Reason for recruits to come to GT.

[JacketFromUGA]

I know I'm not the only High School teacher on the boards but take it from me. What we as adults look at as important is not anywhere near the same thing students look at when choosing higher education.

Especially the athletes.

 

[stinger 1957]

there and their, do they teach this stuff anymore?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

It would help tremendously if we could actually fill our 55,000 seat stadium with loud excited Tech fans....alas, we do not.

There are a large number of fans that rarely / barely make noise except in "big games"......it's better having them there than an empty seat...but barely.

 

[steebu]

It would help tremendously if we could actually fill our 55,000 seat stadium with loud excited Tech fans....alas, we do not.

There are a large number of fans that rarely / barely make noise except in "big games"......it's better having them there than an empty seat...but barely.

Agreed. I'm sure others have stories like this but my friend and I got tickets in the west stands behind our bench, upper deck for the 09 UGA game. We would stand and tells folks to get up on crucial 3rd downs when we were on defense ... and told to sit down and be quiet by other GT fans. We weren't drunk or obnoxious, either. And the UGA dad who was sitting next to me was laughing and cheering ... and no one said a word to him (except my friend and me).

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Upper West is the worst....used to sit up there with my pop and it kinda blew me away....exactly how you described it steebu.

When I started buying season tickets I chose the lower West south end zone, sec 101. There is a group of about 30 of us that scream like hell damn near every defensive down. If half of the fans did likewise well....it ain't happening so never mind.

 

[GT1992]

Agreed 100%. I guess that's what I was getting at when I mentioned structural changes. I tire of people saying academics aren't an excuse, then point to Notre Dame or Stanford. Well, it might be instructive to review what their players are majoring in. Then, of course, we get the line about how all our athletes are Management majors (which is largely true). What is left unsaid, though, is that the management school at Tech is a top 20 program nationally, to say nothing of the fact that I believe kids should have some say in what they study. If a kid wants to study physical education, or American History, or British Lit, they can't come to Tech. So, even if we could get them into the school, and even if they could stay in school, we won't get them. That necessarily limits the recruiting pool from which we draw. It doesn't mean we can't win, and win consistently, but the margin for error is significantly smaller. Unless or until the school expands its offerings, I do believe you're right - we need to learn to live with the likelihood that we probably won't be recruiting (and to the extent one believes recruiting influences winning, that's kinda important) at the same level as many of our opponents (it also neglects to mention that we are surrounded by eight factory schools within about 250 miles of our campus, something neither Stanford nor Notre Dame experience).

Are you saying we should be offering the Parks and Rec degree Clemson does or the Film Studies degree that Notre Dame does? That's the joke. Neither should exist and an supposed institutions of higher learning are offering degrees that a junior college could do. How far do you want to destroy integrity? The football mill kids aren't smart enough to realize they are being given no favors.

 

[Skeptic]

Are you saying we should be offering the Parks and Rec degree Clemson does or the Film Studies degree that Notre Dame does? That's the joke. Neither should exist and an supposed institutions of higher learning are offering degrees that a junior college could do. How far do you want to destroy integrity? The football mill kids aren't smart enough to realize they are being given no favors.

I think you way oversimplify the argument. (Which makes no never mind anyway because GT is never going to do it, and should not do it at this point. That stage left Dodge a very long time ago.) And that is there are dozens, dozens of dozens, of liberal arts courses and degrees that lead to happy and productive -- and yes, believe it or not, very successful -- adult lives. Stanford and Clemson are but two examples, but they include vaunted Notre Dame, UCLA, Southern California .. the list goes on. Yes, some of the courses are easy and yes, it is fair to say that for the most part those are the courses 4-5 star football players opt for or may even be directed to, if they still walk them through the enrollment process. But the great majority of them are rigorous academic endeavors that even demand, believe it or not, writing skills. (Clemson now requires its engineering students take writing and English courses to prepare them for life after college.) Others have written it, but when you insist on shaping your recruits into that square technical/engineering hole when they have zero interest or aptitude for it, you are not doing them any favors. So don't assume all those courses are flower arrangement or whatever. This is what I meant when I said before that sometimes there is a certain smugness on the board about a GT education. Lots of educations are good educations, so why should I learn how to engineer a traffic circle when I want to teach high school?

 

[JorgeJonas]

Are you saying we should be offering the Parks and Rec degree Clemson does or the Film Studies degree that Notre Dame does? That's the joke. Neither should exist and an supposed institutions of higher learning are offering degrees that a junior college could do. How far do you want to destroy integrity? The football mill kids aren't smart enough to realize they are being given no favors.

I'm not saying that at all. Instead, I'm making the point that the comparisons are largely inapplicable because the schools are fundamentally different. I am making no judgement on how we manage our school, but I do believe it's a factor to consider when we evaluate our athletic programs, because it necessarily reduces the margin of error with which they operate.

 

[JorgeJonas]

I think you way oversimplify the argument. (Which makes no never mind anyway because GT is never going to do it, and should not do it at this point. That stage left Dodge a very long time ago.) And that is there are dozens, dozens of dozens, of liberal arts courses and degrees that lead to happy and productive -- and yes, believe it or not, very successful -- adult lives. Stanford and Clemson are but two examples, but they include vaunted Notre Dame, UCLA, Southern California .. the list goes on. Yes, some of the courses are easy and yes, it is fair to say that for the most part those are the courses 4-5 star football players opt for or may even be directed to, if they still walk them through the enrollment process. But the great majority of them are rigorous academic endeavors that even demand, believe it or not, writing skills. (Clemson now requires its engineering students take writing and English courses to prepare them for life after college.) Others have written it, but when you insist on shaping your recruits into that square technical/engineering hole when they have zero interest or aptitude for it, you are not doing them any favors. So don't assume all those courses are flower arrangement or whatever. This is what I meant when I said before that sometimes there is a certain smugness on the board about a GT education. Lots of educations are good educations, so why should I learn how to engineer a traffic circle when I want to teach high school?

Exactly right. Plus, as I said earlier, the kids ought to have some say in what they study.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Are you saying we should be offering the Parks and Rec degree Clemson does or the Film Studies degree that Notre Dame does? That's the joke. Neither should exist and an supposed institutions of higher learning are offering degrees that a junior college could do. How far do you want to destroy integrity? The football mill kids aren't smart enough to realize they are being given no favors.

This is a very dangerous mentality to take. Please be hyperbole.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Are you saying we should be offering the Parks and Rec degree Clemson does or the Film Studies degree that Notre Dame does? That's the joke. Neither should exist and an supposed institutions of higher learning are offering degrees that a junior college could do. How far do you want to destroy integrity? The football mill kids aren't smart enough to realize they are being given no favors.

Be careful not to drift into the territory of STEM snobbery. True there are some schools that have created degree programs for the purpose of housing athletes, but lets try not to confuse that with legitimate liberal arts higher education which has been around since the founding of the first University.

I think the key thing to examine when judging the legitimacy of degree programs is what percentage of the students enrolled in these programs are SA's and what happens to graduates of these programs. A little research can enlighten. The ND film degree, for example, is for students seeking careers in the film and tv industries and the vast majority of these students are not SA's. A recent ND graduate was a grand jury prize winner at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival. SA's interested in broadcast sports journalism are a natural fit.

I'm as proud of my GT degree as anybody. But I don't think it is right to discredit liberal arts en masse or lump them all in with the fiasco at UNC. Colleges and Universities around the world used to be places where young people went to grow their intellect and broaden their perspectives as well as train for a specific field. At some places it still is.

 

[awbuzz]

... I think that even a LA degree should have to be able to pass a basic chemistry (not a cooking class), basic physics and at least a higher level algebra class.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

... I think that even a LA degree should have to be able to pass a basic chemistry (not a cooking class), basic physics and at least a higher level algebra class.

Alright I'm not talking to just you here awbuzz but your thought I feel is shared by numerous people on the board and being an educational professional I can't let it go on.

I feel like through no real fault of your own the University systems of the world and whjat actually goes into the degrees have passed you by. Lets use a very specific example of the state we live in. Georgia has the University System of Georgia which provides a lot of rules and regulations for it's member schools (all the public colleges/unis in GA)
One of the main things this means is no matter what USG school or degree program you graduate from you have to satisfy some core curriculum.

Area Area Name Description Hours Required
A1 Communication Outcomes Courses that address learning outcomes in writing in English At least 6 hours
A2 Quantitative Outcomes Courses that address learning outcomes in quantitative reasoning At least 3 hours
B Institutional Options Courses that address general education learning outcomes of the institution’s choosing At least 3 hours
C Humanities, Fine Arts, and Ethics Courses that address learning outcomes in humanities, fine arts, and ethics At least 6 hours
D Natural Science, Mathematics, and Technology Courses that address learning outcomes in the natural sciences, mathematics, and technology. At least 7 hours. At least 4 of these hours must be in a lab science course.
E Social Sciences Courses that address learning outcomes in the social sciences At least 6 hours
F Lower-Division Major Requirements Lower division courses required by the degree program and courses that are prerequisites to major courses at higher levels. 18 hours

Lets look at The University of North Georgia just as a random example. The link above was directly to the core requirements of the USG and at UNG you can see how those play out at their Semester Core Requirements. Then you can see the specific classes that UNG offers that satisfies those core areas.

While each state has their own University System they all share about 90% of the requirements to graduate. They definitely all share the need to take some well rounded courses like English, writing and a base level science.


This is the case for all public schools. The check and balance for Private schools are the accreditation programs that monitor private schools. It's different for every school and program but any program worth anything requires well rounded base level courses. Highly religious colleges are the ones that usually try to skirt around it. You can see a list of unaccredited higher ed schools here.

This idea that English majors do nothing but sit around and braid each other's hair and the only ones who try are the ones taking advanced science/math classes simply is a bad idea to have about the current system.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Alright I'm not talking to just you here awbuzz but your thought I feel is shared by numerous people on the board and being an educational professional I can't let it go on.

I feel like through no real fault of your own the University systems of the world and whjat actually goes into the degrees have passed you by. Lets use a very specific example of the state we live in. Georgia has the University System of Georgia which provides a lot of rules and regulations for it's member schools (all the public colleges/unis in GA)
One of the main things this means is no matter what USG school or degree program you graduate from you have to satisfy some core curriculum.

Area Area Name Description Hours Required
A1 Communication Outcomes Courses that address learning outcomes in writing in English At least 6 hours
A2 Quantitative Outcomes Courses that address learning outcomes in quantitative reasoning At least 3 hours
B Institutional Options Courses that address general education learning outcomes of the institution’s choosing At least 3 hours
C Humanities, Fine Arts, and Ethics Courses that address learning outcomes in humanities, fine arts, and ethics At least 6 hours
D Natural Science, Mathematics, and Technology Courses that address learning outcomes in the natural sciences, mathematics, and technology. At least 7 hours. At least 4 of these hours must be in a lab science course.
E Social Sciences Courses that address learning outcomes in the social sciences At least 6 hours
F Lower-Division Major Requirements Lower division courses required by the degree program and courses that are prerequisites to major courses at higher levels. 18 hours

Lets look at The University of North Georgia just as a random example. The link above was directly to the core requirements of the USG and at UNG you can see how those play out at their Semester Core Requirements. Then you can see the specific classes that UNG offers that satisfies those core areas.

While each state has their own University System they all share about 90% of the requirements to graduate. They definitely all share the need to take some well rounded courses like English, writing and a base level science.


This is the case for all public schools. The check and balance for Private schools are the accreditation programs that monitor private schools. It's different for every school and program but any program worth anything requires well rounded base level courses. Highly religious colleges are the ones that usually try to skirt around it. You can see a list of unaccredited higher ed schools here.

This idea that English majors do nothing but sit around and braid each other's hair and the only ones who try are the ones taking advanced science/math classes simply is a bad idea to have about the current system.

There is undeniably a lot of truth in this, and I don't necessarily disagree with any of it. However, the trick with a liberal arts degree is that there is more room for grade inflation, which is important in keeping players eligible. In a math class, there is a right answer, and there are infinite wrong answers. In a literature class, it's difficult to say that your reading of War and Peace is wrong just because it's different than mine. It doesn't mean the literature class is easier, but it does mean that if, for example, you're a professor at the University of Alabama, there is tremendous pressure to keep the kids eligible to play, because that's what the school wants. If a professor is faced with giving a player a grade lower because he isn't impressed by his understanding of a book or whatever, how do you think that professor is going to decide?

 

[Skeptic]

Be careful not to drift into the territory of STEM snobbery. True there are some schools that have created degree programs for the purpose of housing athletes, but lets try not to confuse that with legitimate liberal arts higher education which has been around since the founding of the first University.

I think the key thing to examine when judging the legitimacy of degree programs is what percentage of the students enrolled in these programs are SA's and what happens to graduates of these programs. A little research can enlighten. The ND film degree, for example, is for students seeking careers in the film and tv industries and the vast majority of these students are not SA's. A recent ND graduate was a grand jury prize winner at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival. SA's interested in broadcast sports journalism are a natural fit.

I'm as proud of my GT degree as anybody. But I don't think it is right to discredit liberal arts en masse or lump them all in with the fiasco at UNC. Colleges and Universities around the world used to be places where young people went to grow their intellect and broaden their perspectives as well as train for a specific field. At some places it still is.

Can we go steady? (I know first hand there are bunches of UNC liberal arts graduates who are enraged at the cheating scandal and those who perpetrated it, including the HOF coaches. They feel a highly sought and valued degree has been devalued and cheapened. One of 'em teaches at Clemson and will be rooting the Tigers home in the ACC championship game though he bleeds Carolina blue. UNC has a long road ahead to get that loyalty back.)

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Can we go steady? (I know first hand there are bunches of UNC liberal arts graduates who are enraged at the cheating scandal and those who perpetrated it, including the HOF coaches. They feel a highly sought and valued degree has been devalued and cheapened. One of 'em teaches at Clemson and will be rooting the Tigers home in the ACC championship game though he bleeds Carolina blue. UNC has a long road ahead to get that loyalty back.)

Exactly and we have to remember that the UNC situation is the aberration not the norm. Perception seems to make the reality a lot around sports.

 

[Skeptic]

There is undeniably a lot of truth in this, and I don't necessarily disagree with any of it. However, the trick with a liberal arts degree is that there is more room for grade inflation, which is important in keeping players eligible. In a math class, there is a right answer, and there are infinite wrong answers. In a literature class, it's difficult to say that your reading of War and Peace is wrong just because it's different than mine. It doesn't mean the literature class is easier, but it does mean that if, for example, you're a professor at the University of Alabama, there is tremendous pressure to keep the kids eligible to play, because that's what the school wants. If a professor is faced with giving a player a grade lower because he isn't impressed by his understanding of a book or whatever, how do you think that professor is going to decide?

At Mississippi the effort is not to get the grade changed to passing. That would be wrong. The coaches try to strong arm the prof into marking the course incomplete. And even math and science courses these days are often graded on the curve, a concept I just never understood.

 

[awbuzz]

Not being snobbish about it.... just saying that someone with a college Bachelors degree should be able to understand basic chemistry / biology/ physics and math. Have a friend that got he LA in music at Uof Michigan. NO math class, one class of basic biology (very basic). If those aren't important to be "well rounded" intellectually is beyond me.
Not asking that them to take high school calculus, etc...
Just have certain expectations from someone with a Bachelors degree.

 

[Skeptic]

Not being snobbish about it.... just saying that someone with a college Bachelors degree should be able to understand basic chemistry / biology/ physics and math. Have a friend that got he LA in music at Uof Michigan. NO math class, one class of basic biology (very basic). If those aren't important to be "well rounded" intellectually is beyond me.
Not asking that them to take high school calculus, etc...
Just have certain expectations from someone with a Bachelors degree.

Okay, but I think it is generally understood that a "liberal" education includes some science and math. We might argue over the depth of it, but sure. One can hardly be educated if college is spent solely on English lit. Just as, I guess I would argue, the same goes for spending four years solely on mathematics, A Beautiful Mind to the contrary. (Chemistry might be excluded. I learned to blow up things in there. Unfortunately that was not the intent.)

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Okay, but I think it is generally understood that a "liberal" education includes some science and math. We might argue over the depth of it, but sure. One can hardly be educated if college is spent solely on English lit. Just as, I guess I would argue, the same goes for spending four years solely on mathematics, A Beautiful Mind to the contrary. (Chemistry might be excluded. I learned to blow up things in there. Unfortunately that was not the intent.)

I teach chemistry. That was definitely not the intent.