Collins on Packer & Durham

[Augusta_Jacket]

As much as we gripe at the gap to the factories, remember this ... despite it all, we are a Top 50 STEM school (in the world) which is still playing D1 football. That alone is impressive. While I think our future is more like the Milwaukee Brewers than the Yankees, I'm still proud of the Institute for remaining committed to big boy sports. The question isn't "how do we close the gap", the question is "how do we deal with the gap and that we don't have those resources?"

That's what we have to deal with.

I've often said this. Our academic peers are CalTech and MIT, and to some degree, the Service Academies and Stanford.

 

[JacketFan137]

I've often said this. Our academic peers are CalTech and MIT, and to some degree, the Service Academies and Stanford.

and stanford has basically double our majors too so it’s much easier to “hide” athletes

 

[forensicbuzz]

I've often said this. Our academic peers are CalTech and MIT, and to some degree, the Service Academies and Stanford.

and Cal and Michigan, and Illinois, and Purdue, and Texas, and a bunch of other top-tier engineering schools. Yes, these schools also have broader offerings and are about 2X our undergraduate student body (with some exceptions), but we are also 16X the size of Cal Tech, 4X the size of MIT, so comparing us to them isn't apples to apples either. We are 2.5X the size of Stanford and 2X Northwestern.

At Georgia Tech, we like to think we're the only elite engineering school performing at the highest level of D1 football, but that's just not true. We have some limitations, but we have much more to offer than we used to.

Note: USN&WR Undergraduate Engineering Programs offering doctorates (undergraduate population) D1 schools bolded.

Top 15
1. MIT (4,400)
2. Stanford (6,300)
2. Cal (31k)
4. Cal Tech (1k)
4. Georgia Tech (16.5k)
6. Carnegie-Mellon
6. Illinois (33k)
6. Michigan (31k)
9. Cornell
10. Purdue (35k)
10. Texas (40k)
12. Princeton
13. Johns Hopkins
13. Virginia Tech (30k)
15. Northwestern (8,100)
15. Texas A&M (55.5k)
15. UCLA (31.6k)
15. Wisconsin (33.5k)

 

[forensicbuzz]

and stanford has basically double our majors too so it’s much easier to “hide” athletes

Personally, in my opinion, this is a cop-out. We have majors that all our athletes can excel in. Coupled with the assistance provided, any student-athlete that was accepted and wanted to play at GT could make it through. Yes, our floor his higher than most other schools, but not that much higher.

 

[Vespidae]

and Cal and Michigan, and Illinois, and Purdue, and Texas, and a bunch of other top-tier engineering schools. Yes, these schools also have broader offerings and are about 2X our undergraduate student body (with some exceptions), but we are also 16X the size of Cal Tech, 4X the size of MIT, so comparing us to them isn't apples to apples either. We are 2.5X the size of Stanford and 2X Northwestern.

At Georgia Tech, we like to think we're the only elite engineering school performing at the highest level of D1 football, but that's just not true. We have some limitations, but we have much more to offer than we used to.

Note: USN&WR Undergraduate Engineering Programs offering doctorates (undergraduate population) D1 schools bolded.

Top 15
1. MIT (4,400)
2. Stanford (6,300)
2. Cal (31k)
4. Cal Tech (1k)
4. Georgia Tech (16.5k)
6. Carnegie-Mellon
6. Illinois (33k)
6. Michigan (31k)
9. Cornell
10. Purdue (35k)
10. Texas (40k)
12. Princeton
13. Johns Hopkins
13. Virginia Tech (30k)
15. Northwestern (8,100)
15. Texas A&M (55.5k)
15. UCLA (31.6k)
15. Wisconsin (33.5k)

That's certainly a list. And although the study was done some time ago, Georgia Tech had the highest SAT scores for football players of any of the 54 schools studied. UCLA (on the list above) had the highest variance between average student body score and that of the football team.

Premise? The narrower curriculum offered by Tech forces students into more competitive programs. I'm not arguing that Tech is the only engineering program that fields a team. Other universities offer engineering as well. Tech is unique in that a higher percentage of its student body are engineers and that's reflective in the student body SAT's and that of the athletics teams. And we should be proud of that.

 

[forensicbuzz]

That's certainly a list. And although the study was done some time ago, Georgia Tech had the highest SAT scores for football players of any of the 54 schools studied. UCLA (on the list above) had the highest variance between average student body score and that of the football team.

Premise? The narrower curriculum offered by Tech forces students into more competitive programs. I'm not arguing that Tech is the only engineering program that fields a team. Other universities offer engineering as well. Tech is unique in that a higher percentage of its student body are engineers and that's reflective in the student body SAT's and that of the athletics teams. And we should be proud of that.

I agree with this. However, the number of student-athletes that are in STEM majors is still very low at Tech in comparison. Regardless, even in the non-STEM majors, the regular students have scores that are exceptionally high. When people make comments about "hiding" athletes, it tends to make me bristle. There are definitely schools that do hide some athletes, but those schools are not our peers. there are plenty of universities comparable to Tech that don't hide their athletes. I'm proud of what GT is able to accomplish with the limitations forced upon us by the BOR and USG.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

At Georgia Tech, we like to think we're the only elite engineering school performing at the highest level of D1 football, but that's just not true. We have some limitations, but we have much more to offer than we used to.

The argument was STEM school. Elite engineering is available at a lot of schools. We are one of a few major institutions in FBS or FCS that offer primarily STEM programs with limited liberal arts programs. The only reason we are able to actually field a competitive team in P5 football is that probably 90% of our football players are shoehorned into one of our few non-STEM offerings.

 

[Vespidae]

The only reason we are able to actually field a competitive team in P5 football is that probably 90% of our football players are shoehorned into one of our few non-STEM offerings.

Fair enough. But even those degrees are real degrees. Several years ago, I looked at Clemson's team. The number one major was Parks and Recreation and number two was "Pre-Business" which is a freshman offering for those undecided what b-school field they would pursue. The number of seniors in "pre-business" was astounding!

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Instead of moaning about the money, let’s get an AD and staff that has pride in what they do and a great work ethic. Neither has been evident so far. All I see is talk. Don’t tell me, show me.

 

[candrewk]

He seems way more on edge than normal

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Fair enough. But even those degrees are real degrees. Several years ago, I looked at Clemson's team. The number one major was Parks and Recreation and number two was "Pre-Business" which is a freshman offering for those undecided what b-school field they would pursue. The number of seniors in "pre-business" was astounding!

The cold reality is that even a degree factory diploma from "Online University of the Never Attend Class a Day in Your Life" can set you up for success if a) it has even the most minute amount of accreditation and b) you know how to leverage it properly. If you graduate as a football player with a degree in just about anything you have a great chance to be successful in life if you leverage yourself well. With the exception of work in licensed fields such as medicine, and to some degree engineering, specific degrees aren't really necessary. I have a government degree from the USCGA, and yet I work in environmental engineering alongside coworkers with engineering degrees, business degrees, and all kinds of other degrees. All a degree really does any more is open the door and get you into an interview. Once you've been out of college a few years, people really don't care about what your degree is in or where it came from, but rather what value do YOU bring to the job.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The cold reality is that even a degree factory diploma from "Online University of the Never Attend Class a Day in Your Life" can set you up for success if a) it has even the most minute amount of accreditation and b) you know how to leverage it properly. If you graduate as a football player with a degree in just about anything you have a great chance to be successful in life if you leverage yourself well. With the exception of work in licensed fields such as medicine, and to some degree engineering, specific degrees aren't really necessary. I have a government degree from the USCGA, and yet I work in environmental engineering alongside coworkers with engineering degrees, business degrees, and all kinds of other degrees. All a degree really does any more is open the door and get you into an interview. Once you've been out of college a few years, people really don't care about what your degree is in or where it came from, but rather what value do YOU bring to the job.

I agree with this 100%. It is off-topic, so mods feel free to move. I've come to the realization that you get out what you put in and that it doesn't really matter where you get your undergraduate degree (with some exceptions), if you put the effort into your education, you will be successful in whatever you choose to do. This is why I have encouraged my children to get their first two years at the local CC and then finish their undergraduate degree at the best least-expensive school they can afford. If you can get out with a BA/BS without any college debt, you're way ahead of the curve. With excellent grades, graduate school opportunities will present themselves, regardless of the school you went to for an undergraduate program. The primary thing you should get from college is the ability to think critically.

 

[augustabuzz]

I agree with this. However, the number of student-athletes that are in STEM majors is still very low at Tech in comparison. Regardless, even in the non-STEM majors, the regular students have scores that are exceptionally high. When people make comments about "hiding" athletes, it tends to make me bristle. There are definitely schools that do hide some athletes, but those schools are not our peers. there are plenty of universities comparable to Tech that don't hide their athletes. I'm proud of what GT is able to accomplish with the limitations forced upon us by the BOR and USG.

Which of our Bachelor of Science degree offerings are not "Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math"?

 

[GoldZ]

Which of our Bachelor of Science degree offerings are not "Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math"?

None, the answer lies in the B of S instead of B of A. Ask the BOR why this is the case?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Which of our Bachelor of Science degree offerings are not "Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math"?

Business Administration and Management, which happens to be the main degree our student athletes pursue, is not a STEM degree.

Just because math is required for a degree doesn't make it a STEM degree.

Note: This is not to diminish the rigor of this degree, as it is a highly ranked course of study nationally, just pointing out that it is not a STEM degree.

 

[JacketFan137]

Personally, in my opinion, this is a cop-out. We have majors that all our athletes can excel in. Coupled with the assistance provided, any student-athlete that was accepted and wanted to play at GT could make it through. Yes, our floor his higher than most other schools, but not that much higher.

this is great to tell users on this forum but let’s walk into high schools and tell the average high end recruit “hey you can come bust your *** in school instead of partying in athens, tuscaloosa or clemson” it’s an obvious hurdle for recruiting that every coach faces for us. i would also add that even if you convince yourself that it’s not a problem, the perception is out there already and there’s already plenty of negative recruiting pitches out there.

obviously there’s exceptions that people will point to cause there’s like one aerospace engineer major that gets popular every 4 years and espn runs the story into the ground, but these handful of examples don’t outweigh the majority.

it is an objective truth we face a pretty unique set of academic hurdles that make it more difficult to recruit.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Which of our Bachelor of Science degree offerings are not "Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math"?

Any of the degrees in the School of Management and the School of Liberal Arts. These are not considered STEM.

I used to agree with you, but I discussed it with my wife, who has a MS in Applied Physics and Ph.D. in Science and Technology Policy (Public Policy in the School of Liberal Arts). She told me flat out that her Ph.D. was not a STEM degree even though it has Science and Technology in the title. She teaches Ph.D. level courses at a university in Public Administration, Public Policy, and Political Science now. So, I concede the point to her.

Just because it says "Bachelor of Science" doesn't make it a STEM program. Here's a quick link Stem Majors, even Homeland Security gets into the discussion ICE STEM List, or what the makers to the ACT consider STEM ACT STEM Majors.

 

[augustabuzz]

Business Administration and Management, which happens to be the main degree our student athletes pursue, is not a STEM degree.

Just because math is required for a degree doesn't make it a STEM degree.

Note: This is not to diminish the rigor of this degree, as it is a highly ranked course of study nationally, just pointing out that it is not a STEM degree.

That wasn't the question.

 

[augustabuzz]

Any of the degrees in the School of Management and the School of Liberal Arts. These are not considered STEM.

I used to agree with you, but I discussed it with my wife, who has a MS in Applied Physics and Ph.D. in Science and Technology Policy (Public Policy in the School of Liberal Arts). She told me flat out that her Ph.D. was not a STEM degree even though it has Science and Technology in the title. She teaches Ph.D. level courses at a university in Public Administration, Public Policy, and Political Science now. So, I concede the point to her.

Just because it says "Bachelor of Science" doesn't make it a STEM program. Here's a quick link Stem Majors, even Homeland Security gets into the discussion ICE STEM List, or what the makers to the ACT consider STEM ACT STEM Majors.

Then we should require that the restiction imposed by the BOR requiring Georgia Institute of Technology offer BS degrees only, be removed. It was a back door requirement added in the mid 1950s to end Tech's domination of uga on the football field. That was when opposing recruiters began carrying calculus books with them on visits.

 

[forensicbuzz]

this is great to tell users on this forum but let’s walk into high schools and tell the average high end recruit “hey you can come bust your *** in school instead of partying in athens, tuscaloosa or clemson” it’s an obvious hurdle for recruiting that every coach faces for us. i would also add that even if you convince yourself that it’s not a problem, the perception is out there already and there’s already plenty of negative recruiting pitches out there.

obviously there’s exceptions that people will point to cause there’s like one aerospace engineer major that gets popular every 4 years and espn runs the story into the ground, but these handful of examples don’t outweigh the majority.

it is an objective truth we face a pretty unique set of academic hurdles that make it more difficult to recruit.

I'm not sure what you're really trying to argue here. To say we are limited because of our majors is a cop-out, in my opinion. Every school has things that they're negatively recruited with. We need to stop using it as a crutch for why we can't get the top recruits.

We have programs we can sell to kids. We have to control the narrative and battle the negative recruiting. If kids want to go play at going to college, they'll never last at Tech. That's important for EVERY recruit to understand upfront. If they want to be a serious student, they can make it through Tech.

Personally, I'd love to see us expand our degree options. I'd like to add a College of Education, a law school, a med school. There's no good reason we don't have those programs (there is a reason, but it's not a good one). At the very least, I'd like to see a Physical Education-related degree that focuses on areas like kinesiology, coaching, health education, athletic training, sports management. These could very easily fit within our charter from the USG.

We shouldn't let any of this be an "excuse" as to why we can't have nice things. I've heard too many former players state that Tech's limited curriculum and level of difficulty hinders Tech significantly is bunk. It does happen occasionally when some kid wants a specific degree program that we don't have, but it's rare enough as to not be relevant.