The story involving the Provost is that he was asked about giving us some "classroom help" to which he replied in the manner in which I paraphrased. Everyone of us recognizes the curriculum as a hurdle and most of us, me included, experience some form of dissonance over.
Why do some find it important to have a thread like this every 6 mo or so?
The meeting at which the interested parties quizzed the Provost about some help were wanting, I believe, curriculum changes to make the school more attractive to the 4 and 5 stars. Without that "help", Dave Braine may prove to be more right than wrong.What would you consider "classroom help"?
If you mean logistical help to: get video of lectures, opportunities to receive assignments, and opportunities to turn in assignments: missed while attending and/or participating in events, then I am all for helping the athletes keep up while they are engaging in the sports. If you mean courses and majors that are specifically designed to keep athletes unable or unwilling to perform as students, then I am vehemently opposed.
Does anybody think it makes any sense to make academic curricular decisions based on how attractive they are to 4 and 5 star football prospects? You could make a dozen rationalizations, but if the underlying reason is the one stated above, it's a total sham.The meeting at which the interested parties quizzed the Provost about some help were wanting, I believe, curriculum changes to make the school more attractive to the 4 and 5 stars. Without that "help", Dave Braine may prove to be more right than wrong.
The meeting at which the interested parties quizzed the Provost about some help were wanting, I believe, curriculum changes to make the school more attractive to the 4 and 5 stars. Without that "help", Dave Braine may prove to be more right than wrong.
You can preach this all day and I will listen.My disappointment in schools that bring in highly rated recruits to play sports, but only pretend to be students is not based on a snobby attitude. It is based on the belief that treating people as commodities to be used for entertainment is not ethical.
You've read my participation in this thread entirely wrong. I'm merely reporting what I've read around these boards and parroting some comments. I'm not asking that the Provost do anything but others have asked.Once again I ask -- What type of "help" are you proposing?
I can think of some types of assistance that the Provost could push for that could be helpful to athletes. When I was at Tech, there were some tough classes that were only offered at certain times of the year. If that is still the case, then offering such classes at different times during the year could give athletes the benefit of being able to take those classes outside of their sports season. The athletes could take lighter and easier course loads during their season and make up for it out of their season. As I stated before, I am all for giving the student-athletes their best opportunity for them to succeed in the classroom.
However, from the way your response is worded, it appears that the "help" would be more in the lines of degrees and classes that we could market the school to the "4 and 5 stars" as a party to attend on their way to the NFL. Getting highly regarded recruits to attend school to learn nothing and get a meaningless degree does nothing for the kid. If all the kid wants is an opportunity to audition for professional sports teams, then he should have that opportunity in semi-pro or minor league teams. I am very opposed to Tech placing the desires to win football above the academics, and even more placing that desire above the well being of the athletes. Most of the athletes that attend college only to audition for the NFL never make it to an NFL field. If more colleges attempted to motivate them in the classroom and off the field, then many of those that don't make it on the field would be much better off for it. My disappointment in schools that bring in highly rated recruits to play sports, but only pretend to be students is not based on a snobby attitude. It is based on the belief that treating people as commodities to be used for entertainment is not ethical.
This question has a chance to be rhetorical but if by chance it is directed at me I'll respond by saying, as I did to RonJohn, I'm not interested in becoming a factory and I don't want to make a sham of our school. But it sure would be nice (and I'd bet everyone would agree) to have a few 4 and 5 stars around. It's obvious that what we've been doing for decades now, isn't doing it.Does anybody think it makes any sense to make academic curricular decisions based on how attractive they are to 4 and 5 star football prospects? You could make a dozen rationalizations, but if the underlying reason is the one stated above, it's a total sham.
On a side note, this reminds me of the old "socks for jocks" classes in the old Textile Engineering Building that used to sit where the Campanile now does. There was a geology course affectionately known as "rocks for jocks" as well.
Because this board is purely entertainment.We keep talking about things that we have no control over, why not use some of the offseason energy on this board to brainstorm and commit to ideas that we as fans can actually work together on? I had some suggestions earlier, but maybe we're content to talk circles on other topics.
Of course we all want highly rated prospects beating down our doors, but for the right reason. The best combination of athletics and academics in college football is the reason I want. I don't want them coming because we've added fluff majors that they can coast through school while auditioning for the NFL. I don't want to win by lowering our academic standards or even adding legitimate majors that aren't needed and would never be added w/o the benefit of attracting athletes.I do
This question has a chance to be rhetorical but if by chance it is directed at me I'll respond by saying, as I did to RonJohn, I'm not interested in becoming a factory and I don't want to make a sham of our school. But it sure would be nice (and I'd bet everyone would agree) to have a few 4 and 5 stars around. It's obvious that what we've been doing for decades now, isn't doing it.
There's a whole host of characteristics that come with that bag of worms that wouldn't go away by adding a few underwater basket weaving 1o1's.
Quote is destined to become a classic, right up there with MIT during the week and Alabama on Saturday.When pushed to it, the American penchant is to expect Swedish-level services for Mississippi-level taxes and to think we can get around our problems by forcing greater efforts out of the people delivering the service.
I agree completely. Now let's go on to some other problem before PETA comes a callin' for beating this horse again. Good conversation...seriously.Of course we all want highly rated prospects beating down our doors, but for the right reason. The best combination of athletics and academics in college football is the reason I want. I don't want them coming because we've added fluff majors that they can coast through school while auditioning for the NFL. I don't want to win by lowering our academic standards or even adding legitimate majors that aren't needed and would never be added w/o the benefit of attracting athletes.
I doubt adding a few cake majors would help a whole lot anyway. GT still has an image problem, in the eyes of recruits, that centers around the fact GT is a STEM school first and foremost. There's a whole host of characteristics that come with that bag of worms that wouldn't go away by adding a few underwater basket weaving 1o1's.
Does anybody think it makes any sense to make academic curricular decisions based on how attractive they are to 4 and 5 star football prospects? You could make a dozen rationalizations, but if the underlying reason is the one stated above, it's a total sham.
On a side note, this reminds me of the old "socks for jocks" classes in the old Textile Engineering Building that used to sit where the Campanile now does. There was a geology course affectionately known as "rocks for jocks" as well.