For those who think The Hill can change the curriculum

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

The political board is over there.

Please keep that stuff over on that board. I have made that error myself once or twice and regretted it. I want my sports to be politics-free please!!

His post wasn't entirely political, although I'm sure it could be seen that way and has no place on threads like this. But the fact is that politicians with ties to Athens, no matter the party or political persuasion have always shafted Tech, and I'm afraid they will always continue to do so.

 

[IEEEWreck]

The political board is over there.

Please keep that stuff over on that board. I have made that error myself once or twice and regretted it. I want my sports to be politics-free please!!

I don't get it. Is being a dwag a political stance?

 

[coldbeer]

I have tweeted at Rep. Reeves to solve this problem. Could use some support on Twitter, he is truly our only ****ing chance

What is your Twitter?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[gthxxxx]

Degrees like that are not just creating a new major, you are creating new departments , schools, and or colleges. The financial commitment to do something like that is huge, the payoff is not anywhere near guaranteed.

Does Georgia Tech currently have the classroom space to take on the students for a larger curriculum?

And how much would it cost the Institute to hire the additional instructors for the new majors?

I suspect these might be constraining factors. I don’t really know.

To expand this train of thought, there seems to be a movement for expanding curriculum by adding easier (and implicitly "useless") majors to pave the way for recruiting. Isn't the mission of higher education institutions, well,... higher education? Particularly higher education that is relevant to present and future demand of society. There are other faculties whose goal is to produce athletes, and quite frankly I don't think U.S. is in urgent need of more/better NFL'ers, NBA'ers, Olympic medal'ers, etc. Countless issues could be created/improved at Tech to improve its academic environment; more TAs, more instructors, more classrooms, more labs, more lab/teaching equipment, more modern lab/teaching equipment, more funding for projects, more engagement with industry, more engagement with professional groups, raise awareness of cutting edge problems/demands, etc... and all the overhead and supporting infrastructure... something often hidden and overlooked...

I'll leave one more food for thought... keeping in mind the boundaries of Georgia Tech in prime real estate of Atlanta, what do you think about the "cost" of Bobby Dodd Stadium?

 

[IEEEWreck]

To expand this train of thought, there seems to be a movement for expanding curriculum by adding easier (and implicitly "useless") majors to pave the way for recruiting. Isn't the mission of higher education institutions, well,... higher education? Particularly higher education that is relevant to present and future demand of society. There are other faculties whose goal is to produce athletes, and quite frankly I don't think U.S. is in urgent need of more/better NFL'ers, NBA'ers, Olympic medal'ers, etc. Countless issues could be created/improved at Tech to improve its academic environment; more TAs, more instructors, more classrooms, more labs, more lab/teaching equipment, more modern lab/teaching equipment, more funding for projects, more engagement with industry, more engagement with professional groups, raise awareness of cutting edge problems/demands, etc... and all the overhead and supporting infrastructure... something often hidden and overlooked...

I'll leave one more food for thought... keeping in mind the boundaries of Georgia Tech in prime real estate of Atlanta, what do you think about the "cost" of Bobby Dodd Stadium?

Reasonable points, but I'd point out the alumni association has managed to make providing expanding property to GT a profitable venture in the last 10 or so years. A neat trick, right?