Tom Arth of UTC

[beej67]

Wins will make you forget Baylor.



You can make excuses all day, but with the right academic assistance and support, you could get anyone through Tech. Let's be honest with ourselves - was every other student at Tech during your tenure a Mensa member? There are plenty of people who were initially turned down from uGA and GT who ultimately get into Tech through GTREP or a transfer then graduated with GT degree.

Tech is not that hard. Well it is if you want a good GPA as a Chemical Engineer, but the right academic advisor could get virtually anyone through with a passing GPA in something. It's no different than the 4* and 5* players at Stanford, Cal, Northwestern, Michigan, etc.



Charlie Strong would be a great hire.

Every single thing in this post is wrong.

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

Every single thing in this post is wrong.

How so? Allegedly, some of the posters on this board graduated and you're all retards.

 

[beej67]

How so? Allegedly, some of the posters on this board graduated and you're all retards.

There's levels of retard. Let's go through it point by point.

with the right academic assistance and support, you could get anyone through Tech

Wrong. A random WalMart asshole cannot get a Tech degree. There are plenty of people who could get a Tech degree who are lower than the current admissions bar, but that does not mean that anyone could get a degree. Fallacious logic.

There are plenty of people who were initially turned down from uGA and GT who ultimately get into Tech through GTREP or a transfer then graduated with GT degree.

This does not mean that "anyone can get through Tech." It means that GTREP/transfer acts as an effective alternate screening process, and may in fact be more effective at screening than our admissions office. It does not mean that "screening is unnecessary." It does not mean a random asshole at WalMart can get a Tech degree.

Tech is not that hard.

Wrong. Intelligent people tend to overestimate the intelligence of others. It's a cognitive bias. gtphd is completely falling for this bias.

the right academic advisor could get virtually anyone through with a passing GPA in something.

Wrong. True for other schools, not for Tech.

It's no different than the 4* and 5* players at Stanford, Cal, Northwestern, Michigan, etc.

Wrong. It's very different. gtphd's comments do apply to Stanford, Cal, Northwestern, and Michigan, because they have a wide range of bullsh*t majors and bullsh*t classes for an academic advisor to work with. We don't. We have a very narrow range of bullsh*t majors for an advisor to work with as tools, and are prohibited from adding bullsh*t majors by the dwag controlled Board of Regents, which is an obstacle that neither Stanford, nor Cal, nor Northwestern, nor Michigan have. Our major restrictions and inability to establish a network of bullsh*t majors is much more akin to Cal Tech, MIT, the service academies, or Rensselaer.

One of the structural changes that must happen at Tech, should Tech decide to value football at a level that our competing schools value it, is to create the tools necessary to make gtphd's erroneous impression true instead of wrong.

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

There's levels of retard. Let's go through it point by point.



Wrong. A random WalMart asshole cannot get a Tech degree. There are plenty of people who could get a Tech degree who are lower than the current admissions bar, but that does not mean that anyone could get a degree. Fallacious logic.



This does not mean that "anyone can get through Tech." It means that GTREP/transfer acts as an effective alternate screening process, and may in fact be more effective at screening than our admissions office. It does not mean that "screening is unnecessary." It does not mean a random asshole at WalMart can get a Tech degree.



Wrong. Intelligent people tend to overestimate the intelligence of others. It's a cognitive bias. gtphd is completely falling for this bias.



Wrong. True for other schools, not for Tech.



Wrong. It's very different. gtphd's comments do apply to Stanford, Cal, Northwestern, and Michigan, because they have a wide range of bullsh*t majors and bullsh*t classes for an academic advisor to work with. We don't. We have a very narrow range of bullsh*t majors for an advisor to work with as tools, and are prohibited from adding bullsh*t majors by the dwag controlled Board of Regents, which is an obstacle that neither Stanford, nor Cal, nor Northwestern, nor Michigan have. Our major restrictions and inability to establish a network of bullsh*t majors is much more akin to Cal Tech, MIT, the service academies, or Rensselaer.

One of the structural changes that must happen at Tech, should Tech decide to value football at a level that our competing schools value it, is to create the tools necessary to make gtphd's erroneous impression true instead of wrong.

What basis do you have to make the claim that he's wrong? Restating that he's wrong on a sentence by sentence basis does little to refute his assertion.

 

[zippyGT]

...

There's not much to respond to, other than you think the above is wrong, and I disagree. I feel like I could get anyone through Tech.

One thing Tech could do to assist both athletes and students seeking cross-disciplinary education is to offer an interdisciplinary studies degree. The degree would simply be the general education requirements and a total of 120 hours, with half from 3000 or higher level courses.