have seen GT moving in this direction strengthening non-engineering majors, adding more and expanding school size as well. Now, this will benefit recruiting eventually, but I repeat, this shouldn't be done just for recruits, but to make GT a better university.
 
For starters, who the hell wears pocket protectors anymore?

Totally saw this guy on campus the other day wearing one. He looked like a professor or a Ph.D. student, but you never know. Everyone was literally stopping to look at him as he passed by. :laugher:
 
Totally saw this guy on campus the other day wearing one. He looked like a professor or a Ph.D. student, but you never know. Everyone was literally stopping to look at him as he passed by. :laugher:

I saw on the Skiles walkway, a pale guy in a plaid gray suit with matching fedora, black socks and white sneakers, and a black mustache with a semi-mullet. He looked like if he got within 100 feet of a middle school he'd be arrested on sight. And he probably would wear a pocket protector.

That's neither here nor there, just that there are some strange looking people at Tech.
 
What about the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts? Does this require Calculus or tough math? The Ivan Allen College may be good for our SA's.


I think former President Hanson and maybe Homer Rice tried to get something like a quality Sports Management Degree at Tech but were shot down by the UGA loving yellow-bellied board of regents. Sports is big business in the USA and I don't know why a great Sports Management program wouldn't be a good fit with our Management Degree.
 
What about the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts? Does this require Calculus or tough math? The Ivan Allen College may be good for our SA's.

The degrees in Public Policy and History, Technology, and Society require, at the minimum, MATH 1711 (Finite Math) and MATH 1712 (Survey of Calc), and I assume the other majors in the Ivan Allen College require these as well. Those are the "easy" math classes at Tech. However, these are the same math requirements that Management has.
 
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.

Hey now, I took a lot of psych and philosophy at Tech, and was one class shy of a minor certificate in each.

I'm frustrated nobody's responded to this idea: (which I rather liked)

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.
beej67,
will neither confirm nor deny any marijuana usage in college
 
You have to understand that at Tech, all degrees are math based. You either get the answer correct or you don't. You either show the exact work or you don't get credit.

In the many options at UGA, you do the work by interpreting something you saw (a painting for example). You express an opinion on fixing crime, etc. As long as you do the work, you can not fail at UGA, particularly when you are a football player (or a basketball player if he can't count to two goals on a court).

At Tech, it flat out requires the correct answer in the end. It is much harder to b.s. your way through.
 
You have to understand that at Tech, all degrees are math based. You either get the answer correct or you don't. You either show the exact work or you don't get credit.

In the many options at UGA, you do the work by interpreting something you saw (a painting for example). You express an opinion on fixing crime, etc. As long as you do the work, you can not fail at UGA, particularly when you are a football player (or a basketball player if he can't count to two goals on a court).

At Tech, it flat out requires the correct answer in the end. It is much harder to b.s. your way through.
 
You have to understand that at Tech, all degrees are math based. You either get the answer correct or you don't. You either show the exact work or you don't get credit.

In the many options at UGA, you do the work by interpreting something you saw (a painting for example). You express an opinion on fixing crime, etc. As long as you do the work, you can not fail at UGA, particularly when you are a football player (or a basketball player if he can't count to two goals on a court).

At Tech, it flat out requires the correct answer in the end. It is much harder to b.s. your way through.

That's true of the College of Sciences and also the College of Engineering. Not true for most of Ivan Allen.

And you can't B.S. your way through--I remember arguing that we should ban engineering majors from some Ivan Allen classes b/c they attempted to do this and brought the whole class discussion down.

The faculty, when I was there, required well reasoned responses that drew from a variety of legitimate sources. So no, you can't BS your way through. I think this is a bad perception stemming from one or two classes with bad profs who allowed this to go on (I won't name names but I'm thinking of two profs in particular).

The absence of a concrete answer does not mean things are a bunch of B.S. Unless of course you are dumb enough to think you are right all the time and the other side is always full of it. I've read enough of your posts to know you don't take that approach.
 
I know for damn sure you can't BS your way through History of Modern Philosophy - that was one of the hardest classes I ever had at Tech, bar none.

beej67,
still gets his Kierkegaard mixed up with his Hegel
 
I know for damn sure you can't BS your way through History of Modern Philosophy - that was one of the hardest classes I ever had at Tech, bar none.

beej67,
still gets his Kierkegaard mixed up with his Hegel
You gotta be kidding. I took Philosophy one quarter to fullfill an elective credit. For the final we were instructed to create two of our own questions relative to the course work, and then answer them.

It was a BS way for a lazy prof to give us all C's and then weight by the brown nose factor.

Oh... and after reading Rand a few years later, I've determined that Kant and Hume were idiots. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top