School needs to make up their mind

GATechAE07 said:
It was the late 80's, but really didn't hit it's stride until Clough. Tech's peer institutions are MIT, Cal. Tech, Stanford, etc. Florida, Texas, and the like don't enter into the discussion.
Click to expand...

So when does Tech complete the transformation and only conduct classes in Mandarin?
 
goldmember said:
I am sorry but you will have to provide some more detail as to why our peer group is only small, elite private schools and why our peer group doesn't also incldue other prestigious public universities who also have strong athletic programs, many of which are more prestigious that GT.
Click to expand...

You're right, I was wrong about Texas and UF. Here is your official list:

http://www.irp.gatech.edu/peer-institutions/

See gtphd's post below regarding the role of peer institutions.
 
Last edited:
andrew said:
As I've said before, I don't think that giving football exceptions cheapens the degree at all, assuming they can make it through the curriculum.

Adding new, easier majors to be able to keep athletes in school is what would cheapen the degree, because those majors will be available to people other than athletes and would change the makeup of graduating classes. I happen to think that's what it would take for us to be consistently competitive in football.



Yes, that is true. That's why I said big time college sports are starting to sicken me.



GT is far better than those schools. A lot of people on this board don't seem to realize how good it is. We are one of the best STEM schools in the nation, with many top ten and even top five programs.
Click to expand...

Here is a link to US News rankings of graduate engineering. I know its flawed but if you have a better one please link it:

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings

In the top 20 i see:

3 - Cal Berkely
4 - GT
5 - UI
8 - Michigan, UT Austin
10 - Purdue
12 - Texas A&M, USC
16 - UCLA
17 - Wisconsin
18 - Maryland
19 - Northwestern

And that's just engineering.
 
GATechAE07 said:
It was the late 80's, but really didn't hit it's stride until Clough. Tech's peer institutions are MIT, Cal. Tech, Stanford, etc. Florida, Texas, and the like don't enter into the discussion.
Click to expand...

Technically GT considers VT, NC State, Penn State, Texas A&M, and Florida as peer institutions.

http://www.irp.gatech.edu/peer-institutions/


... ok not really. The Board of Regents considers them "peer institutions" for the purpose of tuition determination (public, top 25 engineering schools). The peer institutions for research and academics are MIT, Stanford, Caltech, UIUC, CMU, Hopkins, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, Texas, and UCLA. From that list, you could only compare GT's tuition to UIUC, Michigan, and Texas (UC's have abnormal tuition). Three reference points all outside the Southeast weren't enough, so the others were added in.
 
SoCal Jacket said:
AE 7s, I.ve been following the discussion with some interest that's bleeding outside of football (yes, I saw the other posting "elsewhere")...
Click to expand...

SoCal, thank you for your post; I appreciate the insight you've added to the conversation. I'm aware of Pres. Petit's role in increasing Tech's national presence, and recognize the role Georgia Tech played in the aerospace and nuclear industries. My pointing to Crecine as the primary motivator behind the change in directions is based on discussions with tenured faculty members that were here during the transition, as well as faculty members at MIT and Stanford that witnessed the transformation from the outside. From my understanding, Crecine mandated that the solicitation (such a dirty word) of research funding should become the faculty's highest priority. This move was extremely unpopular from within, but was seen as a serious step in the right direction from the outside. In order to verify, I'd need to find historic research funding intake numbers which surely are available somewhere. Let me see if I can get those numbers, and I'll se if it adds up.
 
GATechAE07 said:
You're right, I was wrong about Texas and UF. Here is your official list:

http://www.irp.gatech.edu/peer-institutions/

I think the differentiator is the focus on STEM degrees. If you compare academic rankings for programs amongst our peer institutions, you'll find that we are further near the top of the rankings in those degree areas in comparison. We simply don't have the variety of degree programs as those that have successful athletic associations. That said, I have no problem with adding degree areas as long as they are held to the same standards as the rest of the Institute.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. Yea we are back to that. I understand adding degrees is dicey, can see the argument both ways.

Adding a few more exceptions to give us a better chance at being competetive seems reasonable though. Again, once you accept the fact that they are all exceptions. You're really talking about exceptions to the arbitrary and significantly lower standards when compared to the regular students.

My argument and i didn't articulate it well is that not having these exceptions when we've had them for years doesn't seem to stem from anything logical. Sounds more like a political issue within the university.

On a side note, why can't we use this more with athletes:

http://www.iac.gatech.edu/academics/undergraduate-programs/certificates
 
goldmember said:
Thanks for the link. Yea we are back to that. I understand adding degrees is dicey, can see the argument both ways.

Adding a few more exceptions to give us a better chance at being competetive seems reasonable though. Again, once you accept the fact that they are all exceptions. You're really talking about exceptions to the arbitrary and significantly lower standards when compared to the regular students.

My argument and i didn't articulate it well is that not having these exceptions when we've had them for years doesn't seem to stem from anything logical. Sounds more like a political issue within the university.

On a side note, why can't we use this more with athletes:

http://www.iac.gatech.edu/academics/undergraduate-programs/certificates
Click to expand...

The exceptions were decreased after flunkgate. In today's world with APR, it would make us ineligible for post-season play. The Hill logically decided, having data that we don't, that less exceptions would mean less flunking out. I've seen the argument that it was because our support system in the AA was lacking, but they simply haven't proven that it has improved to the point where additional exemptions would be warranted without increasing the chances of embarassment of NCAA sanctions.
 
GT1992 said:
The exceptions were decreased after flunkgate. In today's world with APR, it would make us ineligible for post-season play. The Hill logically decided, having data that we don't, that less exceptions would mean less flunking out. I've seen the argument that it was because our support system in the AA was lacking, but they simply haven't proven that it has improved to the point where additional exemptions would be warranted without increasing the chances of embarassment of NCAA sanctions.
Click to expand...

APR i can buy, flunkgate was clearly a 1 time event, at least in the 30 or so years that I've been following GT athletics. Any use of flunkgate as a reason for increased standards is clearly political.

APR is a risk/reward type situation, and also a political one, although less so than flunkgate.
 
Pettit was one fugly dude. That's all I remember from reading Tech history.
 
Exactly as I expected when I asked the question. All of this wonderful stuff about advancing GT is based on a country that is going bankrupt. I feel better now.
 
Oh wait...you thought I was going back to what the state of Georgia contributes. Well, I do feel that GT should go private if the student population dips to less than 40% from Georgia. What is it now?
 
KrazieJacket said:
Exactly as I expected when I asked the question. All of this wonderful stuff about advancing GT is based on a country that is going bankrupt. I feel better now.
Click to expand...
Don't worry it's peanuts compared to what feds dole out to defense industry, farm industry, defense itself, healthcare industry etc.
 
KrazieJacket said:
Research for that was in the pie chart. Take a look at it.
Click to expand...
Not talking about research. This pie-chart would be a dot in the fed pie.

(edit: If you think 'research' is some waste, most often, it's not. Especially at an engineering school like GT. It's technology industry and country needs or thinks that it will need, and they get to have it done at the universities on the cheap with grad students instead of expensive staff at R&D division of companies. Grad students get a degree out of it, so do it on the cheap.)
 
cyptomcat said:
Not talking about research. This pie-chart would be a dot in the fed pie.
Click to expand...

I understand that. My point is these guys are counting dollars that are numbered. Also, unless GT is developing a romulan warbird...it will be cut if shtf.
 
Appreciate the discussion, I've learned a lot! I hope we continue our trend of increasing the acadmic stature of our university and as long as we continue to play big boy athletics I wish that we woudl do whatever is possible to remain as competetive as we can given our limitations.

I am taking my son to the ACCCG game this weekend and he is really excited. He was over the uga game 5 minutes after it ended and thinks the ACCCG is a really big deal. He doesn't care/understand about the national prestige of the ACC as a football conference, Go Jackets!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top