Oldgoldandwhite
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,632
That is living alumni. Kinda like the stat: Half of the people who have ever lived are alive today.
Mike Bobinski at Lunch Bunch
- Thread starter Lexjacket
- Start date
- Messages
- 11,504
- Location
- Marietta, GA
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,016
There has been a significant increase in the size of graduating classes (and yes, higher enrollment and higher retention are both part of that), but it's not anything that I'd call "radical". Over the most recent five years, we've averaged about 50% more graduates than the final five years under the Quarter System (in the late nineties).
Undergraduate degrees awarded over the last 25 academic years:
AY 89-90 1847
AY 90-91 1829
AY 91-92 1884
AY 92-93 1975
AY 93-94 1885
AY 94-95 1867
AY 95-96 2122
AY 96-97 1794
AY 97-98 1912
AY 98-99 2028
[Quarter to Semester Conversion]
AY 99-00 1614
AY 00-01 2035
AY 01-02 2159
AY 02-03 2417
AY 03-04 2594
AY 04-05 2512
AY 05-06 2477
AY 06-07 2543
AY 07-08 2583
AY 08-09 2695
AY 09-10 2842
AY 10-11 3062
AY 11-12 2860
AY 12-13 3122
AY 13-14 3267
By my tally, 37,078 alumni have been added in the past 14 years. Round that to 40k, and assume that figure, as MBob says, is half of all alumni—we conclude the existence of 40k alumni dating from before the semester conversion. In the ten years prior to that conversion, we averaged graduating about 1900 students per year. If we further assume an annual 3% mortality rate, we would have to have been accumulating alumni for only about 33 years to build up a pool of 40k by 1999.
I conclude that Georgia Tech did not exist before 1966. Ergo the Bobby Dodd era is a myth.
Two things:
Did ug pop go up at same rate?
Did grad grad rate go up?
augustabuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,404
By my tally, 37,078 alumni have been added in the past 14 years. Round that to 40k, and assume that figure, as MBob says, is half of all alumni—we conclude the existence of 40k alumni dating from before the semester conversion. In the ten years prior to that conversion, we averaged graduating about 1900 students per year. If we further assume an annual 3% mortality rate, we would have to have been accumulating alumni for only about 33 years to build up a pool of 40k by 1999.
I conclude that Georgia Tech did not exist before 1966. Ergo the Bobby Dodd era is a myth.
The mortality rate for classes from the '40s and '50s is probably greater than 3%. Maybe we should consider a half life curve... Oh no! We're nerds!
GTpdm
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,872
- Location
- Atlanta GA
The mortality rate for classes from the '40s and '50s is probably greater than 3%. Maybe we should consider a half life curve... Oh no! We're nerds!
Truth be told, I set up a spreadsheet and cherry-picked a mortality rate that would help my little joke along—and overlooked some relevant statistical issues along the way. But then again, if you look realistically at the numbers my contrived stats are not that far off the mark, in terms of what they ultimately predict. If you take into account the fact that the current 40k "geezer" alumni are a population that by definition stopped growing in 1999, and guess that they have been decaying since then at a 2-3% rate, you come up with the number of about 60k to 64k geezer alumni in 1999. If you track that number back, with the same assumed 2-3% attrition rate and a fixed 1900-per-year accumulation rate, you would predict an age for Georgia Tech of something like 200 years (at 2%) to 100 years (at 3%) to end up with 64k living alumni in 1999 (and thus 40k geezer alumni at present). It is surprising how often you can daisy-chain together some individually unrealistic guesses to get a reasonably accurate ballpark result (just google "fermi calculations").
I was dubious about the "50% whipper-snapper" claim at first, but it really does fit with even the crudest estimates you might make—and surprisingly, it does not require a "radical" increase in our graduation rate. You just have to realize the for the past 15 years, the geezer alumni population has been decaying at about 250-400 people per year, while the whipper-snappers have been growing at about 2500 people per year. Play around with that a bit, and a 50-50 geezer-to-whippersnapper ratio is completely reasonable. (And you kids get off'n my damn lawn...ehhhh...damned bursitis...)
And, Hell Yeah! I'm a super math-nerd. (Gotta be one, if you are going to make a career in physics) No apologies there...
Go Jackets! THWG!
forensicbuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 8,107
- Location
- North Shore, Chicago
So, wait...are we now saying if you got out of Ma Tech on the Quarter System, you're a geezer. Sheesh!
TheSilasSonRising
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,729
I expect to beat uga as often as we do CU, VT, UM..
Won't apologize for that, no reason to. Why play the games?
If someone reads that as not supporting the coaches (very well paid coaches) then so be that as well because I know it is not true. I have never & never will boo a S/A. I bet many who some would claim as negative have been supporting Tech for much longer than many here have been alive. But supporting GT can also mean expecting the best of GT.
This negativity goes on in every fan base. And much of it started when people had to start paying for the right to by tickets. Just the way it is
Won't apologize for that, no reason to. Why play the games?
If someone reads that as not supporting the coaches (very well paid coaches) then so be that as well because I know it is not true. I have never & never will boo a S/A. I bet many who some would claim as negative have been supporting Tech for much longer than many here have been alive. But supporting GT can also mean expecting the best of GT.
This negativity goes on in every fan base. And much of it started when people had to start paying for the right to by tickets. Just the way it is
(expecting the best of GT) That smacks of 'a sense of entitlement' not 'supporting or encouraging'.
Coach Bobby Dodd had the right perspective....
Football is one of our great American games. It is the duty and responsibility of each of us to see that it is kept in its proper perspective, and that it is protected. We should see that it is used to attain the objectives that mean so much to our way of life.
We feel that the spectator can be most influential and instrumental in helping to achieve these objectives, if he will develop the right attitudes. May we suggest a few?
First, and foremost among these attitudes that must be developed, is the realization that in football there must be a winner and a loser (excepting the occasional tie). The fan who recognizes this principle gets a great deal more enjoyment from the game than one who becomes irritated, aggravated, and rambunctious when "his" team loses. We would never minimize the importance of winning, but it is very unfair to the coach, the player, and the school when the fan forgets it is impossible to "repudiate the law of mathematics"--i.e., there must be a winner and a loser.
It is important that each of us develop the art of appreciating great plays made by the opposition. We should always give our opponents credit, rather than criticize our team when the opposition makes a great play. We believe perfection in the execution of a great play in football is to be admired and appreciated, just as we appreciate and admire the work of a great artist in any field.
The spectator should remember the football players are just human beings. They perform at times under great pressure, and they, as all other earthly inhabitants, are likely to make mistakes. It behooves all of us to remember, "To err is human, to forgive, divine."
Finally, we should always keep uppermost in mind that football, with all its glamour, glitter, thrills and chills, plus everything that makes it great, has one thing more important than all of these combined--that is, the boy who plays it."
Robert L. "Bobby" Dodd
Head Coach and Athletic Director
Georgia Institute of Technology
1954
Football is one of our great American games. It is the duty and responsibility of each of us to see that it is kept in its proper perspective, and that it is protected. We should see that it is used to attain the objectives that mean so much to our way of life.
We feel that the spectator can be most influential and instrumental in helping to achieve these objectives, if he will develop the right attitudes. May we suggest a few?
First, and foremost among these attitudes that must be developed, is the realization that in football there must be a winner and a loser (excepting the occasional tie). The fan who recognizes this principle gets a great deal more enjoyment from the game than one who becomes irritated, aggravated, and rambunctious when "his" team loses. We would never minimize the importance of winning, but it is very unfair to the coach, the player, and the school when the fan forgets it is impossible to "repudiate the law of mathematics"--i.e., there must be a winner and a loser.
It is important that each of us develop the art of appreciating great plays made by the opposition. We should always give our opponents credit, rather than criticize our team when the opposition makes a great play. We believe perfection in the execution of a great play in football is to be admired and appreciated, just as we appreciate and admire the work of a great artist in any field.
The spectator should remember the football players are just human beings. They perform at times under great pressure, and they, as all other earthly inhabitants, are likely to make mistakes. It behooves all of us to remember, "To err is human, to forgive, divine."
Finally, we should always keep uppermost in mind that football, with all its glamour, glitter, thrills and chills, plus everything that makes it great, has one thing more important than all of these combined--that is, the boy who plays it."
Robert L. "Bobby" Dodd
Head Coach and Athletic Director
Georgia Institute of Technology
1954
forensicbuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 8,107
- Location
- North Shore, Chicago
There's a difference between being dissatisfied with the performance of the team/staff and voicing that dissatisfaction and being negative. As fans, supporting with our voices and wallets, we have a right to express displeasure when we feel our team has under-performed due to effort or preparation. It's the style not the substance that makes a difference here.
I like our current staff and believe they will elevate our program to a level of continuous excellence we have only seen glimpses of since the Dodd years. CPJ earns $2.515M per year. That's is the #30 salary in 2013, and a little over $300k more than the rest of the staff combined. He and his staff deserve to be held accountable; when he under-performs or provides an average result, the people who contribute their blood, sweat, tears and cash to GT and the GTAA have a right to be critical and vocal. In my opinion, this does not extend to the student-athletes.
Having said all this, I am not a negative person, so I tend to be very optimistic until I have strong reason to not be. Until we lose a game, I contend that we can go undefeated. Each loss is an additional crushing blow. I take issue with people who spout rhetoric and vitriol regarding our system, scheme and coaching staff because of our performance on the field. My position has always been that if you have a constructive message, share it: if all you want to do is vent and take pot shots, then you're not being productive and solely adding to the negative perception of the program.\
We have a historical and storied program. Due to tough academic standards and other constraints, GT will always be fighting uphill. That does not mean we cannot be successful in today's climate, but that we have to fight all that much harder. As fans, we really don't have any ability to affect change. Collectively, we can voice dissent (as with CCG or CPH), but for the most part we're just making noise to make ourselves feel better. As others have quipped, misery loves company, but so does excitement. I think that's why we have a dichotomy on this board. There are the kool-aid guys and the whoa-be-gones, and they tend to gravitate towards each other.
Personally, I'm much happier drinking the kool-aid than being eternally pessimistic. When I feel down about our performance, I tend to take a break and try to gain perspective. I love Georgia Tech, all aspects of Tech. However, in the bigger scheme of Life, how GT does on a field of competition (athletic or academic) does not define who I am. How I treat my wife and kids, my co-workers, colleagues and friends, this is what defines me. It used to take about a week to get over a loss, now it takes a couple of hours. As I get older (can't believe someone on this board insinuated I was a geezer! Sheesh) and now live 750 miles from Atlanta, I'm better able to maintain that perspective.
Sorry for the ramble.
I like our current staff and believe they will elevate our program to a level of continuous excellence we have only seen glimpses of since the Dodd years. CPJ earns $2.515M per year. That's is the #30 salary in 2013, and a little over $300k more than the rest of the staff combined. He and his staff deserve to be held accountable; when he under-performs or provides an average result, the people who contribute their blood, sweat, tears and cash to GT and the GTAA have a right to be critical and vocal. In my opinion, this does not extend to the student-athletes.
Having said all this, I am not a negative person, so I tend to be very optimistic until I have strong reason to not be. Until we lose a game, I contend that we can go undefeated. Each loss is an additional crushing blow. I take issue with people who spout rhetoric and vitriol regarding our system, scheme and coaching staff because of our performance on the field. My position has always been that if you have a constructive message, share it: if all you want to do is vent and take pot shots, then you're not being productive and solely adding to the negative perception of the program.\
We have a historical and storied program. Due to tough academic standards and other constraints, GT will always be fighting uphill. That does not mean we cannot be successful in today's climate, but that we have to fight all that much harder. As fans, we really don't have any ability to affect change. Collectively, we can voice dissent (as with CCG or CPH), but for the most part we're just making noise to make ourselves feel better. As others have quipped, misery loves company, but so does excitement. I think that's why we have a dichotomy on this board. There are the kool-aid guys and the whoa-be-gones, and they tend to gravitate towards each other.
Personally, I'm much happier drinking the kool-aid than being eternally pessimistic. When I feel down about our performance, I tend to take a break and try to gain perspective. I love Georgia Tech, all aspects of Tech. However, in the bigger scheme of Life, how GT does on a field of competition (athletic or academic) does not define who I am. How I treat my wife and kids, my co-workers, colleagues and friends, this is what defines me. It used to take about a week to get over a loss, now it takes a couple of hours. As I get older (can't believe someone on this board insinuated I was a geezer! Sheesh) and now live 750 miles from Atlanta, I'm better able to maintain that perspective.
Sorry for the ramble.
forensicbuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 8,107
- Location
- North Shore, Chicago
I wrote my reply before a meeting this morning but didn't post it until after I came back. After reading this, I may not have posted. I have always loved Bobby Dodd's view of college football.Coach Bobby Dodd had the right perspective....
Football is one of our great American games. It is the duty and responsibility of each of us to see that it is kept in its proper perspective, and that it is protected. We should see that it is used to attain the objectives that mean so much to our way of life.
We feel that the spectator can be most influential and instrumental in helping to achieve these objectives, if he will develop the right attitudes. May we suggest a few?
First, and foremost among these attitudes that must be developed, is the realization that in football there must be a winner and a loser (excepting the occasional tie). The fan who recognizes this principle gets a great deal more enjoyment from the game than one who becomes irritated, aggravated, and rambunctious when "his" team loses. We would never minimize the importance of winning, but it is very unfair to the coach, the player, and the school when the fan forgets it is impossible to "repudiate the law of mathematics"--i.e., there must be a winner and a loser.
It is important that each of us develop the art of appreciating great plays made by the opposition. We should always give our opponents credit, rather than criticize our team when the opposition makes a great play. We believe perfection in the execution of a great play in football is to be admired and appreciated, just as we appreciate and admire the work of a great artist in any field.
The spectator should remember the football players are just human beings. They perform at times under great pressure, and they, as all other earthly inhabitants, are likely to make mistakes. It behooves all of us to remember, "To err is human, to forgive, divine."
Finally, we should always keep uppermost in mind that football, with all its glamour, glitter, thrills and chills, plus everything that makes it great, has one thing more important than all of these combined--that is, the boy who plays it."
Robert L. "Bobby" Dodd
Head Coach and Athletic Director
Georgia Institute of Technology
1954
As a sidewalk fan this has always been the thing I like 'best' about Georgia Tech "GT will always be fighting uphill". Tech has always been underdogs, and recruiting players has always been a disadvantage. They make the most of what they got, and have been successful at building a legendary program. forensicbuzz you are spot on! 
WreckinGT
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,988
I think there is somewhat of a line between expecting success and being realistic and happy with decent results. There are some Tech fans that wouldn't be happy with a 9 win season if we lost to UGA. I just never have gotten that mindset. I want to beat UGA as much as anyone but they have a pretty good program over there and many inherent advantages that we are never going to have. I think a portion of our fan base is a bit miserable because of the way that series has gone and that has partially created a lot of the negativity surrounding us that Bobinski speaks of. Those who define GT by how well we do against UGA aren't really helping the program in my opinion.
- Messages
- 11,504
- Location
- Marietta, GA
@Lexjacket - think you're dead on. Should play up the FACT that at GT it is an up hill battle and that you'll be the better for it.
TheSilasSonRising
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,729
Not being unrealistic at all and it is about football, not Calc, on Saturday in the fall.
We turn off so many potential fans by all the whining. If putting a positive spin on our math requirements as it relates to sports worked we would have won 10 MNC in the last 40 years.
We turn off so many potential fans by all the whining. If putting a positive spin on our math requirements as it relates to sports worked we would have won 10 MNC in the last 40 years.
dressedcheeseside
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 14,045
That sounds like whining to me.
Mack
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,361
It was true then ...and true now but there are no more Dodds which is a shame...what a coach this guy was !Coach Bobby Dodd had the right perspective....
Football is one of our great American games. It is the duty and responsibility of each of us to see that it is kept in its proper perspective, and that it is protected. We should see that it is used to attain the objectives that mean so much to our way of life.
We feel that the spectator can be most influential and instrumental in helping to achieve these objectives, if he will develop the right attitudes. May we suggest a few?
First, and foremost among these attitudes that must be developed, is the realization that in football there must be a winner and a loser (excepting the occasional tie). The fan who recognizes this principle gets a great deal more enjoyment from the game than one who becomes irritated, aggravated, and rambunctious when "his" team loses. We would never minimize the importance of winning, but it is very unfair to the coach, the player, and the school when the fan forgets it is impossible to "repudiate the law of mathematics"--i.e., there must be a winner and a loser.
It is important that each of us develop the art of appreciating great plays made by the opposition. We should always give our opponents credit, rather than criticize our team when the opposition makes a great play. We believe perfection in the execution of a great play in football is to be admired and appreciated, just as we appreciate and admire the work of a great artist in any field.
The spectator should remember the football players are just human beings. They perform at times under great pressure, and they, as all other earthly inhabitants, are likely to make mistakes. It behooves all of us to remember, "To err is human, to forgive, divine."
Finally, we should always keep uppermost in mind that football, with all its glamour, glitter, thrills and chills, plus everything that makes it great, has one thing more important than all of these combined--that is, the boy who plays it."
Robert L. "Bobby" Dodd
Head Coach and Athletic Director
Georgia Institute of Technology
1954
- Messages
- 9,904
- Location
- Williamsburg Virginia
Engineers are less agreeable and more autonomous than average people. (No news flash here, but here's a study on personality traits-http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ828294 )
So someone from outside of the engineering community (like Bobinski) doesn't understand why it is so hard to tell us everything is great when we see that isn't true. At a school with more liberal arts (more agreeable and less autonomous) it is probably easier to get a more compliant fan base. I would think thatadministrations would like for their organization people to follow and agree. Ain't going to happen with GT people. It's why I really like CPJs approach sometimes, I think he usually tells it like it is.
So someone from outside of the engineering community (like Bobinski) doesn't understand why it is so hard to tell us everything is great when we see that isn't true. At a school with more liberal arts (more agreeable and less autonomous) it is probably easier to get a more compliant fan base. I would think thatadministrations would like for their organization people to follow and agree. Ain't going to happen with GT people. It's why I really like CPJs approach sometimes, I think he usually tells it like it is.