Collins on Packer & Durham

[wesgt123]

I remember when this thread was about Collins on Packer & Durham

 

[forensicbuzz]

I'm not sure I follow. It seems like you're saying that we recruit the players, then we pair them to a major. That might be true for some players, but I would guess most HS senior FB players have at least some idea of what they want to do with their education in college. Even if they have "expectations" of getting to the NFL and never using their degree, they likely still have some preference of what they want to study. That assumption eliminates all the recruits that have any inclination towards a major that we don't have, e.g., Criminal Justice, Communications, English, Psychology (I think), any major that's not STEM outside of our LMC degree. So there are some recruits that will never even look to come here. Aside from that, if they plan to take an "easy" major, why would they come to GT where the "easy" majors are harder than the "easy" majors are easier?

This is not a cop-out.

We have a degree at Tech that will essentially gateway you to any profession you want. For a kid to say he's not coming to Tech because we don't have his degree is an excuse for that kid not wanting to come to Tech or some advisor somewhere falling down on his/her job. It's a cop-out. Unless you're in a specialized field, college teaches you how to think; that's about it.

 

[slugboy]

All STEM degrees are BS degrees. Not all BS degrees are STEM degrees. Both statements are true.

The way it was explained to me
BA = x amount of hours
BS = x++ hours and requirements
B (BME/BEE/BIE/Bx) = still more hours and requirements

BA < BS < Bx

You can get a BA and have a STEM degree

 

[slugboy]

I remember when this thread was about Collins on Packer & Durham

Look to your left and look to your right. Two of you aren’t making it out of this thread

 

[stinger 1957]

I remember when this thread was about Collins on Packer & Durham

Thank you , saved me a little time at least, I started on page 10.

 

[augustabuzz]

At Tech, yes. UGA offers "science" degrees such as Geology where you can get a BA.

Yes, the infamous "rocks for jocks" program.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The way it was explained to me
BA = x amount of hours
BS = x++ hours and requirements
B (BME/BEE/BIE/Bx) = still more hours and requirements

BA < BS < Bx

You can get a BA and have a STEM degree

Agreed. My post in general was directed towards GT degrees specifically. The bigger point that I was attempting to make was that not all degrees offered at a STEM school like Tech are STEM degrees.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The way it was explained to me
BA = x amount of hours
BS = x++ hours and requirements
B (BME/BEE/BIE/Bx) = still more hours and requirements

BA < BS < Bx

You can get a BA and have a STEM degree

I needed 208 quarter hours to graduate. I think I ended up with 217. That's almost a full year's worth of credits. I didn't realize there was a requirement difference for B of X Engineering.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

We have a degree at Tech that will essentially gateway you to any profession you want. For a kid to say he's not coming to Tech because we don't have his degree is an excuse for that kid not wanting to come to Tech or some advisor somewhere falling down on his/her job. It's a cop-out. Unless you're in a specialized field, college teaches you how to think; that's about it.

IMO, this argument is a cop-out. For you to say that any kid can come to GT and have a gateway to any career ignores the fact that many kids truly are looking for the best fit for them and that fit may be elsewhere. Saying that any kid can come here and we have a degree that can get him anywhere he wants to go is just another way of saying anyone who believes otherwise is wrong, and ignores the vast amount of nuance that goes into the bulk of student athletes decisions. Sure, we lose some recruits because we don't pitch something the best way, but to assume that people who do this for a living are somehow serially inept at GT, but can and have been proven successful elsewhere seems improbable.

Everything I have ever seen here leads me to believe that it is indeed vastly more difficult to recruit top tier SAs to GT, but it is not impossible. Where is our recruiting ceiling? Top 30? Top 25? Top 20? Who knows for sure because we haven't seen consistency there yet. (Caveat that with the pandemic, NIL, and transfer portal changes we might not know for certain just yet as the recruiting landscape has changed drastically)

Fortunately, this is one area (recruiting) where I really trust Collins instincts, so hopefully we see vast improvement this year.

 

[wesgt123]

Collins on Packer & Durham, people!
FOCUS! *claps hands*

 

[swampsting]

Ok, back to that segment.
Love how packer chewed up two plus minutes talking about Weinke's play action skills. Collins sat there almost mummified.
Best part of the interview.

 

[tmhunter52]

I remember when this thread was about Collins on Packer & Durham

You must be taking Prevagen…

 

[forensicbuzz]

IMO, this argument is a cop-out. For you to say that any kid can come to GT and have a gateway to any career ignores the fact that many kids truly are looking for the best fit for them and that fit may be elsewhere. Saying that any kid can come here and we have a degree that can get him anywhere he wants to go is just another way of saying anyone who believes otherwise is wrong, and ignores the vast amount of nuance that goes into the bulk of student athletes decisions. Sure, we lose some recruits because we don't pitch something the best way, but to assume that people who do this for a living are somehow serially inept at GT, but can and have been proven successful elsewhere seems improbable.

Everything I have ever seen here leads me to believe that it is indeed vastly more difficult to recruit top tier SAs to GT, but it is not impossible. Where is our recruiting ceiling? Top 30? Top 25? Top 20? Who knows for sure because we haven't seen consistency there yet. (Caveat that with the pandemic, NIL, and transfer portal changes we might not know for certain just yet as the recruiting landscape has changed drastically)

Fortunately, this is one area (recruiting) where I really trust Collins instincts, so hopefully we see vast improvement this year.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush and coloring outside the lines of this conversation. No one ever said anything about the best fit for a kid not being somewhere else. My comment was that a kid saying "I'm not going there because Tech doesn't have my major" is bull****. There's a path to essentially any career through Tech.

You can get a degree at Tech that will prepare you for ANY career path you want. It may not be the "conventional" path most people think, but, for instance, Chemical Engineering is probably the best pre-med undergraduate degree one could have. I know because that's how I started Tech. The problem is that it's so hard to maintain a high enough GPA to get into med school that very few people choose that path. I agree there are some highly specialized majors (like Fine Arts) that really don't fit with Tech, but, for the most part, these kids aren't coming in looking for that. Your argument falls flat because no one is saying that every kid should go to Georgia Tech. The comment was that using limited degrees as an excuse for our poor recruiting is a cop-out. It is.

Now, if you want to talk about the difficulty of programs, that's a different argument and may be valid. The fact that whatever program these athletes are in they're going to be challenged by top-level students around them in their classes is a different argument, as well. It comes down to whether the student-athlete wants to put in the work necessary to get through Tech. I've heard too many student-athletes say that with the support they get, it's just a matter of doing the work.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

My comment was that a kid saying "I'm not going there because Tech doesn't have my major" is bull****. There's a path to essentially any career through Tech.

My position remains. It is not BS for a player to make that argument and be correct. GT is limited in majors. We have to convince people to take the majors we have when we don't have what they want, and that's not a winning argument for everyone.

 

[TooTall]

With all the players past and present riding the "M Train", and years of backlogged tests, projects and the normal tutoring, why is it soooooooo hard to get through that? My fraternity required every test and project and major paper be copied, hard copy or on disk, for others. Folks wondered why all of us were history majors....im sure the football department has access to items like this.
Granted, its no parks and recreation like at Clempson, but C'mon.

 

[forensicbuzz]

My position remains. It is not BS for a player to make that argument and be correct. GT is limited in majors. We have to convince people to take the majors we have when we don't have what they want, and that's not a winning argument for everyone.

We need to explain how the majors we have gets him where he wants to go. We need to show, demonstratively, the path of how others have done what he wants to do through the paths available and how that path made them better for it. Our graduates are highly successful in the real world because they're really smart and Georgia Tech prepared them very well. It doesn't matter what they "major" in; it matters what their degree prepares them for after graduation. If our advisors are not doing this, they're not doing their job.

Personally, I think your position is short-sighted, but I can't deny that there are many that think the way you do. I hear it all the time and just shake my head.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

We need to explain how the majors we have gets him where he wants to go. We need to show, demonstratively, the path of how others have done what he wants to do through the paths available and how that path made them better for it. Our graduates are highly successful in the real world because they're really smart and Georgia Tech prepared them very well. It doesn't matter what they "major" in; it matters what their degree prepares them for after graduation. If our advisors are not doing this, they're not doing their job.

Personally, I think your position is short-sighted, but I can't deny that there are many that think the way you do. I hear it all the time and just shake my head.

You have stated what I believe was the original purpose of education, to broaden one’s horizons, train you to see possibilities and to teach rigor. Emory med school, for instance, doesn’t care if you were pre-med in college, hence they accept a fair number of history majors and English majors. They simply want to know how good you are at learning new things and whether you can handle different kinds of people and environments. Tech probably needs to remind prospective students that graduates have done everything from becoming music producers, chefs, inventors and entertainers, in addition to being CEOs or starting new businesses.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

We need to explain how the majors we have gets him where he wants to go. We need to show, demonstratively, the path of how others have done what he wants to do through the paths available and how that path made them better for it. Our graduates are highly successful in the real world because they're really smart and Georgia Tech prepared them very well. It doesn't matter what they "major" in; it matters what their degree prepares them for after graduation. If our advisors are not doing this, they're not doing their job.

Personally, I think your position is short-sighted, but I can't deny that there are many that think the way you do. I hear it all the time and just shake my head.

Agreed, but if they don't buy into that argument, then it's not BS, it's a legitimate choice. There's nothing short sighted about respecting decisions made by others that you may not agree with.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

You have stated what I believe was the original purpose of education, to broaden one’s horizons, train you to see possibilities and to teach rigor. Emory med school, for instance, doesn’t care if you were pre-med in college, hence they accept a fair number of history majors and English majors. They simply want to know how good you are at learning new things and whether you can handle different kinds of people and environments. Tech probably needs to remind prospective students that graduates have done everything from becoming music producers, chefs, inventors and entertainers, in addition to being CEOs or starting new businesses.

I am fairly certain that these points are made routinely, not just at GT, but by every college recruiter out there. As I stated earlier, people who make their living as recruiters generally know how to sell their product. The assumption that GT recruiters are failing to sell correctly because enough of the right people aren't buying the product is a biased assumption. It assumes no fault of the product, but only fault of the salesman. The reality is that the limited majors, perceived difficulty and rigor, added to lack of consistent success makes GT a hard sell. We can argue "stay home" but half a dozen or more factories are a day trip away, so even that argument is muted somewhat. At the end of the day, there is a reason GT struggles to recruit well. Blaming that solely on the recruiter ignores a mountain of other evidence out there and frankly, ignores reality.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Agreed, but if they don't buy into that argument, then it's not BS, it's a legitimate choice. There's nothing short sighted about respecting decisions made by others that you may not agree with.

It seems we're talking past each other. Your answer doesn't contradict what I'm saying, so I'm going to let it go at that.