I imagine that there are a LOT of committees and advisory boards filled with nerds and socialist profs that Bud would have to deal with to make such a change, but he should try to do it anyway.
:rolleyes:
I hope you guys are right proclaiming the way to go is to be a "research" university. I see a place for that, but I would not put all my eggs in that basket. If you ignore the political universe then those other schools who want to take your research money will out politic you in the end. You can't sit back smug in the lab and think you're doing great.
You clearly have no idea how research funds are handed out. Other than grants from the USDA, many of which are allocated through congressional appropriation bills, NSF and NIH grants are doled out by committees made up of the same nerds and socialist profs who are seeking the funds. Sometimes you're applying for a grant, other times you're in Washington reviewing grant proposals. There's no way to politic around things.
I'd rather hear about Tech alums starting up businesses and innovating in the real world than the laboratory. I'd rather see more Tech CEOs and fewer Tech pHDs in the Alumni Magazine.
Without basic research, there won't be new ideas to use to "innovat[e] in the real world". Tech is very good at taking research and spinning off start-up companies. Those who don't get how academic research and industrial R&D relate really shouldn't try to talk about it.
Also, I imagine the government teat is a lot of that research money and there could be some dramatic realignment of those funds in the near future.
The NSF budget is such a small portion of the federal budget that it won't see drastic cuts. Also, even the extreme budget balancers recognize that NSF funding is essential to developing new technologies that lead to new businesses.
Comments like this make it clear that many in the older generation of alumni have no idea what becoming a nationally respected university requires, nor what an education from a top tier research school means or entails. If you want to go back to being a cute, regionally known technical engineering school, that's fine. Don't expect for the degree to command as much respect as it does now though.
+1 This is why Wayne Clough was able to be such a transformative leader for Tech. The big money donors were of his generation, and so he could help them understand what Tech needed to become. I don't think any president who hadn't been at Tech in the 50s or 60s could have had that impact.
kitty avatar, I never said research wasn't important. I just said it wasn't the most important thing to Ga Inst of Tech in my opinion. I would rather Ga Tech be a WELL ROUNDED institution of higher learning that tries to excel in all we do. Academics, research, and athletics. Academics is the most important mission of Ga Tech. If research is the most important we should just shut down the classrooms except for a feeder program to the research arms. Academics are more about teaching the diverse student population how to function in the world than about doing research for some gubmint agency.
Most research is not done "for some gubmint agency". It is done to advance the boundaries of what we understand. Yes, the funding comes from the government in many instances, but it's in response to broad requests for proposals. If research isn't important, then Georgia Tech should become like Harvey Mudd or Rose-Hulman, outstanding engineering schools with small research profiles. There's no way to recruit the caliber of faculty Georgia Tech needs without having strong support for and expectations in research.
I fully understand that the research enhances the academics side, but guess what so does the athletic. All these missions should be supportive of each other and athletics is a big part of that. The athletics make people want to come to Ga Tech, make us known and respected nationwide and bring in a ton of money to the academic side. The only reason this board exists is because of the athletics.
Ugh. The relationship between athletics and fundraising for the Institute overall is continually overstated. The big money donors who give to academics would give either way. The small money that comes in because of athletics is a drop in the bucket at a place like Georgia Tech. Also, giving to academics is hurt by some of the big athletics projects. If McCamish and Zelnak could have given even 1/2 of what they gave for the practice facility and AMC renovation just to academics, we'd be in better shape long term. Yes, I've seen
GoldZ's 60 Minutes piece. The Towson AD's comments aren't terribly insightful, as lower-profile schools with weaker histories of fundraising need athletics more to drum up interest. Michigan is such an exceptional case as to not be really worth discussing. If athletics were such a key to fundraising, I don't think Bud would have taken a multi-country tour through Europe during the previous academic year as part of the capital campaign.
In case you haven't noticed, Ga Tech is doing just that (growing). We now claim to have over 20K students. We are growing very rapidly.
The growth rate has slowed dramatically, and almost all future growth is slated for the graduate programs. The plan is eventually to be 50-50 grads and undergrads (or grads outnumbering undergrads). In large part, this is because of the limited footprint of campus. Research labs can be located in far-flung areas, but housing and classrooms need to be relatively clustered.
Tech's footprint is also expanding, we have probably 5 times the dorm space compared to 20 years ago, and probably double the space compared to 10 years ago. I definitely see Tech moving to be at least 25k if not 30k in size, but it will still remain 'elitist', because demand (for our degrees) is just too high.
It's been a few years since I saw anything concrete, but I think 25K was the long-term cap that was felt would be best, largely because of physical limitations.
If you remove the focus on research and focus solely on hiring faculty educators, you'll have SPSU.
Oh, I think we could have a very nice Harvey Mudd or Rose-Hulman of the South :wink:
Athletics make some people want to come to Georgia Tech. Top-tier students care far more about program rankings and academic support than athletics. They're a nice bonus, but nowhere near a driving factor.
Probably the easiest way to put this is that the students who see athletics as a driving factor are not the students you want.
Georgia Tech is a top-tier research university; it's supposed to be selective and elitest. The fact that some on this board (including myself) probably wouldn't even be accepted under today's enrollment standards is a very good thing, as it means the quality of student is rising significantly. That has nothing to do with state funding, and Institutional prestige only serves to increase competitiveness for research funding.
QFT. I think I still could get admitted to the math PhD, but I wouldn't be recruited as hard as I was eight years ago. Ten years from now, I'd probably be someone who wouldn't have gotten in. I think this advancement is what gets lost in the calls for granting more exceptions in admissions. The exceptions that got through 10 years ago would never make it today.
Oh, and those picking on
GATechAE07, the 07 might be a hint as to when he got his degree. He knows a heckuva lot more about Tech as it exists now and what a real research university is like than most of the posters on this board.
