My premise is fine. In fact, my premise is so solid it undermines your point...that's why you're avoiding the answer to my question.
Your logic in beating the "GT IS STEM SCHOOL! GT IS A STEM SCHOOL!" drum falls apart when the fact that less than 15% (And I'm probably being generous here) of our scholarship SAs on the football team are NOT STEM majors.
If you want to say our athletes take a more rigorous academic course load than the average SA at other schools, you would have no arguments. No one is refuting that. No one is refuting that academics at GT makes it harder for us versus the typical FBS school. However, the problem with your "point" lies in the fact you're incorrectly trying to use one fact (the majority of degrees awarded at GT is STEM related) to support your "point", when another fact (the VAST majority of our scholarship SAs are non-STEM majors) undermines to your point.
That's pretty much the rebuttal anytime someone wants to bring up the "Stanford Defense" (not that I'm trying to bring it up again). FACT: The majority of degrees awarded by Stanford is STEM related. (Even you can't refute that) FACT: The majority of scholarship SAs on Stanford's football team do not major in STEM fields. Isn't that the gist of how everyone beats down posters who say "Yeah, but Stanford can do it, why can't GT?!" "Well, Stanford football players can hide is easier majors!" Um, that's kinda what GT is doing with majority of our SAs majoring in Business and Liberal arts and as opposed to STEM related majors.
You're being wishy washy with facts. Can't have it both ways my friend.
I guess it's my fault you don't see my point, I must not be very clear.
Forget about what our SA's are majoring in for a moment. Put it aside. I think it is relevant, but put it aside for now.
There's a lot more that being a STEM school does to GT other than course selection. Let's list a few, shall we:
1. Small fan base derived from a small, select alumni base, many of which have zero interest in football. The ones that do are scattered to the four corners of the globe. This also plays into our small stadium. We don't exactly have SRO in our small stadium, either.
2. Unintentional, but real just the same, alienation of commonfolk fans. In the the rural south, the commonfolk fan identifies more strongly with the Uga's and Aubarns of the world and many tend to think GT fans and grads are intellectual, condescending snobs. Some of that is actually justifiable, imo.
3. Goofy, nerdy students and very few girls and the ones we do have are goofy, nerdy and ugly. Now this is not truth, but it is perception and in the world of recruiting, that is all that matters.
4. Professors who don't give a hang about if your an SA or not. I'm sure SA's at the factories enjoy a good deal of preferential treatment, even in their easy, peasy classes.
5. Having a small fanbase also means less money. Money means everything in college football. It doesn't guarantee success, but it makes it awful hard to compete with those who have it and spend it wisely.
6. An administration that does not suffer poor character. Even though I appreciate this angle, it does preclude us from several top quality recruits every year even though they couldn't get in academically anyway.
7. Narrow scope. Even if NONE of our players took STEM majors, we have way less to choose from that most every school we compete against for players. You can't tell me that doesn't hurt even a little bit. I can recall recruits in the past pass on Tech because we didn't offer what they wanted to study. It may have been a lie, maybe not, who knows?
8. Last but not least, grades and college preparation of the vast majority of blue chip high school players. Most of these guys are not well prepared for college, much less one of GT's caliber no matter what courses they take.
All of these factors/recruiting hurdles, and many more that don't readily jump to mind, are in some way caused, affected or impacted by our academic identity. That's what I'm talking about, not what each kid is majoring in.
