Interdisciplinary Studies at Tech?

OF COURSE it makes a differnce. Its not a coincidence that the teams in BCS games offer Inter Studies. Get over yourself. GT is stupid to think that it does not make a difference. No one is saying make the engineering program weak. It is the best in the nation and should remain tough to get in. That needs to stay the same. But why not have Education (P.E.), Inter Studies as majors? If GT gets other NORMAL Student majors (meaning for people who dont like engineering and Calculus 12) then kids from Georgia State, Kennesaw State, West Georgia, UGA, Georgia Southern, will want to come to Atlanta and go to school. This also increases student body. This increases money and FAN BASE! If you want the state of Georgia to be excited about GT then get the families of Georgia invovled in the school!!!!!!!
 
Once again, no where in the mission statement for the Georgia Institute of Technology does it say anything close to expanding the fan base, or making money through athletics, or having a good football team that competes in the BCS bowls. It's something that we all want to happen, but that's just a nice bonus, and it should never be any part of the discussion when it comes to adding courses and majors.

GT is a state school. The state of Georgia already has multiple schools in place to give an education in other areas. GT, once again, is not for everyone.

This argument is starting to go down that road that some discussions on BO tend to head towards. Now I'm not saying that anyone here is nearly that ignorant, but I am going to absolutely flip the eff out if anyone here suggests that we should fire Clough because he focuses more on academics then athletics.
 
Allen Koholic said:
Once again, no where in the mission statement for the Georgia Institute of Technology does it say anything close to expanding the fan base, or making money through athletics, or having a good football team that competes in the BCS bowls. It's something that we all want to happen, but that's just a nice bonus, and it should never be any part of the discussion when it comes to adding courses and majors.

GT is a state school. The state of Georgia already has multiple schools in place to give an education in other areas. GT, once again, is not for everyone.

This argument is starting to go down that road that some discussions on BO tend to head towards. Now I'm not saying that anyone here is nearly that ignorant, but I am going to absolutely flip the eff out if anyone here suggests that we should fire Clough because he focuses more on academics then athletics.
Click to expand...

I support this post 99.9%.

Exception: I think eff should be phuq
 
I was about to say, "Amen" to Allen...

Koholic's post, until I read Wracer X. Thanks, guys.

:biggthumpup::biggthumpup:
 
gt7282c@prism said:
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:
Click to expand...

You took the 1000 level bubblegum philosophy course in the Van Leer auditorium, where you submitted your tests online. Yeah, that was easy. It was also mostly wrong, particularly when it came to the stuff regarding Kant, Hume, and skepticism. That prof was really charismatic, but he sucked at philosophy. He also taught an "Ethics" class (more like ethical theory, again fairly charismatic but not particularly right) that all the EEs were required to take. Which was dumb because it was supposed to make them more ethical engineers, and all it really did was cover different ethical systems by which to justify your actions, thereby having the opposite effect.

The real classes in philosophy (3000 level) were taught by this other dude over in the Smith building. Can't remember his name, but he taught History of Ancient Philosophy, History of Modern Philosophy, Contemporary Philosophy, and some other stuff, and the coursework was really nasty. I had to write a term paper on Wittgenstein's Tractautus Logico Philosophicus, and my final was 10 question in-class essay comparing and contrasting the theories of about a dozen different philosophers.

Rand is a scab picker and Objectivism is Libertarian crap. She's Nietzsche without the intellect or the justification. She's the Sylvia Plath of pop philosophy.

Your statement is like saying Civil Engineering is easy because you got an A in Statics.

beej67,
got a 98 in statics
 
I'll see your Philosophy course and raise you a Performance Studies course that essentially boiled down to a study of David Bowie and glam rock... and was still hard.

But yea ECE ethics = joke.
 
Once again, no where in the mission statement for the Georgia Institute of Technology does it say anything close to expanding the fan base, or making money through athletics, or having a good football team that competes in the BCS bowls. It's something that we all want to happen, but that's just a nice bonus, and it should never be any part of the discussion when it comes to adding courses and majors.

GT is a state school. The state of Georgia already has multiple schools in place to give an education in other areas. GT, once again, is not for everyone.

This argument is starting to go down that road that some discussions on BO tend to head towards. Now I'm not saying that anyone here is nearly that ignorant, but I am going to absolutely flip the eff out if anyone here suggests that we should fire Clough because he focuses more on academics then athletics.
__________________
Fight! Win! Drink! Get Naked!


No schools mission statement says that BCS bowls and making money is the point of the school. Those comments are the same 7-5, not standing on third down, hide behind our academics attitude that has put our program in the position it is in today. More BCS bowls mean better facilities for the school, better computers for the kids that fill up the library when we paly VT on thursday night national television.
DO WHAT IT TAKES TO GET THE PLAYERS IT TAKES TO GO TO BCS BOWLS INTO GT, AND DO WHAT IT TAKES TO KEEP THEM IN SCHOOL. If this isnt a priority then we should cancle all athletic programs and just have intermural teams.
 
Toally agree GTman. Either expand so we can compete or drop the athletic programs. You want to know why we never have depth on the O and D line? Surely the holier than thou engineering graduates can figure that out. Things changed in the 60's (for the better I might add). I wonder how many of the top 200 recruits want to major in enginnering? I wonder how many of them want to take business calculus? Maybe 10?

Those that do not want change better start packing their pocket protectors and begin booking their GD flights to Boise and Frisco because those will be the only bowls GT will see with regularity.

As an alumnus, I love GT Athletics with ALL of my heart, its the arrogancey of the engineering graduates that pose as "fans" that ....
 
I fully support expanding to include a few more options for the SA. We could still make them challenging and uphold the academic rep of the school.

A byproduct of this is that we would get more local, non SA students who will fully support the school. I am not saying we need to be another VPI, but to expand a little would be great.
 
I truly fail to understand how a pride in the degree I worked my ass off for, and the desire to keep Tech as one of the top schools in nation qualifies as arrogance. And I am not sorry in the least that I take offense to any suggesting that we sacrifice the integrity of a GT education soley because we want to see a few more in W column.

And no, more BCS bowls mean absolutely nothing for Georgia Tech academically. Look at every major construction project on campus that isn't Bobby Dodd Stadium. Not one red cent came from athletics. That argument holds no water.
 
Allen Koholic said:
I truly fail to understand how a pride in the degree I worked my ass off for, and the desire to keep Tech as one of the top schools in nation qualifies as arrogance. And I am not sorry in the least that I take offense to any suggesting that we sacrifice the integrity of a GT education soley because we want to see a few more in W column.

And no, more BCS bowls mean absolutely nothing for Georgia Tech academically. Look at every major construction project on campus that isn't Bobby Dodd Stadium. Not one red cent came from athletics. That argument holds no water.
Click to expand...


So, should I put you down as a NO vote to change the academic structure at Tech?
 
We won't need to "dumb down" the curriculum with the new offense. We'll need smart, disciplined players to execute it and not commit penalties. I have faith Coach Johnson will get us the type of players that fit his system and it won't matter how many stars are attached to their name.
 
I never attended the first class at Tech. I obviously didn't have the aptitude and decided to save my parents money because even if I had of been accepted, which I wouldn't have, I'd have probably flunked out. This was back mid seventies. I believe the standards were even higher at that time.

Never had one pissed-off feeling about not having a liberal arts major for me, which is what I did in college. Also served in the military for a short time.

Georgia Tech has always been one of the finest engineering schools in the world and I, as a fan, would NEVER want to see that reputation compromised and don't feel it should be. I see a growing need for Engineers today and in the future. Tech should build to its strengths.

There is no reason Georgia Tech cannot lead the rest of the country in academics AND athletics.
 
Allen Koholic said:
I truly fail to understand how a pride in the degree I worked my ass off for, and the desire to keep Tech as one of the top schools in nation qualifies as arrogance. And I am not sorry in the least that I take offense to any suggesting that we sacrifice the integrity of a GT education soley because we want to see a few more in W column.

And no, more BCS bowls mean absolutely nothing for Georgia Tech academically. Look at every major construction project on campus that isn't Bobby Dodd Stadium. Not one red cent came from athletics. That argument holds no water.
Click to expand...
While I do agree that we must be careful of any changes we make to the academic offerings at Tech, the last paragraph shows either total ignorance of what success in athletics can mean or that arrogance you've been accused of. Any school that has success in athletics will see an increase in total giving and interest from prospective students. I saw it first hand when I worked at Duke and coach K began his run in the 80s. FL, TX USC, any school that has success at the highest levels will generate that positive buzz, more support from alumni, etc. It's a fact that can't be ignored.
 
Allen, good well stated post with what seems to me to be very well intentioned positions. As a very proud GT grad, and proud , but much less so, Ivy League grad, I see things a bit different.

Since when is achievement and the attainment of excellence on the part of student athletes in an endeavor very highly thought of by society, not considered "educational"?

The mission statement DOES include statements about educational excellence AND statements to the effect that The Institute strives for said excellence in ALL endeavors.

Why do corporate recruiters seek out our graduates? I'm in a technical process industry and I can assure you the recruiters working for me did NOT go to our campus due to anyone's ability to solve calculus, esm, or thermo problems. They go there because our people have demonstrated how to survive/achieve/excell against very tough odds in a technically oriented environment. Even our EE and ChE grads are valued more for their demonstrated ability to achieve vs just what their text books offer, which by the way are the same books available to Auburn and Clemson grads. It's about work ethic and determination.

I didn't play football at Tech, but I played a lot compared to most people, and while I never learned one iota about integral calculus on the football field, I did learn to pick myself up out of the dirt and give my all on the next play. As you might imagine, this came in quite handy when my Tech professors starting knocking my pecker in the dirt on exams. Yes, athletics are very intertwined in our "educational" fabric. Ever notice how even almost all of our Elementary schools have teams?

Provided our SAs are learning the sacrifice lessons of Tech's regular student body, then I say they are Tech men/women. They actually in a lot of cases, have to overcome more than the typical 1400 SATer to escape ole Ma Tech. A lot of said 1400 SATers would wilt under the work load faced by D-1 athletes.

So now, thankfully the 60's arrived and integration was implemented. Should we now give up D-1 football and deny the largest segment by far that makes up our roster, an opportunity for a very unique and valuable Georgia Institute of Technology "education"? IMO, which I realize isn't very important to anyone but me, is that to do so is indeed arrogant and academically snobbish.

Football IS important in America. Football IS important to GT's image (winning football that is). GT is very important to me. So, let's level the playing field (NOT to be confused with becoming ugag), and kick some ass. Whadayahave Allen? Z
 
Last edited:
I would vote "no" to putting in any major for the purpose of helping us recruit and keep better athletes.

I do believe that Clough and others recognize that technology is not a subset of the economy any longer, it touches every aspect of economic endeavor. Therefore, we think in much broader ways in 2008 about the majors needed in an institute of technology than we did 25 years ago. International Policy, Public Policy, and our entrance into nanotechnology and bioengineering are examples of expanding our curriculum in the right way for the right reason. To get our athletes a Georgia Tech degree that has been devalued so that they are not considered desirable to hire after graduation does them a great disservice.

What I do favor is the very best academic support for athletes in the NCAA - second to none. Competing at the highest level in athletics while striving for academic success at an excellent institute of technology is an enormous challenge. The Hill should always appreciate the challenge our athletes face and be as flexible as possible, and the AA should give them the tools needed for their academic success.

Someday we will win another championship. When we do I will be much prouder of our student athletes if they were successful on both the playing field/court and the classroom in a major that fits the mission of Georgia Tech.
 
Not considered a desirable hire!? You might want to read my post again. NOBODY is advocating Turf Mgt. or Leisure Studies.

As for The Hill, what they should do and what they actually do are sometimes Worlds apart.

As for not making ANY changes to recognize athletic realties, you may not understand how interconnected and important athletics is to the educational process.

Unless we appeal to a MUCH larger percentage of todays minority athletes and SOON, we may not have a program to welcome them to when many of today's academic snobs are finally happy with their credentials.

Your point about academic support is right on the mark. As for winning another FOOTBALL championship, not likely without change on The Hill. Thankfully, DR is making progress here. Let's all hope it progresses fast enough.

BTW, that mission statement seems to think Tech should excell at ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that it undertakes.
 
I vote no for a couple of reasons. One is that we aren't doing the majority of student athletes any favors turning them loose with a useless degree and in the long run that will reflect poorly on Tech. Remember, very few will play professional sports and get the opportunities that go with it.

The second is that in my estimation, if you can't cut it in general management, you really don't belong in college. I have an MBA from the University of Minnesota and also attended management classes at Winthrop, Georgia College, and the University of Wisconsin, but none at Georgia Tech. From what I've seen, you can get a degree without being very academically oriented. You just have to put some effort and time into it. I've watched many students, some who could barely speak English, graduate, including one who refused to accept that Ford and Mercury were the same company until I had the professor tell him. I would be ok with relaxing some of the calculus requirements, but adding any near useless degree program would make us UGA.
 
ncjacket said:
Any school that has success in athletics will see an increase in total giving and interest from prospective students. FL, TX USC, any school that has success at the highest levels will generate that positive buzz, more support from alumni, etc. It's a fact that can't be ignored.
Click to expand...

Actually, NC, I brought this up when 33 said the same thing. This is a myth that has been fairly well "busted" by several good studies.

"The most forceful conclusion that can be drawn about the indirect effects of athletic success is that they are small at best when viewed from the perspective of any individual institution. Alumni donations and applications for admission sometimes rise in the wake of conspicuously successful seasons at a small number of institutions, but such increases are likely to be both small and transitory. More to the point, the empirical literature provides not a shred of evidence to suggest that an across-the-board cutback in spending on athletics would reduce either donations by alumni or applications by prospective students."

http://www.knightcommission.org/abou.../frank_report/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top