Jimmy's and Joe's

[forensicbuzz]

It saddens me that our culture places such a disdain on the subject of calculus and views it as so extra-ordinary. I know I am viewing this from the perspective of an actual calculus teacher, but darn man, it ain't that freaking hard. To me, all that shows is how off the tracks we are as a nation in terms of educating the masses. I have gotten soooo many kids through calc in HS that it isn't funny. Many of them were not that smart, and athletes to boot. Where are we headed? What the heck, we can outsource everything right?

Calculus is hard if you don't have the foundation to understand it. Just like anything, if you're fundamentally sound, it'll make sense.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

1. Not every major at GT these days requires calculus. GT has more majors than ever.

2. George O'Leary had five top 25 teams in a row--not so long ago.

3. Liberal Arts majors have their "hurdle" courses too.

4. Don't tell me that in the entire world there aren't 20 kids every year who are qualified, solid to exceptional FBS players, and who want what Tech has to offer. We aren't trying to sign 1000 every year--just 20. However, you have to work to find them and sell them. It's effort and sales ability that are missing.

5. GT has a LOT to sell. The academic excuse is one rolled out by people who don't think much of GT.

If you don't think academic rigor and narrow major choice aren't hurdles the team has to face in recruiting, I got nothing. There's no where to begin to debate you. Oh, and GOL didn't have APR to deal with. If you don't think that matters.... I got nothing.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Here's a perfect example of the academic hurdle. A few years ago we recruited Junior Gnonkonde. In fact, he was our first commit. He was an academic casualty. Much effort was made but he was never able to qualify for admission to GT. Guess what, he skates right into UNC and gets a bigtime sack/strip/fumble on JT in the game a couple weeks ago. Yeah, our academics are no hurdle.

Btw, this is his major at UNC: Double major in African American and Diaspora studies and peace, war and defense.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The easiest MJR at GT is one of the harder ones at Clemson and the rest of the teams on our schedule . Clemson has a some great programs . Hard majors . They also have Yoga , Rowing , Camping , Fishing classes etc ... it goes on and on and on . GT's " Liberal Arts " are business classes w math that with my UGA Econ Degree have trouble spelling . Until 2 years ago , I had not been on the GT campus since before the Olympics . I believed the academic argument was BS . Now w 2 Sons at GT , one who was a SEC Honor Roll student , I know for a absolute fact that GT is night and day more difficult. The same classes at UGA and GT ( Econ ) are much more math laden and much more difficult . Thats just a fact . Will was homeschooled until the 8 th grade , and made all A's in High school ,it was easy . I was still nervous about him going to GT . How many " 5 and 4 star " players have a 4.0 GPA and score in the Zell Miller range on the SAT ? GT is freeking hard . Every school we play has " football majors " . We do not . If you graduate from GT you earned it and your ready for life . What in the hell do you do w a rec sports mgt degree ? Chalk fields back home at the rec dept ? Clemson is a great school w many hard as hell majors , don't get your panties in a wad because some one is talking about their joke classes that 70 % of the athletes take . Sorry panties in a wad might have been to harsh . Im still pissed off about the guy who said our players have no heart . I can't help it that stuff makes me want to suit up

You hit the nail on the head and speak from actual first hand knowledge. I agree with you about the "no heart" guy, that was wrong in so many ways.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

It saddens me that our culture places such a disdain on the subject of calculus and views it as so extra-ordinary. I know I am viewing this from the perspective of an actual calculus teacher, but darn man, it ain't that freaking hard. To me, all that shows is how off the tracks we are as a nation in terms of educating the masses. I have gotten soooo many kids through calc in HS that it isn't funny. Many of them were not that smart, and athletes to boot. Where are we headed? What the heck, we can outsource everything right?

This is true when you are talking about college students in general. We are talking about a subset of this larger group, most of which would never sniff a college campus w/o football. The vast majority of the kids we recruit now would be college students w/o football. Clemson, Uga, FSU, Miami, Bama, OSU...... lol.

Btw, imo there's nothing wrong with your post and being a moderator.

 

[Lee]

It's not just the calculus either. We HAD to take 2 lab science courses as well as computer science.

Of course we all flocked to EAS because that was the "easy" one. There was still a lot of math involved with both of them as well that I guarantee you UGA, FSU, and Bama's DTs could not pass with 100 tutors. Imagine the look they would give you if you asked them to explain radiative flux to you or what atmospheric aerosols are.

For the average student population, these classes aren't that bad. For "future NFL SA's," they've got no shot and don't want to put the effort it would take to skate by either.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Boomer we have like 4-5 HS teachers on the board including you and me. We could have a fun drawn out conversation on a lot of things our state does poorly.

 

[Buzz776g]

Calculus is hard if you don't have the foundation to understand it. Just like anything, if you're fundamentally sound, it'll make sense.

This.

Not bragging (there's lots of stuff I suck at), but I like math and am pretty good at it. Calculus was hard work for me but it was also fun.

I also went to a high school that was ranked at the top of its state at the time I went there.

Many top HS athletes (not all by any means, but a lot) come from economically disadvantaged areas and k-12 systems in poor, rural areas. The smartest, most hardworking kid and the best teacher in the world still have a lot to overcome in that environment.

Add in high-level math taught to high standards of expectation, and that can become prohibitively daunting for any kid that's underprepared for GT, even with all the support the law (and our own ethics) allows.

 

[Declinometer]

This.

Not bragging (there's lots of stuff I suck at), but I like math and am pretty good at it. Calculus was hard work for me but it was also fun.

I also went to a high school that was ranked at the top of its state at the time I went there.

Many top HS athletes (not all by any means, but a lot) come from economically disadvantaged areas and k-12 systems in poor, rural areas. The smartest, most hardworking kid and the best teacher in the world still have a lot to overcome in that environment.

Add in high-level math taught to high standards of expectation, and that can become prohibitively daunting for any kid that's underprepared for GT, even with all the support the law (and our own ethics) allows.

Name those "economic disadvantaged areas".

 

[Buzz776g]

Name those "economic disadvantaged areas".

Well ... Unless you come from a wealthy, landowning family, just about anywhere in the rural Southeast.

Think smaller cities and towns in south Georgia, Alabama, Texas etc. The public school systems simply aren't as good as the better ones of the larger urban areas.

That's a generalization, and meant to be. Is it impossible to find a good school or an inspiring, caring teacher in a rural area? Of course not. Are there poor schools in well-funded suburban areas? Sure there are.

 

[MWBATL]

Seems to me that this debate has evolved into a more general debate about whether in our society we ought to have athletic programs in university which are manned by students who, other than their athletic skills, would not be admitted to those schools.

Idealism aside, money wins. The realities of our world is that as long as fans will pay money to se kids who can (in some cases) barely speak decent english to come play football (or basketball), then the vats majority of universities will go there and use these kids.

It is fascinating to me that no one, I mean NO ONE, outside of a few idealists, allow the athletic irregularities to demean the academic reputation of a school. I have not noticed that anyone has degraded UNC's academic reputation outside of a few angry fans on message boards. All the rankings I see still rank them highly. Florida has a good academic reputation...ever heard some of this players speak? <shaking my head> In our society, 99% of folks are able to shrug off the athletics for what they are, and evaluate the university as a whole ignoring that. Yet, at GT, we cling to the idea that somehow, that's not true and we would lose something precious if we went the way of UNC.

I use UNC as the most egregious example, but frankly as nothing negative has happened to them, I wonder why all universities don't follow they model. And, frankly, as has been pointe out in this thread, they still easily accept, and maintain the academic status of, otherwise marginal students who can play football. There are plenty of positives that cure to the entire university as a result of national ranked athletic programs. Demonstrable advantages. Applications rise, donations rise, name recognition rises, fan bases swell, etc etc

I think GT is frankly a dinosaur. I know many GT grads will vigoursly disagree with my view on this topic, but I don't think they will have much in the way of facts to support their point of view. I could go on and on, but this post is already longer than most message board readers want to read....

 

[Ash]

Here's a perfect example of the academic hurdle. A few years ago we recruited Junior Gnonkonde. In fact, he was our first commit. He was an academic casualty. Much effort was made but he was never able to qualify for admission to GT. Guess what, he skates right into UNC and gets a bigtime sack/strip/fumble on JT in the game a couple weeks ago. Yeah, our academics are no hurdle.

Btw, this is his major at UNC: Double major in African American and Diaspora studies and peace, war and defense.

This is indeed a perfect example of the reality of recruiting at GT. In addition to kids like Junior, there are plenty that qualify academically but don't want to take "hard" classed or are not interested in on of GT's majors. The playing field is not level.

We can compete though, and using academics as an excuse when a season goes south does not make us look good. Just like CPJ said about injuries this year...they are a factor but nobody cares.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

IDK if he's regressed or if he has that little faith in the guys around him. Something different this year, though...

It is both, combined with less talent at WR and an offensive line that is being defeated by more athletic defenses.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

GT is a top tier university nestled in an urban environment, Clemson is a second tier university on a lake - hardly comparable.
Calling Clemson "very diverse" is funny, Clemson is actually one of the least diverse colleges in the nation. 83,3% of all undergrads are white/caucasian...
http://thetigernews.com/student-leaders-discuss-the-schools-work-toward-a-more-diverse-campus/

Clemson is very diverse. Look at Maximum Mexican week . There were only a few complaints, and the administration addressed those with a heartfelt mea culpa.

 

[AE 87]

Seems to me that this debate has evolved into a more general debate about whether in our society we ought to have athletic programs in university which are manned by students who, other than their athletic skills, would not be admitted to those schools.

Idealism aside, money wins. The realities of our world is that as long as fans will pay money to se kids who can (in some cases) barely speak decent english to come play football (or basketball), then the vats majority of universities will go there and use these kids.

It is fascinating to me that no one, I mean NO ONE, outside of a few idealists, allow the athletic irregularities to demean the academic reputation of a school. I have not noticed that anyone has degraded UNC's academic reputation outside of a few angry fans on message boards. All the rankings I see still rank them highly. Florida has a good academic reputation...ever heard some of this players speak? <shaking my head> In our society, 99% of folks are able to shrug off the athletics for what they are, and evaluate the university as a whole ignoring that. Yet, at GT, we cling to the idea that somehow, that's not true and we would lose something precious if we went the way of UNC.

I use UNC as the most egregious example, but frankly as nothing negative has happened to them, I wonder why all universities don't follow they model. And, frankly, as has been pointe out in this thread, they still easily accept, and maintain the academic status of, otherwise marginal students who can play football. There are plenty of positives that cure to the entire university as a result of national ranked athletic programs. Demonstrable advantages. Applications rise, donations rise, name recognition rises, fan bases swell, etc etc

I think GT is frankly a dinosaur. I know many GT grads will vigoursly disagree with my view on this topic, but I don't think they will have much in the way of facts to support their point of view. I could go on and on, but this post is already longer than most message board readers want to read....

Fwiw, I think, first, that the issue being discussed is more of what the case is than what it should be. That is to say, whether it needs to be so or not, GT has an academic climate which does not allow students to major in Rec Sport Mgt or whatever. Moreover, it's core curriculum is more rigorous than comparable courses elsewhere. It is currently more difficult at GT to meet APR in its most accommodating majors than it would be at other schools.

Second, I don't think people are really worried, at a simplistic level, of what would happen to GT's reputation. As you say, schools like UF and u[sic]NC have maintained high reputations despite their ability to be more academically accommodating. However, to match them, GT would have to (a) add more non-stem majors which is outside their control and (b) change the academic culture (which would change the nature of the graduate whether it affect the general reputation or not).

 

[MWBATL]

Fwiw, I think, first, that the issue being discussed is more of what the case is than what it should be. That is to say, whether it needs to be so or not, GT has an academic climate which does not allow students to major in Rec Sport Mgt or whatever. Moreover, it's core curriculum is more rigorous than comparable courses elsewhere. It is currently more difficult at GT to meet APR in its most accommodating majors than it would be at other schools.

Second, I don't think people are really worried, at a simplistic level, of what would happen to GT's reputation. As you say, schools like UF and u[sic]NC have maintained high reputations despite their ability to be more academically accommodating. However, to match them, GT would have to (a) add more non-stem majors which is outside their control and (b) change the academic culture (which would change the nature of the graduate whether it affect the general reputation or not).

Got it. I guess my feeling is that if we truly wish to compete at a high level, this is what would be necessary to do so. In prior discussion, its has seemed to me that many GT grads somehow over-estimate the hair it would to our academic reputation if we did initiate "jock majors" with all that implies. By the way, I am not sure having some "jock majors" would really impact the academic culture of the rest of the Institute. I think the culture today in hard engineering majors is already different form the academic culture in the School of Management. Both are excellent, but different. "Jock majors" would be like having a different college within the Institute...

 

[ATL1]

I'm not gonna read all the post, but being stout defensively doesn't require 5 stars. It helps but defense is also about displine and the want to. Great technique and tackling don't require 4 and 5 stars and too many teams have stout defenses with marginal talent. IMO there is little excuse for poor defense at GT.

CPJ was brought in because his scheme was supposed to neutralize talent deficiencies.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I'm not gonna read all the post, but being stout defensively doesn't require 5 stars. It helps but defense is also about displine and the want to. Great technique and tackling don't require 4 and 5 stars and too many teams have stout defenses with marginal talent. IMO there is little excuse for poor defense at GT.

CPJ was brought in because his scheme was supposed to neutralize talent deficiencies.

Your second paragraph has nothing to do with your first and that's assuming your first is true.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

CPJ was brought in because his scheme was supposed to neutralize talent deficiencies.

Oh and many of the teams we beat last year had higher, some much higher, ranked rosters, iow more talent, than us.

 

[AE 87]

I'm not gonna read all the post, but being stout defensively doesn't require 5 stars. It helps but defense is also about displine and the want to. Great technique and tackling don't require 4 and 5 stars and too many teams have stout defenses with marginal talent. IMO there is little excuse for poor defense at GT.

CPJ was brought in because his scheme was supposed to neutralize talent deficiencies.

I agree (I think). I would add that I think there might be a tension between "being aggressive" and "being disciplined" on D. I wonder if we may lose discipline out of a desire to be more aggressive.