:rolleyes:
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.
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.
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.
+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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, I think we could have a very nice Harvey Mudd or Rose-Hulman of the South :wink:
Probably the easiest way to put this is that the students who see athletics as a driving factor are not the students you want.
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.
