NFL Draft

Squints

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,254
Geez guys take it easy. It's an "article" from 49ers.com. It was probably written by a public relations intern. There's no beat reporter nor any attempted journalism involved.
 

RLR

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
355
Squints said:
Geez guys take it easy. It's an "article" from 49ers.com. It was probably written by a public relations intern. There's no beat reporter nor any attempted journalism involved.
Click to expand...

^ Reason #225 why Atlanta will upend Silicon Valley ;)

For an offseason discussion, I actually find this one interesting. I think GT Alums are so sentimental about our school being called by our proper name, "Georgia Institute of Technology", because it reflects our school's unique nature. GT isn't a university, relative to the flagship state public universities, such as UGA(sic). That type of university was first established by states in order to gain soft power amongst the other colonies and develop/indoctrinate the future lawmakers, ministers...the future managers. Filling in the dots between then and now, I'm guessing the purpose of those universities stayed the same, but as the world progressed, they evolved into the 30,000+ student institutions that they are today. Baby boomers + GI Bills + Post WW-2 expansion probably drove the number of college students through the roof. To accommodate more students, you add more colleges.

The market for U.S. public universities is pretty unique. Being publically controlled by the state gives it the flexibility to expand in land, employees, colleges pretty easily. But, all universities are essentially competing for a fixed amount of value - students and grant money. So, you basically have these 50 - 200 (estimate) public universities in the U.S. that are being run by state officials with the objective to maximize the state's value. This results in a "keeping up with the jones" strategy, in which all the universities essentially mimic each other's moves. To gain more students, you add more colleges and majors. When building new infrastructure, you allocate your money to projects that boost a scoring category in US World News Rankings (or something similar). e.g. you build new residence halls, new gyms, new cafeterias, libraries, etc. You also spend a lot of money to gain money by building a 100,000 seat football stadium and pay coaches 10x - 25x more than you're best professor. And don't forget building a medical school, business school, and law school...you need an alumni base who will write checks and who will pass bills in your favor.

Private colleges (which have probably morphed into universities) are essentially the same. They have the same purpose, but diverge from the public universities by taking the elitist growth path. Public universities use football to brand, private colleges use the media & reputation (Bow before the Ivy League!). Public universities build dorms with carpet, Private colleges build endowments. Public universities drive enrollment numbers up, private colleges drive acceptance rates down. It's the same game, just opposite sides of the coin.

Research Universities are fundamentally different. MIT/GT/Stanford/et al were strategically designed to promote industry & military defense. Research universities, in their purest sense, are the colleges of the ruling class, not managing class. I don't mean in terms of students but their intended purpose. Research universities compete for researchers and scientists on a global scale, compared to students on a national scale. Research universities are chasing future value, colleges are fighting over the finite scraps in play now. Research universities invest in expensive research infrastructure, at the detriment of "soft" investments in housing/gyms/etc. Research universities work under the federal government and industrial partners. Colleges answer to state representatives (and espn). GT is unique in that it was established in the late 1800s as a public research university (in purpose, not name). It's research output was used to create an industrial society in Dixie. And, if you look at the results, we haven't had Civil War 2, the sun belt boom revolutionized the South, and we built a global city (ATL) on an otherwise arbitrary dot in the middle of a map of the southeast.

To Skeptic's point, which is completely valid, the present distinction between college / university / research university / technical institute is pretty arbitrary. Most if not all colleges no longer fit in one single box. And that makes sense, why would UGA not want in on the grant money given to research universities. But, if you expand your view of the landscape & can see where the future development and investment will occur, it's clear that GT is in a very different location than 90+% of all universities. A perfect illustration of this is reading the headlines about how college is a waste of money and then reading an article about how GT is the best investment you can make. so what's the point of all this rambling (& being so anal about correcting people who say Georgia Tech University)? Brand protection. GT can't allow itself to become indistinguishable from other universities because it erodes our value. other universities made mistakes, huge mistakes, in how they invested their money and focused on capturing the boom, not navigating towards the future. The Hope Scholarship won't last forever. Student Loan debt, on a national level, is a serious, serious burden/threat to our economy. & College football can't justify the cost of obtaining a stock liberal arts degree for most people. In the coming decades, GT will have to position itself as the central processor for public-private-partnerships. The investments in research infrastructure (3d printing, health care, information systems, biomed etc.) are probably the strongest barriers of entry protecting regional industry in today's economy. But ultimately, we are and will always be a growth city / region. We can, have, and will continue to build it. But, we also have to keep up building our city's brand as a safe haven from the eroding world we operate in.

- the city too busy to hate. the capital of the south

- strip clubs and churches. civil rights and southern hospitality.

- Home to the mouth of the south. and the man who dreamed this nation's dream.

- Home of The Georgia Institute of Technology... and historical black colleges. and oglethorpe. and GA State

Notice the lack of the term university when describing the conversational name of Atlanta's higher education system. Sure, GA State University could have been included, but most people say GA State and Southern fans would fight a war of attrition over retaining rights to GSU abbreviation. In closing, University should not be included in the name of GA Tech. Or any school within the perimeter. And, when used to describe UGA, should be followed by (sic)

p.s. Appologies for the thread hijack...traveling w/ family and needed a reprieve
 
jeffgt14

jeffgt14

We don't quite suck as much anymore.
Messages
5,871
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
RLR said:
^ Reason #225 why Atlanta will upend Silicon Valley ;)

For an offseason discussion, I actually find this one interesting. I think GT Alums are so sentimental about our school being called by our proper name, "Georgia Institute of Technology", because it reflects our school's unique nature. GT isn't a university, relative to the flagship state public universities, such as UGA(sic). That type of university was first established by states in order to gain soft power amongst the other colonies and develop/indoctrinate the future lawmakers, ministers...the future managers. Filling in the dots between then and now, I'm guessing the purpose of those universities stayed the same, but as the world progressed, they evolved into the 30,000+ student institutions that they are today. Baby boomers + GI Bills + Post WW-2 expansion probably drove the number of college students through the roof. To accommodate more students, you add more colleges.

The market for U.S. public universities is pretty unique. Being publically controlled by the state gives it the flexibility to expand in land, employees, colleges pretty easily. But, all universities are essentially competing for a fixed amount of value - students and grant money. So, you basically have these 50 - 200 (estimate) public universities in the U.S. that are being run by state officials with the objective to maximize the state's value. This results in a "keeping up with the jones" strategy, in which all the universities essentially mimic each other's moves. To gain more students, you add more colleges and majors. When building new infrastructure, you allocate your money to projects that boost a scoring category in US World News Rankings (or something similar). e.g. you build new residence halls, new gyms, new cafeterias, libraries, etc. You also spend a lot of money to gain money by building a 100,000 seat football stadium and pay coaches 10x - 25x more than you're best professor. And don't forget building a medical school, business school, and law school...you need an alumni base who will write checks and who will pass bills in your favor.

Private colleges (which have probably morphed into universities) are essentially the same. They have the same purpose, but diverge from the public universities by taking the elitist growth path. Public universities use football to brand, private colleges use the media & reputation (Bow before the Ivy League!). Public universities build dorms with carpet, Private colleges build endowments. Public universities drive enrollment numbers up, private colleges drive acceptance rates down. It's the same game, just opposite sides of the coin.

Research Universities are fundamentally different. MIT/GT/Stanford/et al were strategically designed to promote industry & military defense. Research universities, in their purest sense, are the colleges of the ruling class, not managing class. I don't mean in terms of students but their intended purpose. Research universities compete for researchers and scientists on a global scale, compared to students on a national scale. Research universities are chasing future value, colleges are fighting over the finite scraps in play now. Research universities invest in expensive research infrastructure, at the detriment of "soft" investments in housing/gyms/etc. Research universities work under the federal government and industrial partners. Colleges answer to state representatives (and espn). GT is unique in that it was established in the late 1800s as a public research university (in purpose, not name). It's research output was used to create an industrial society in Dixie. And, if you look at the results, we haven't had Civil War 2, the sun belt boom revolutionized the South, and we built a global city (ATL) on an otherwise arbitrary dot in the middle of a map of the southeast.

To Skeptic's point, which is completely valid, the present distinction between college / university / research university / technical institute is pretty arbitrary. Most if not all colleges no longer fit in one single box. And that makes sense, why would UGA not want in on the grant money given to research universities. But, if you expand your view of the landscape & can see where the future development and investment will occur, it's clear that GT is in a very different location than 90+% of all universities. A perfect illustration of this is reading the headlines about how college is a waste of money and then reading an article about how GT is the best investment you can make. so what's the point of all this rambling (& being so anal about correcting people who say Georgia Tech University)? Brand protection. GT can't allow itself to become indistinguishable from other universities because it erodes our value. other universities made mistakes, huge mistakes, in how they invested their money and focused on capturing the boom, not navigating towards the future. The Hope Scholarship won't last forever. Student Loan debt, on a national level, is a serious, serious burden/threat to our economy. & College football can't justify the cost of obtaining a stock liberal arts degree for most people. In the coming decades, GT will have to position itself as the central processor for public-private-partnerships. The investments in research infrastructure (3d printing, health care, information systems, biomed etc.) are probably the strongest barriers of entry protecting regional industry in today's economy. But ultimately, we are and will always be a growth city / region. We can, have, and will continue to build it. But, we also have to keep up building our city's brand as a safe haven from the eroding world we operate in.

- the city too busy to hate. the capital of the south

- strip clubs and churches. civil rights and southern hospitality.

- Home to the mouth of the south. and the man who dreamed this nation's dream.

- Home of The Georgia Institute of Technology... and historical black colleges. and oglethorpe. and GA State

Notice the lack of the term university when describing the conversational name of Atlanta's higher education system. Sure, GA State University could have been included, but most people say GA State and Southern fans would fight a war of attrition over retaining rights to GSU abbreviation. In closing, University should not be included in the name of GA Tech. Or any school within the perimeter. And, when used to describe UGA, should be followed by (sic)

p.s. Appologies for the thread hijack...traveling w/ family and needed a reprieve
Click to expand...
It'll have to once Global Warming kicks in.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
DCSS said:
People calling our school Georgia Tech University and slow internet connections.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that line forms somewhere down the block. You'll win the first skirmish but I doubt that internet capacity will ever stay ahead of demand. Maybe we can push more of it off on cell towers. Or something.
 
Top