Paul Johnson time frame.

[forensicbuzz]

Georgia Tech "chooses" to be an Institute with a limited academic focus on technology and virtually no liberal arts or social studies programs. (Others might be "military institutes or whatever.)

No it doesn't. Tech has historically tried to expand its footprint and add majors. The Board of Regents has continually rejected proposals for Georgia Tech's expansion.

 

[forensicbuzz]

That's literally what I said. GT branded itself to be an institute. It could be a university of we wanted to but we changed names after reconstruction to try to be the beacon of progress in the south. It's not a restriction, just a name that reflects what people believe to be restrictions.

Georgia Tech IS a research university. We are a university that does not have "university" in it's name. Boston College is also a university. MIT, Cal Tech, Colorado School of Mines, etc. are all universities that do not have "university" in their name. It doesn't mean a thing today.

 

[forensicbuzz]

You are still missing the point. In the academic world, a university is commonly assumed to have a predominantly liberal arts program. Ones that are highly focused on a particular subject matter are institutes. The University System of Georgia recognizes GT as an institute ... which is why they do not support a broader academic catalog.

No. It isn't. No one in higher education uses this type of qualifier.

 

[Vespidae]

No it doesn't. Tech has historically tried to expand its footprint and add majors. The Board of Regents has continually rejected proposals for Georgia Tech's expansion.

Fine. Show me any citation where Tech says it does not want to be a “research university”.

 

[Vespidae]

No. It isn't. No one in higher education uses this type of qualifier.

Really? I’m in higher education and yes, we do.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Really? I’m in higher education and yes, we do.

um...no, we don't.

 

[Vespidae]

um...no, we don't.

High School isn’t “higher education”.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Fine. Show me any citation where Tech says it does not want to be a “research university”.

Are you having reading comprehension issues? Georgia Tech IS a research university. Our own website states that we're a research university. There's no "wanting" we ARE.

 

[forensicbuzz]

High School isn’t “higher education”.

I'm glad you understand the distinction between higher education and secondary education because you don't have a clue what you're talking about otherwise. Go do some research and then come back and apologize to all those who's time you've wasted on this thread.

 

[Vespidae]

Are you having reading comprehension issues? Georgia Tech IS a research university. Our own website states that we're a research university. There's no "wanting" we ARE.

View attachment 4176

No kidding. I asked you because you can’t.

 

[Vespidae]

I'm glad you understand the distinction between higher education and secondary education because you don't have a clue what you're talking about otherwise. Go do some research and then come back and apologize to all those who's time you've wasted on this thread.

When you graduate from grade school, call me.

 

[forensicbuzz]

When you graduate from grade school, call me.

good one!

 

[Vespidae]

good one!

I’m trying to dumb it down. Glad you got it.

 

[B Lifsey]

USG says GT is a research university, The Carnegie Classification of Institutions basic classification for GT is Doctoral Universities, and US News and World Report places GT in National Universities. There seems to be a common theme.

 

[charles]

From my memory I think Duke was trying to hire CPJ back when he left Navy; If that was the case then I am wondering whow well he would have fared up to this point; The recruiting and admission standards of talent would had been about the same, The only thing that would be different would be the dreaded Calculus problem; We will never know

 

[jacketup]

I've pretty much quit posting on this board because almost everything on here is wrong. Just on this page Forensicbuzz and Vespidae are both wrong. So is Charles.
What is this?:

Applied Languages and Intercultural Studies (ALIS)
Computational Media (CM)
Economics (ECON)
Economics and International Affairs (EIA)
Global Economics and Modern Languages (GEML)
History, Technology, and Society (HTS)
International Affairs (INTA)
International Affairs and Modern Languages (IAML)
Literature, Media, and Communication (LMC)
Public Policy (PUBP)

It's a list of liberal arts majors at Tech.

Dreaded calculus? These majors and the business degree require a one semester course called Survey of Calculus. If you went to a school like Duke, you'd have to take 2 years of foreign language, which to most left brained people is worse than one semester of Survey of Calculus.

This "we can't compete because of academics" is complete garbage and an excuse for losers. We are not competing because we don't have leadership that cares about athletic success. That starts with Peterson. However, if the alumni demanded a change, we'd get a change. But judging from the comments on this board, they would rather make excuses.

That's all.

 

[RamblinCharger]

I would take Art Briles and Hugh Freeze before Lane Kiffin

I understand why no one has taken a gamble on either of those guys, but they're both good coaches. I doubt GT would hire either, but it'd be interesting.

 

[RamblinCharger]

I've pretty much quit posting on this board because almost everything on here is wrong. Just on this page Forensicbuzz and Vespidae are both wrong. So is Charles.
What is this?:

Applied Languages and Intercultural Studies (ALIS)
Computational Media (CM)
Economics (ECON)
Economics and International Affairs (EIA)
Global Economics and Modern Languages (GEML)
History, Technology, and Society (HTS)
International Affairs (INTA)
International Affairs and Modern Languages (IAML)
Literature, Media, and Communication (LMC)
Public Policy (PUBP)

It's a list of liberal arts majors at Tech.

Dreaded calculus? These majors and the business degree require a one semester course called Survey of Calculus. If you went to a school like Duke, you'd have to take 2 years of foreign language, which to most left brained people is worse than one semester of Survey of Calculus.

This "we can't compete because of academics" is complete garbage and an excuse for losers. We are not competing because we don't have leadership that cares about athletic success. That starts with Peterson. However, if the alumni demanded a change, we'd get a change. But judging from the comments on this board, they would rather make excuses.

That's all.

I tend to agree that GT is probably not much more difficult when getting one of the degrees you listed, or getting a communications/business management degree compared to other top 30 academic institutions. I think the SEC in particular has several schools that have BS degrees that GT will never offer, but can we do better and recruit in the top 25-35 range? Yes. Can we be a top 25-35 program every year? I think so. We may never compete regularly with the top 10, but we should expect better results than we've seen recently. The average season should be more like 8-4 than 6-6, and years like 14 could happen twice a decade, at least with the right AD and coach. I think we have the right AD, idk about coach anymore.

 

[tsrich]

I tend to agree that GT is probably not much more difficult when getting one of the degrees you listed, or getting a communications/business management degree compared to other top 30 academic institutions. I think the SEC in particular has several schools that have BS degrees that GT will never offer, but can we do better and recruit in the top 25-35 range? Yes. Can we be a top 25-35 program every year? I think so. We may never compete regularly with the top 10, but we should expect better results than we've seen recently. The average season should be more like 8-4 than 6-6, and years like 14 could happen twice a decade, at least with the right AD and coach. I think we have the right AD, idk about coach anymore.

I wonder how many schools average at least 8-4

 

[RamblinCharger]

I wonder how many schools average at least 8-4

The top 35 "on average" probably do over the last 50 years. I think GT could be one of those 35 with the right coach and AD. Edited to add that we own the 31st best winning percentage of all time in college football. Being in the 25-35 range is reasonable, and with the way schools try to schedule 7 home games a year now, 8-4 should be closer to the "average" for us than 6-6.