Sporting News: The 20 Smartest Athletes in Sports

Ish said:
Only a GT alum would look down on a student who aspires to be a lawyer. :laugher: :laugher: :laugher:
Click to expand...

Picture of Zulu's car:

Dodge_Stratus_1.jpg
 
His post-presidential career is the greatest of all time--I heard Kanye West say that.
 
PTCJacket said:
Jimmy Carter says "hi"
Click to expand...

got me there

I believe Jimmuh would be what we in science refer to as an "outlier".

too bad we can't offer up one incompetent lawyer politican and declare all of them unsuitable for office
 
AE 87 said:
What's up with advertising a blog in your sig that apparently hasn't been updated since the arrival of CPJ?
Click to expand...

Some weird part of me thinks I might start writing again. It is time to update the sig.
 
gtzulu said:
Is it just the media or does Bedford relish a little too much in being seen as an intellectual?

The guy's not even planning to become an engineer.

Not trying to be negative, but I've seen 100+ positive things about Bedford, so thought I'd give an alternate perspective.
Click to expand...
That's because he's smarter than the rest of us.
 
More power to Bedford for showing off his intelligence. Also, more power to Bedford for wanting to be a Patent Attorney. I would just suggest that he shadow a few Patent Attorneys for a few weeks before deciding to do that. It's a monotonous job.
 
cajunjacket said:
More power to Bedford for showing off his intelligence. Also, more power to Bedford for wanting to be a Patent Attorney. I would just suggest that he shadow a few Patent Attorneys for a few weeks before deciding to do that. It's a monotonous job.
Click to expand...

I thought about going to law school for a while and when I really looked into it being an attorney is mostly a just god awful profession for most. Very few ever actually get into court and most of the time it's just research, research, research.
 
gtzulu said:
I am just trying to say he's not the ideal Tech student athlete. Most Tech students are engineering and become engineers. Planning to go into law is a football-player thing to do. And something a lot of underachieving engineering students do. Nothing wrong with law--a few lawyers are fairly smart--but again it's not a path the model Tech student would choose. Call me elitist if you want; that's just how it is.
Click to expand...

very poor analysis and strange conclusions
the pure concepts of law are more "intellectual" than the applied science of engineering
i was a physics major which is also more "intellectual" - read "conceptual" than the applied science of engineering

they even have a dedicated "applied physics" major, which makes the pure science of physics more practically oriented as to be more engineering-like

you have little clue, apparently about the hierarchy of "intellectual" studies. Law is one of the top ones, like philosophy. Engineering is an applied science, not a pure science
 
gtzulu said:
Don't see why you guys are so upset with my post. The model Tech student aspires to be an engineer, not a lawyer. That should be obvious--Tech is and has always been an ENGINEERING school.

I'm not saying that law is a less distinguished profession than engineering or that Bedford isn't a smart guy. I just think that a Tech student who wants to be anything other than a helluva engineer is not the quintessential Tech student. (Will someone back me up on this?)

I suppose that there are more than a few business/law types on this board, who probably never went to Tech, who get offended at some perceived slight against non-engineers.
Click to expand...
Of all the engineers I know (and I know a lot of them) only one is doing actual engineering work -- the rest of them are in management/finance.
 
gtzulu said:
I am just trying to say he's not the ideal Tech student athlete. Most Tech students are engineering and become engineers. Planning to go into law is a football-player thing to do. And something a lot of underachieving engineering students do. Nothing wrong with law--a few lawyers are fairly smart--but again it's not a path the model Tech student would choose. Call me elitist if you want; that's just how it is.
Click to expand...

A guy who plays Division 1 football while simultaneously getting a degree in Aerospace Engineering isn't the "ideal" Tech student athlete? WTF? How do you get more ideal than making the all-conference team while taking the hardest major on campus?
 
BarrelORum said:
It is very rare to have a Student Athlete with the on field and off field accomplishments as Sean Bedford. I really cannot remember another more impressive in GT's history.
Click to expand...

the only one that comes close is Stefen Scotton, a 2-time Academic All-American, starting FB and had like a 3.8 in EE. He also scored a TD in the bowl game against Nebraska in our championship year...

if you look at the whole ACC, Rusty LaRue should be heavily considered. he was the starting Qb, starting PG and a starting pitcher, was married and had like a 4.0 in EE at Wake...wow!
 
BuzzCzar said:
very poor analysis and strange conclusions
the pure concepts of law are more "intellectual" than the applied science of engineering
i was a physics major which is also more "intellectual" - read "conceptual" than the applied science of engineering

they even have a dedicated "applied physics" major, which makes the pure science of physics more practically oriented as to be more engineering-like

you have little clue, apparently about the hierarchy of "intellectual" studies. Law is one of the top ones, like philosophy. Engineering is an applied science, not a pure science
Click to expand...

I never said the word "intellectual", and I never said that law was less "intellectual" a field than engineering. Of course engineering is applied science.

Are you trying to say that law is for smarter people and that engineering is for dumber people? If so, that's a pretty immature viewpoint. Most people know that the various fields of the sciences are as hard as one wants to make them. An incredible engineer is probably smarter than an average lawyer; an incredible lawyer is probably smarter than an average engineer.

Again, the only point I'm trying to make is that Georgia Tech is an ENGINEERING school and as such the idealized, model Tech student would aspire to be an ENGINEER. There's nothing wrong with taking another path... it's just like living in ancient Sparta and opting to be a great philosopher instead of a great warrior. (The great warrior is the model Spartan.)
 
gtzulu said:
I never said the word "intellectual", and I never said that law was less "intellectual" a field than engineering. Of course engineering is applied science.

Are you trying to say that law is for smarter people and that engineering is for dumber people? If so, that's a pretty immature viewpoint. Most people know that the various fields of the sciences are as hard as one wants to make them. An incredible engineer is probably smarter than an average lawyer; an incredible lawyer is probably smarter than an average engineer.

Again, the only point I'm trying to make is that Georgia Tech is an ENGINEERING school and as such the idealized, model Tech student would aspire to be an ENGINEER. There's nothing wrong with taking another path... it's just like living in ancient Sparta and opting to be a great philosopher instead of a great warrior. (The great warrior is the model Spartan.)
Click to expand...

BOR's post still applies.
 
This thread is proof that any topic on here will ultimately lead to d-baggery and petty pissing contests.
 
much more important for Georgia Tech than the undergraduate engineering schools are the research institute and the masters programs. these DO NOT recruit heavily from the Ga Tech engineering schools. But the DO recruit heavily from the Ga Tech pure science programs

getting into the EE Masters program at Tech is much easier as a physics grad than an EE grad from Tech

Are you trying to say that law is for smarter people and that engineering is for dumber people?
Click to expand...
i guess, sort of, i am saying that. a better wording would be that Law is for more abstract thinkers while engineering is for persons that like a practical application.
 
much more important for Georgia Tech than the undergraduate engineering schools are the research institute and the masters programs. these DO NOT recruit heavily from the Ga Tech engineering schools. But the DO recruit heavily from the Ga Tech pure science programs
Click to expand...

Huh? I know more engineering alumni who work for GTRI than any other employer. Masters engineering schools take more from the pure sciences than undergrad engineering? I have a hard time seeing a Physics or Chemistry major then going to an Engineering masters, at least not without significant leveling classes. They're two very different things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top