Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
GT ranks #33 in football program monetary value
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GTRX7" data-source="post: 61629" data-attributes="member: 1045"><p>Having read this thread, I do appreciate the attempt to bring the discussion back to its fundamentals and out of the weeds, but I am not sure that the disagreement between the major parties is as small as suggested. I think the overall question is how much Tech's curriculum is a hindrance in recruiting. It seems one side says only a little (mostly relying on the facts that there are other schools that offer similar STEM programs and the fact that we offer non-STEM programs where most of our SAs are in fact enrolled), while the other side says a lot (mostly relying on the fact that our STEM focus impacts recruits' perception, that even though we have non-STEM majors, they are limited, and the fact that other schools that have a similar STEM-dominant narrow curriculum (e.g. MIT, Cal Tech, etc.) do not compete at nearly the same level of non-STEM dominant schools). [[Maybe I am wrong, and everyone agrees that our STEM-dominated narrow curriculum is a significant recruiting disadvantage?]]</p><p></p><p>I happen to fall in the latter category. I believe our narrow, STEM based curriculum is a significant recruiting disadvantage. (1) Most elite football/basketball players are not great students. (2) Of the elite athletes that are great students, very few want to go STEM. (3) Of the ones that don't want STEM, Tech offers only limited options and does not have a significant academic advantage in those non-STEM programs over other schools. (4) Even if an athlete does non-STEM, there is still a reputation that Tech is hard and that athletes must still take calculus.</p><p></p><p>I think those are significant disadvantages. An elite recruiting staff can probably overcome a lot of that. However, that same staff would probably do much better IMHO at a state school. I think that CPJ is an okay recruiter, but certainly not great. When one looks at the pool of "good" players vs. "elite" players, I think there are a lot more that are good students and even some that want to do STEM. That is why I think we are able to get a bunch of 3*s and are at much less of a disadvantage for those players. However, if we are talking "elite" 4* and 5* players, I think Tech's academics are in fact a big disadvantage. (That is not to say that we don't have other advantageous attributes--we do--but that is one big hurdle.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GTRX7, post: 61629, member: 1045"] Having read this thread, I do appreciate the attempt to bring the discussion back to its fundamentals and out of the weeds, but I am not sure that the disagreement between the major parties is as small as suggested. I think the overall question is how much Tech's curriculum is a hindrance in recruiting. It seems one side says only a little (mostly relying on the facts that there are other schools that offer similar STEM programs and the fact that we offer non-STEM programs where most of our SAs are in fact enrolled), while the other side says a lot (mostly relying on the fact that our STEM focus impacts recruits' perception, that even though we have non-STEM majors, they are limited, and the fact that other schools that have a similar STEM-dominant narrow curriculum (e.g. MIT, Cal Tech, etc.) do not compete at nearly the same level of non-STEM dominant schools). [[Maybe I am wrong, and everyone agrees that our STEM-dominated narrow curriculum is a significant recruiting disadvantage?]] I happen to fall in the latter category. I believe our narrow, STEM based curriculum is a significant recruiting disadvantage. (1) Most elite football/basketball players are not great students. (2) Of the elite athletes that are great students, very few want to go STEM. (3) Of the ones that don't want STEM, Tech offers only limited options and does not have a significant academic advantage in those non-STEM programs over other schools. (4) Even if an athlete does non-STEM, there is still a reputation that Tech is hard and that athletes must still take calculus. I think those are significant disadvantages. An elite recruiting staff can probably overcome a lot of that. However, that same staff would probably do much better IMHO at a state school. I think that CPJ is an okay recruiter, but certainly not great. When one looks at the pool of "good" players vs. "elite" players, I think there are a lot more that are good students and even some that want to do STEM. That is why I think we are able to get a bunch of 3*s and are at much less of a disadvantage for those players. However, if we are talking "elite" 4* and 5* players, I think Tech's academics are in fact a big disadvantage. (That is not to say that we don't have other advantageous attributes--we do--but that is one big hurdle.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Justin Thomas wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
GT ranks #33 in football program monetary value
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top