AD Hire: J Batt

4shotB

4shotB

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
4,632
forensicbuzz said:
Public Policy is NOT Political Science.
Click to expand...
Apropos of nothing, I can recall a particular bloody "downsizing" or "rightsizing" my company went through in the late 80's/early 90's. The CEO brought in a hatchet guy to run our division for about a year. He was notorious for walking up to people and asking them what their job title was and what they did for the company (what would you say you do here, Bob? kind of questions). If he didn't know what you did from your answer within the first 30 seconds of the conversation (I am a welder, I am responsible for the shipping department, I am the process engineer for fabrication, I am a tool and die maker, etc.) you weren't there the very next day. All the people with vague job titles (and usually attached to large paychecks) who had been on easy street heretofore were chopped down and discarded like the unproductive vermin that they were. After that, I swore that I would never take a job that the title wasn't pretty much self explanatory....process engineer, production manager, plant manager, math teacher, etc.

I said all that to say I feel the same way about majors and degrees. If your degree has to be explained past the title, it seems sketchy to me. Now that I am in education, I am considered a lowbrow savage philistine by the overwhelming majority of my peers. And they are probably right.
 
Jacket05

Jacket05

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
600
GT33 said:
Does it really matter? It's a damn degree that doesn't require half a dozen calculus classes. We just need 3-4 not ball busting choices & enough options so the classes don't have all athletes like what they did at UNC.
Click to expand...
I don't see why we don't offer things that still align with Tech's academic direction but can be attractive to athletes. For example we have a top notch management program, so why don't we offer one of the best sports management degree's in the country. We could also look at degrees along the lines of sports medicine or kinesthesiology. We don't have to dumb down our academics but just offer degree's in areas where athletes may be more interested.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,913
forensicbuzz said:
Public Policy is NOT Political Science.
Click to expand...
Yes. Forensic is right (two times in two days!). The two fields are quite different. Here's what Tech's public policy undergrad program looks like:

Undergraduate Program | School of Public Policy

The strengths of a top-ten research university. A combination of competence and ethics. Access to excellent faculty. The flexibility of a liberal arts degree and the skills of a professional degree. Multiple opportunities for customizing the program of study. Located in a thriving...
spp.gatech.edu spp.gatech.edu

And here's Rice's political science undergrad program:

Undergraduate Studies

Fostering diversity and an intellectual environment, Rice University is a comprehensive research university located on a 300-acre tree-lined campus in Houston, Texas. Rice produces the next generation of leaders and advances tomorrow’s thinking.
politicalscience.rice.edu politicalscience.rice.edu

Both talk up interdisciplinary work, but I can tell you from long experience that when you have a major program you get the students to concentrate on that and not what they could pick up elsewhere. Oth, it would be child's play to develop a political science program in the public policy school at Tech. Sociology and history too, for that matter; all you would have to do is separate out some courses, hire a few more people, wave the magic wand, and there you are.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,913
4shotB said:
I said all that to say I feel the same way about majors and degrees. If your degree has to be explained past the title, it seems sketchy to me. Now that I am in education, I am considered a lowbrow savage philistine by the overwhelming majority of my peers. And they are probably right.
Click to expand...
1. Yes. And political science is easy on that. We study how people ar governed and how states work. Bingo.

2. That's because they are ignoramuses. It used to bother the <nether region> out of me that when we had questions about educating our students we didn't ask the education scholars what we should do. I mean, really; they were the ones who knew the ins and outs. The rest of us were operating off of anecdotal experience form our classes. As I used to point out, that isn't a systematic approach. But often my opinions didn't cut much ice. Too bad, that.
 
Vespidae

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,974
Location
Auburn, AL
Jacket05 said:
I don't see why we don't offer things that still align with Tech's academic direction but can be attractive to athletes. For example we have a top notch management program, so why don't we offer one of the best sports management degree's in the country. We could also look at degrees along the lines of sports medicine or kinesthesiology. We don't have to dumb down our academics but just offer degree's in areas where athletes may be more interested.
Click to expand...
I asked my athletes “What does every player want” … the universal answer is, “a path to the league.”

They would study Mortuary Science is they could. If that meant they had a shot.
 
slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
10,815
kg01 said:
Hate to be 'that guy' .... actually, let's be honest, I love to be 'that guy' ... but can yall direct me to the new AD thread?
Click to expand...
There’s a vacuum where everyone is trying to figure out what the new guy will do and what difference he will make. It’s not just him—there are other changes coming too. The admin has been planning this for a while—we saw some of that when Cabrera rolled out the new fundraising drive.

The AA needs a lot of things, but financial stability is near the top, and we hired a big fundraiser. That seems like a fit.

We’re guessing at the rest. Since he’s from Alabama (lately) there are guesses he’ll hire O’Brien. Or Key.

No one forecast Batt as the new AD. In retrospect, he looks like a good selection. An up and comer, like Radakovich, but focused on fundraising instead of building.

It’s clear that there’s a strategy that we don’t fully understand. Neville explained pillars, but no one successfully used his criteria to guess Batt.

We will have a strategy for the HC hire and for other changes in the AA.

So far, we’re batting 000 for our predictions. I think people are dying to know what happens next. Based on what’s happened so far, we shouldn’t be surprised if our expectations are dead wrong.

Some of our doubts and questions are getting filled in by old conversations about new degree programs, leaving the SEC, etc.
 
Techster

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,859
slugboy said:
No one forecast Batt as the new AD. In retrospect, he looks like a good selection. An up and comer, like Radakovich, but focused on fundraising instead of building.

It’s clear that there’s a strategy that we don’t fully understand. Neville explained pillars, but no one successfully used his criteria to guess Batt.
Click to expand...

Gives me a lot of confidence in our HFC search that Cabrera and Neville stuck to a plan, and despite fonts hinting at certain AD candidates, it ended up being a guy no one knew existed until the announcement was made.

I think the HFC search will go the same way. Cabrera and Neville said they were letting the AD and Parker Executive take the lead, and all indications so far are they're going to let Batt pick his guy. All of the "back channel" talks we kept hearing seem premature now given what we've seen from the AD search. It could very well be some names we've mentioned (O'Brien being the main one), but it won't be because donors took it upon themselves to do work on their own.

I expect this process to go on until the last week of November...maybe longer depending on how the team of our next coach is doing. So, the real question is: Any of our fans going on flight plan watch?!
 
Techster

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,859
Techster said:
Gives me a lot of confidence in our HFC search that Cabrera and Neville stuck to a plan, and despite fonts hinting at certain AD candidates, it ended up being a guy no one knew existed until the announcement was made.

I think the HFC search will go the same way. Cabrera and Neville said they were letting the AD and Parker Executive take the lead, and all indications so far are they're going to let Batt pick his guy. All of the "back channel" talks we kept hearing seem premature now given what we've seen from the AD search. It could very well be some names we've mentioned (O'Brien being the main one), but it won't be because donors took it upon themselves to do work on their own.

I expect this process to go on until the last week of November...maybe longer depending on how the team of our next coach is doing. So, the real question is: Any of our fans going on flight plan watch?!
Click to expand...

To further the point above, it sounds like Cabrera put a premium on keeping the AD search confidential. Before Batt was approved as our next AD, it went through a group of people on a selection committee:

www.ajc.com

Read Georgia Tech’s news release announcing J Batt’s hire

On Friday afternoon, Georgia Tech announced the hire of J Batt as the 10th athletic director in school history, officially installing Batt as the successor to Todd Stansbury.
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com

Batt was named the top candidate by Cabrera following a national search led by Parker Executive Search. The selection process included interviews with a committee comprised of a coach, senior athletics administrator, student-athlete, student-athlete alum, and faculty member who recommended a set of finalists for consideration by the president. The board of trustees of the Georgia Tech Athletic Association voted unanimously to approve Cabrera’s proposal to appoint Batt.

The fact that that many people were involved and there was no leaks tells me Cabrera and Neville wanted to do this their way. So far, the outcome has justified the process.

Now on to the HFC search...
 
forensicbuzz

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,117
Location
North Shore, Chicago
4shotB said:
Apropos of nothing, I can recall a particular bloody "downsizing" or "rightsizing" my company went through in the late 80's/early 90's. The CEO brought in a hatchet guy to run our division for about a year. He was notorious for walking up to people and asking them what their job title was and what they did for the company (what would you say you do here, Bob? kind of questions). If he didn't know what you did from your answer within the first 30 seconds of the conversation (I am a welder, I am responsible for the shipping department, I am the process engineer for fabrication, I am a tool and die maker, etc.) you weren't there the very next day. All the people with vague job titles (and usually attached to large paychecks) who had been on easy street heretofore were chopped down and discarded like the unproductive vermin that they were. After that, I swore that I would never take a job that the title wasn't pretty much self explanatory....process engineer, production manager, plant manager, math teacher, etc.

I said all that to say I feel the same way about majors and degrees. If your degree has to be explained past the title, it seems sketchy to me. Now that I am in education, I am considered a lowbrow savage philistine by the overwhelming majority of my peers. And they are probably right.
Click to expand...
Agree with all of that. Public Policy is not PolySci. Two totally different majors, with different intents. My wife has a Ph.D. from Tech in PP and she teaches PP, Public Administration, and PolySci courses at the university level. Apropos of nothing, that's like saying Aerospace Engineering and Mechanical Engineering are the same degrees. Just wrong.
 
forensicbuzz

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,117
Location
North Shore, Chicago
takethepoints said:
Yes. Forensic is right (two times in two days!). The two fields are quite different. Here's what Tech's public policy undergrad program looks like:

Undergraduate Program | School of Public Policy

The strengths of a top-ten research university. A combination of competence and ethics. Access to excellent faculty. The flexibility of a liberal arts degree and the skills of a professional degree. Multiple opportunities for customizing the program of study. Located in a thriving...
spp.gatech.edu spp.gatech.edu

And here's Rice's political science undergrad program:

Undergraduate Studies

Fostering diversity and an intellectual environment, Rice University is a comprehensive research university located on a 300-acre tree-lined campus in Houston, Texas. Rice produces the next generation of leaders and advances tomorrow’s thinking.
politicalscience.rice.edu politicalscience.rice.edu

Both talk up interdisciplinary work, but I can tell you from long experience that when you have a major program you get the students to concentrate on that and not what they could pick up elsewhere. Oth, it would be child's play to develop a political science program in the public policy school at Tech. Sociology and history too, for that matter; all you would have to do is separate out some courses, hire a few more people, wave the magic wand, and there you are.
Click to expand...
When I was at Tech, there was HST (History of Science and Technology). I know they've changed the name, but there is a History degree at Tech. I'm pretty sure there's a Sociology degree too.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,913
forensicbuzz said:
When I was at Tech, there was HST (History of Science and Technology). I know they've changed the name, but there is a History degree at Tech. I'm pretty sure there's a Sociology degree too.
Click to expand...
I know you're right (again!) about the specialized history degree at Tech; I have a friend who used to teach in the program. But it wouldn't be that hard to expand that to a real history major. The main thing would be to get Tech to quit screwing around and really expand the offerings. For one thing that would make the place more inviting to Georgia students. The other thing is that the social sciences are finally coming into their own. The data and how it can be used for scientific purposes has expanded exponentially in the last decades. Fro example, what is called "data science" these days was largely motivated by sociologists who figured out how to manage linked databases, with computer science types and philosophers (!!) helping out. Tech is missing some of this ferment by not having programs that connect to it.
 
Last edited:
forensicbuzz

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,117
Location
North Shore, Chicago
takethepoints said:
I know you're right (again!) about the specialized history degree at Tech; I have a friend who used to teach in the program. But it wouldn't be that hard top expand that to a real history major. The main thing would be to get Tech to quit screwing around and really expand the offerings. For one thing that would make the place more inviting to Georgia students. The other thing is that the social sciences are finally coming into their own. The data has expanded exponentially in the last decades. What is called "data science"these days was largely motivated by sociologists who wanted to manage linked databases, with computer science types and philosophers (!!) helping out. Tech is missing some of this ferment by not having programs that connect to it.
Click to expand...
As an alumnus, (not just because I'm a fan) I'm all for everything you've suggested.
 
Techastrophe

Techastrophe

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
99
GT is a unique place academically. It's rigorous but not in a self-absorbed intellectual way. It has held on to the idea of driving industrial competence long after most other universities became ends unto themselves. It would be really sad to see its character poisoned for cheap athletic wins, gratification of political ideas, etc. It's not something you can get back. Majors have been added and dropped over time and that's fine if it's for the right reasons. The question should be what-are-the-employers-going-to-need. Question mark. Period.
 
Top