Fanbase Size

[roadkill]

I stand corrected.

Funny. One doesn't have to rant and rave. Simply providing a link is sufficient.

As a tech alumnus who thought until recently that alumnus=graduate, I thought you had a valid point. However, in all the back and forth I believe we have lost sight of how the referenced comment relates to the thread topic.

The quote was "so you're not a Tech man", and the point, in my opinion, was to illustrate how some folks affiliated with the school can come across as snobbish, to the detriment of growing our fanbase. Perhaps the prof thought “Tech man” = alumnus. Regardless, I agree that the chosen words could come across as snobbish and demeaning to someone who is not a graduate. Do you?

 

[forensicbuzz]

This is ridiculous. Do you even both to check facts? This, from the GT Alumni Association:

"By attending GT, you are automatically a member of the (Georgia Tech) Alumni Association upon graduation."

If you do not graduate, you may join the Student Alumni Association. I assume this is similar to Texas A&M's "Association of Former Students" but to my knowledge, the GT Alumni Association does not include the SAA in many of its activities.

Here's a fact. My brother, who attended Georgia Tech for the Fall Quarter in 1991 is considered by the Georgia Tech Alumni Association to be an alumnus and contributed to Roll Call for over 20 years. Just because you're "automatically" enrolled in the GT Alumni Association as a graduate, if you don't contribute to Roll Call, you fall off the GT Alumni Association membership. You're choosing a weird hill to take a stand on.

I'm not arguing with you about what makes a Tech Man (I have my own opinion and it doesn't conform to what that professor said), but your wrong about who is considered a Georgia Tech alumnus by the school. Regardless, the Alumni Association does not define who is an alumnus but can define who they treat as an alumnus. The Alumni Association, like the Athletic Association, is outside the academic institute.

from GT Alumni Association's application for 40 under 40...LINK

Edit: It seems while I was gathering some references for you, someone else provided the same. Not meaning to pile on.

 

[Vespidae]

As a tech alumnus who thought until recently that alumnus=graduate, I thought you had a valid point. However, in all the back and forth I believe we have lost sight of how the referenced comment relates to the thread topic.

The quote was "so you're not a Tech man", and the point, in my opinion, was to illustrate how some folks affiliated with the school can come across as snobbish, to the detriment of growing our fanbase. Perhaps the prof thought “Tech man” = alumnus. Regardless, I agree that the chosen words could come across as snobbish and demeaning to someone who is not a graduate. Do you?

Using your assumption that "Tech Man = alumnus", it's quite possible that the professor was also NOT a "Tech Man".

Regardless, it doesn't matter what the professor said. It matters what the individual hearing it perceived. And if he perceived it as demeaning, it's demeaning.

 

[Vespidae]

Here's a fact. My brother, who attended Georgia Tech for the Fall Quarter in 1991 is considered by the Georgia Tech Alumni Association to be an alumnus and contributed to Roll Call for over 20 years. Just because you're "automatically" enrolled in the GT Alumni Association as a graduate, if you don't contribute to Roll Call, you fall off the GT Alumni Association membership. You're choosing a weird hill to take a stand on.

I'm not arguing with you about what makes a Tech Man (I have my own opinion and it doesn't conform to what that professor said), but your wrong about who is considered a Georgia Tech alumnus by the school. Regardless, the Alumni Association does not define who is an alumnus but can define who they treat as an alumnus. The Alumni Association, like the Athletic Association, is outside the academic institute.

from GT Alumni Association's application for 40 under 40...LINK

View attachment 13752

Edit: It seems while I was gathering some references for you, someone else provided the same. Not meaning to pile on.

It's fine. Pile on.

What's interesting is that the link you are referring to is not on the main page nor is it on the FAQ's. One has to dig into an affinity group page to find it. So even the GT Alumni Assn is not consistent. Makes no difference to me ... It's not a hill I'm willing to die on. I am simply looking to have an objective, third party source we can all use to minimize the confusion. I provided what was on one page and you and others provided what is on other pages. Fine. The more the merrier.

Count me as one who has always been under the assumption that "Tech Man" = Graduate. And that is probably still colloquial usage by most. Perhaps they are all wrong. Dinosaurs.

 

[cpf2001]

I’m not trying to hire any of y’all, just trying to talk about how GT could get more fans to get more resources, neither “Tech man” nor “alum” should come into it at all. I’m happy that people are proud of their degrees, but that’s just between you and whoever you may or may not be working for at this point.

I think that it did is telling of GT’s problem the past many decades. Step one of growing the fanbase: don’t Yogi Berra it and tell people that you are too smart to be able to figure out how to get new fans. The smart places figure out how to win. Even some of the rich ones manage to be dumb there, sure - but GT’s athletics aren’t rich enough to get away with being dumb in the name of being smart. Or smart in the name of being dumb? I lost track

 

[roadkill]

I’m not trying to hire any of y’all, just trying to talk about how GT could get more fans to get more resources, neither “Tech man” nor “alum” should come into it at all. I’m happy that people are proud of their degrees, but that’s just between you and whoever you may or may not be working for at this point.

I think that it did is telling of GT’s problem the past many decades. Step one of growing the fanbase: don’t Yogi Berra it and tell people that you are too smart to be able to figure out how to get new fans. The smart places figure out how to win. Even some of the rich ones manage to be dumb there, sure - but GT’s athletics aren’t rich enough to get away with being dumb in the name of being smart. Or smart in the name of being dumb? I lost track

Haha - sounds a bit like my wife who used to tell me "you're so smart you're stupid."

 

[forensicbuzz]

It's fine. Pile on.

What's interesting is that the link you are referring to is not on the main page nor is it on the FAQ's. One has to dig into an affinity group page to find it. So even the GT Alumni Assn is not consistent. Makes no difference to me ... It's not a hill I'm willing to die on. I am simply looking to have an objective, third party source we can all use to minimize the confusion. I provided what was on one page and you and others provided what is on other pages. Fine. The more the merrier.

Count me as one who has always been under the assumption that "Tech Man" = Graduate. And that is probably still colloquial usage by most. Perhaps they are all wrong. Dinosaurs.

I've never really heard the term "Tech Man" used in that sense. I don't doubt others have. I'm only mid-50's, so maybe it's a generational thing. But I have heard of a Harvard Man or a Yale Man (grew up about 20 minutes from Yale), and that definitely is all about attending and graduating, because if you're not enough to finish, you're not enough to be a Yale Man.

 

[85Escape]

I've never really heard the term "Tech Man" used in that sense. I don't doubt others have. I'm only mid-50's, so maybe it's a generational thing. But I have heard of a Harvard Man or a Yale Man (grew up about 20 minutes from Yale), and that definitely is all about attending and graduating, because if you're not enough to finish, you're not enough to be a Yale Man.

Well, it's not like Yale was all that difficult from what my friend who went there for two years and then transferred to GT (for financial reasons) said. By his account, while the standards were very high at Yale to get in, and the workload was challenging, it was not as demanding as at GT. At the time (early 80's), Yale wanted to help you graduate if you were admitted. While Tech was vocal about using the crushing workload and high grading standards as a way to ensure that only the most dedicated graduated.

It was a grind intended to push out those who didn't want it enough. Does that make GT an elite school? I think it did in a way, but from the standpoint of confidence when hiring graduates. The person I hire from GT might not be any smarter than the one I hire from another good engineering school, but I can be darn sure that they know how to bust their *** and don't buckle when the chips are down. They also usually understand the theory behind what they know better than engineers from some other engineering schools (as Vespidae said.) But they too often lack the non-engineering skills related to their subject (mechanical engineers who have never used a wrench...)

That's changed now, by all accounts. When student admission scores and graduation rates began to be the key measures of the success of a school, rather than the capabilities and accomplishments of the graduates, the whole basis for how to 'win' in academia has changed. This is a reflection the decline of the American culture of excellence, which is a whole different conversation for another forum.

 

[Vanillalite]

As a family man with some of my kids in the HS and college age other schools around these parts do it better cause I’ve experienced in terms of welcoming people into the fold beyond just the student body and the graduates.

Only other schools around here in the same snobbish territory could be Duke or the Heels. Even the Vandy people I’ve met aren’t near as bad as some Tech people are on this. UGA welcomes everyone into the fold. Clemson loves LOVES to include parents. Bama won’t turn away any sidewalk fan. Burn is also like Clemson to a degree where they love to bring the whole family into the fold especially to help against Bama. I could go on and on and insert school around GA.

Also for as much as it costs for the parents that do opt pay for their kids education these days I’d put them much more than just a friend of the university when the check gets written. LoL

 

[g0lftime]

I had one son go to UNC and the other go to NCSU. My experience with UNC was they were doing me a favor to allow my kid to attend there. My experience with NCSU was much better and they were very supportive of the student experience there. Very parent friendly.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I had one son go to UNC and the other go to NCSU. My experience with UNC was they were doing me a favor to allow my kid to attend there. My experience with NCSU was much better and they were very supportive of the student experience there. Very parent friendly.

UNC has always been snooty. So are UVa, Vanderbilt, and Emory. Georgia Tech isn't snooty, we're intellectual elitists. We don't look down on people for who they are, we look down on them for how little they know. And to be clear, our elitism extends beyond technology and STEM knowledge; we believe we are intellectually superior in all facets of knowledge. If you're smart, you're welcome in the club, but at a slightly lower level - see the comment about intestinal fortitude below. (even our orientation is elite - FASET)

How many conversations with a fellow Tech alum have you heard..."well, actually..." start a sentence?

With my generation and older, it goes a step further. Not only are we smarter, but we're tougher because we survived the rigors of Tech. We took the best shaft Ma Tech could give us, and we beat her. We persevered and are the smartest and strongest and toughest for it. No one else had to go through what we did, the way we did. Kind of like SEAL training.

To gain sidewalk fans, that attitude needs to change.

 

[Vespidae]

UNC has always been snooty. So are UVa, Vanderbilt, and Emory. Georgia Tech isn't snooty, we're intellectual elitists. We don't look down on people for who they are, we look down on them for how little they know. And to be clear, our elitism extends beyond technology and STEM knowledge; we believe we are intellectually superior in all facets of knowledge. If you're smart, you're welcome in the club, but at a slightly lower level - see the comment about intestinal fortitude below. (even our orientation is elite - FASET)

How many conversations with a fellow Tech alum have you heard..."well, actually..." start a sentence?

With my generation and older, it goes a step further. Not only are we smarter, but we're tougher because we survived the rigors of Tech. We took the best shaft Ma Tech could give us, and we beat her. We persevered and are the smartest and strongest and toughest for it. No one else had to go through what we did, the way we did. Kind of like SEAL training.

To gain sidewalk fans, that attitude needs to change.

I agree with everything you said. Except ... about sidewalk fans.

There are dozens of companies that study fanbase enlargement. SportFive is one and it's a great one. I recommend you read their research. It changed how I view today's game versus say, 30 years ago. It isn't even remotely comparable in today's environment.

I'm not trying to convince of you of anything other than ... do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

 

[awbuzz]

Did profs hand out practice exams in the pre-Internet days? Almost all my profs uploaded past semester exams with solutions to their websites and allowed a cheat sheet or index card. You could basically walk into the room with an 8.5x11 sheet with every type of question and answer procedure you would see that day. I usually learned the material even better by taking a pass at solving the problems before looking at answers in my study sessions and would draw up the cheat sheet the night before.

Exam time basically consisted of looking at the problems you were presented, hunting them down on your cheat sheet, and copying the work procedures onto the answer sheet with the question’s numbers substituted.

Well I didn't get that option when I was there in 81-86.

 

[Vespidae]

Well I didn't get that option when I was there in 81-86.

This is a major difference between THEN and NOW. Students today want rubrics, example problems to be solved (and repeated on exams), and totally clarity on the material.

"Back in the day", the emphasis was more on THEORY and the ability to think through issues and come to conclusions.

I recall taking a Gas Turbines class at Tech and getting an 8 on an exam. Eight. Out of 100. And I got a B in the class. There's no way that happens today.

 

[awbuzz]

True, nothing like having a 37 vs 52 get you C versus an A on a test.
Different times for sure.

 

[forensicbuzz]

True, nothing like having a 37 vs 52 get you C versus an A on a test.
Different times for sure.

Got a 17 on my first Thermo test. Solid C. Got a 73 on the final. 3rd highest grade in the class. Got me a B. Only final that moved me up a grade. Most moved me down. Nothing like going from a B- (3.0) to a C+ (2.0) because of the final.

 

[Richard7125]

How would you describe the difference in engineering program rankings? That's primarily what Tech is, seems a more useful rating to compare. Tech is tied at #4 with Cal Tech. UGA is at #104.

That’s kind of the point. Too many Tech alums are engineering myopic (only engineering matters - or - anything other than engineering doesn’t count).

Here’s an analogy, in 2022 Airforce has the #1 rushing offense, but their total offense ranks #61. Just because Airforce doesn’t throw the ball, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t compare Airforce's total offense with schools that do throw the ball. Tech is a top 5 engineering school (rushing offense); but compared to the academics of all schools (ie total offense) they typically place in the mid-40s.

By the way, the other engineering schools we like to compare Tech to (ie CalTech, MIT) are in the top 10 of overall academics. Their ranking doesn't drop into the mid-40s even though they are engineering focused schools.

 

[Richard7125]

and anecdotal data and stories are not a substitute for actual data. Average SAT score for UGa is 1355. That is BELOW the score for the 25th percentile (LOWEST 25%) of GT students at 1390.

Another way to look at that data, is that the average UGA student can get into Tech (albeit in the lowest 25% percentile). Also, average suggests there are a lot of UGA students above the 1355 which would most likely put them above the lowest 25%). I don't agree with that, but I'm hoping you see my point.

Lol. I am not sure why it's so threatening to some that it has become very difficult to get into UGA. Yes, Tech is still harder to get into. No one is saying it isn't.

One of my favorite sayings is what do Tech and UGA students have in common? They both got accepted to UGA.

 

[MWBATL]

Another way to look at that data, is that the average UGA student can get into Tech (albeit in the lowest 25% percentile). Also, average suggests there are a lot of UGA students above the 1355 which would most likely put them above the lowest 25%). I don't agree with that, but I'm hoping you see my point.

Lol. I am not sure why it's so threatening to some that it has become very difficult to get into UGA. Yes, Tech is still harder to get into. No one is saying it isn't.

One of my favorite sayings is what do Tech and UGA students have in common? They both got accepted to UGA.

It's not threatening. But i have heard more than a few UGa supporters argue that UGa is "as hard as GT nowadays to get into". When half of your admits (those below the average cited in earlier posts) would be below GT lowest quartile and hence wouldn't be admitted into GT...then GT is still significantly above UGa in this regard.

No one is saying it hasn't gotten harder to get into UGa. It certainly has. But we still re not in the same quadrant in terms of being academically elite. And, yes, I don't care about the rankings (U S News & World Report rankings have some serious flaws in their methodology).

But, frankly, none of that matters in terms of athletics. And in general, UGa grads are decent folk and relatively good folk. It's the noon-grads who are the biggest jerks in their fanbases. The fact remains that UGa allows MANY more exceptions than GT has historically and thus their athletic teams are often FAR below ours in terms of academic chops.

 

[MikeGT]

Just a couple of comments.
The athletic association definitely considers you an alumnus if you were a student but didn’t graduate.
Since we are talking about fan base - let’s use that definition.

The professor was being a jerk. Let’s not be jerks.