The dynamics of recruiting, a historical perspective

[JacketFromUGA]

Let's bring back swimming with bricks. The recruits can boast about how many bricks it takes to drag them under.

Having life guarded multiple football teams of all levels.

Most of them would sink without any bricks.

 

[iceeater1969]

Coach West flew to Oregen to offer 3 star o lineman!
At least we are trying!
With our ability to scout up talent, this could be very good.

 

[jacketup]

I hear all the time "if Ross and O'Leary could recruit GT, CPJ should be able to." Now I'm hearing the same wrt to Gailey. This opinion ignores several changes in the college football landscape that have made it increasingly more difficult for GT to get top players. I'll try to outline a few of them here.

1. APR. This has got to be the biggest back fire piece of "legislation" ever in attempt to create parity in college football. Maybe that wasn't the goal, but it was supposed to be a bi-product. Nothing could be further from the truth. Factories have sham majors that require very little effort to pass, while legitimate academic minded schools now have the burden of keeping guys on track to graduate.

Ross and O'Leary had no such burden. They could, and often did, keep kids in remedial studies throughout the duration of their eligibility. They didn't have to recruit kids with the thought that they had to graduate or at least stay on track to do so. Many of those kids, especially the key guys, would never get a whiff of GT today. O'Leary, to his credit, raised the graduation rate, but it's a shadow of what it is today.

2. ESPN. The sports network has a vested interest in the SEC. In Ross and GOL's day, there were only a handful of SEC teams that were fashionable. Auburn, Tenn, Uga, LSU and Florida was about it. Bama hadn't yet risen to prominance yet. Now, any team in the conference is a prize to recruits. In large part, this is due to ESPN's constant drum beat touting the SEC as a super conference top to bottom.

3. Rise of Stanford and ND. These teams struggled in the Ross and O'Leary years. Stanford was not on anyone's wish list and ND was suffering a string of bad coaching hires.

4. Rise of other programs to "eye candy" status among recruits. Oregon is the poster child of this group. TCU, Bailor, and other teams that were off the radar in the 90's have raised their status among recruits, as well.

5. GT's self inflicted wounds post O'Leary. Flunkate and two NCAA probations have hurt our recruiting efforts post Ross/O'Leary. No need to go into detail on this, it's obvious to anybody and it's something Ross and O'Leary didn't have to deal with.

I may be off on some of these things but certainly not all. Maybe some of you can nitpick one or two of these things, but nobody can deny that recruiting is not the same as it was in the era of Ross/O'Leary. It's more difficult now.

“Excuses are the nails used to build a house of failure.” Jim Rohn

 

[dressedcheeseside]

“Excuses are the nails used to build a house of failure.” Jim Rohn

"Reasons are not excuses." Me

 

[IEEEWreck]

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.

As I write this I see this from you in a post just above my cursor and which NEJ agreed with, as do I: 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.

I don't believe anyone wants to become a factory which is one end of this spectrum but the other end is the current status quo, a status that no one wants either but one we've been in for decades and probably will stay in unless someone does something different. I just don't know who that person is unless Homer Rice II comes to town.

I think we can break this down a bit more and shed some more light on what is possible and what we want. Here's how I see a few critical background points:

1. The determinant of a 'factory pass' program is not the major, but rather the rigorousness of the program. The problem with UNCheat was not that there is an African Studies department. There are (whether you find the notion politically palatable or not) extremely rigorous, difficult African Studies departments. For that matter, there are extremely difficult Psych, Anthropology, and Philosophy programs out there. UNCheat's problem was they had a (perhaps fraudulently) easy program (perhaps only for athletes though). So one question we have to ask is:

Should we have bad, less than rigorous programs at GT for athletes?

My answer would be no, and I don't think it merits further discussion.

2. GT isn't a STEM only school. The fact that we graduate ~= 70% STEM majors has more to do with the unprecedented size and success of our Engineering and CS programs. I don't think we talk about this fact enough. This needs to get out there. We graduate more Electrical Engineers than Stanford graduates all engineers. Stanford and MIT can shut up, because in a rating system that penalizes program size and rewards publishing but not teaching GT would go from a top 7 program to blowing their doors off if we cut the school down to MIT or Stanford size and removed the faculty teaching load. But, we're more interested in creating engineers and changing the world than getting our egos fluffed by US News. Sorry, I got sidetracked there.

This does pose a question: does the Nunn School of Public Policy need to graduate as many students as the Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering to attract athletes? I don't think so. Maybe? It does pose one possible course:

Should GT grow to be an enormous generalist school?

It'd actually probably help football, but that's a very, very challenging thing to do. We may be on that path already.

3. So what's the real difference between GT and a 'non-STEM' school? Well, we do have Calculus GenEd requirements. Some fairly robust lab science requirements too. That could change. There's a legitimate academic discussion on that point. It would help the non-STEM majors grow. I'm not sure a HTS major really needs to understand matrix algebra. The MBA program recently (to much controversy) removed their Calculus prerequisite to applying. That one actually kind of scares me, but it was considered critical to growing a first rate MBA program.

Is removing "legacy" Engineering gen ed requirements like Calculus a good idea?

I think these are some questions that the fan base should be grappling with. Especially the last one, because GT needs now (as it always had) her students and alumni to guide her course when administrators fail to understand what makes her mission different and her course apart. I'm as proud to be a helluva engineer as any man you'll meet, but I'm actually not convinced Calculus as a GenEd requirement makes sense. That also leads into related questions, like if GT is more than an Engineering School, perhaps our math entrance requirements don't make sense for everyone.

 

[forensicbuzz]

GT isn't a STEM only school.

I'd have to disagree with you here. Every degree is a Bachelor of Science, requiring a calculus-based math sequence and a lab science sequence. That means ALL our majors are science and math-based, which is the definition of a STEM major. STEM majors are majors that are related to Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Every major at Tech is related to science and technology, period. This is mandated by the BoR.

If you're saying that Public Policy at Tech in not a STEM-major, then I politely disagree. My wife has an MS Physics from GT and a PhD in Public Policy from Tech. If you try to tell her that her PhD was not STEM, she'll laugh in your face (and might do more).

 

[Northeast Stinger]

1. The determinant of a 'factory pass' program is not the major, but rather the rigorousness of the program. The problem with UNCheat was not that there is an African Studies department. There are (whether you find the notion politically palatable or not) extremely rigorous, difficult African Studies departments.

Thank you for saying this. What UNC did has given an impression of Afro-Am studies that is unfortunate and unfair. Like you say, it was not the field of study but rather the fact that nothing was actually being taught. My youngest daughter got her master's degree in Library Sciences with a focus in digital archiving and it required having a minor in two unrelated fields. She got one of her minors in African-American studies and it was one of her most rigorous courses of study. Needless to say she didn't do this at UNC.

 

[Techster]

I'd have to disagree with you here. Every degree is a Bachelor of Science, requiring a calculus-based math sequence and a lab science sequence. That means ALL our majors are science and math-based, which is the definition of a STEM major. STEM majors are majors that are related to Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Every major at Tech is related to science and technology, period. This is mandated by the BoR.

If you're saying that Public Policy at Tech in not a STEM-major, then I politely disagree. My wife has an MS Physics from GT and a PhD in Public Policy from Tech. If you try to tell her that her PhD was not STEM, she'll laugh in your face (and might do more).

ALL colleges require a math and science component to their degrees. That isn't the issue with GT...the degree of difficulty of the math and science component is usually the issue with some of our prospective SAs. For instance:

BS Management Major at GT:

http://catalog.gatech.edu/programs/business-administration-general-management-bs/#requirementstext

BA Management Major at 'Bama:

https://www.ua.edu/academics/catalogs/catalog10/502587.html

Pretty similar requirements to GT in terms of Math (they have "survey" of Calc requirement) and Science. They are even required to to take a "learn computers" course.

Now look at the Communications Major at 'Bama. And this is where you can get into the argument that 'Bama can hide SAs. They have a Math and Science requirment, but not at the Calc level of GT:

https://www.ua.edu/academics/majors/communication

 

[augustabuzz]

ALL colleges require a math and science component to their degrees. That isn't the issue with GT...the degree of difficulty of the math and science component is usually the issue with some of our prospective SAs. For instance:

BS Management Major at GT:

http://catalog.gatech.edu/programs/business-administration-general-management-bs/#requirementstext

BA Management Major at 'Bama:

https://www.ua.edu/academics/catalogs/catalog10/502587.html

Pretty similar requirements to GT in terms of Math (they have "survey" of Calc requirement) and Science. They are even required to to take a "learn computers" course.

Now look at the Communications Major at 'Bama. And this is where you can get into the argument that 'Bama can hide SAs. They have a Math and Science requirment, but not at the Calc level of GT:

https://www.ua.edu/academics/majors/communication

I always laugh at factory fans who cast aspersions on our athletes majoring in management while they have a smaller percentage in business than we have in engineering.

 

[Milwaukee]

The fact that Tech has hauled in good recruiting classes in the past literally blows the doors off of each excuse in each new post.

Reference the cliche 07 class; hate it or love it, call it an outlier or whatever you need to, but at least acknowledge that it can and HAS been done.

Tech just needs to recruit better more consistently. You can paint it however which way helps you sleep better.

 

[Techster]

The fact that Tech has hauled in good recruiting classes in the past literally blows the doors off of each excuse in each new post.

Reference the cliche 07 class; hate it or love it, call it an outlier or whatever you need to, but at least acknowledge that it can and HAS been done.

Tech just needs to recruit better more consistently. You can paint it however which way helps you sleep better.

Haven't you heard though, CALCULUS!!! APR!!! STEM!!!

 

[AE 87]

Fwiw, the argument has been that certain factors make it difficult to recruit well consistently not impossible to do at times. While I'm not surprised it was missed by those who missed it, one year is not evidence against that argument.

Now, I think we can recruit better more consistently but our past suggests it will require winning more more consistently. Our best recruiting years come after big seasons. That's why we need a game coach imo.

 

[WreckinGT]

The fact that Tech has hauled in good recruiting classes in the past literally blows the doors off of each excuse in each new post.

Reference the cliche 07 class; hate it or love it, call it an outlier or whatever you need to, but at least acknowledge that it can and HAS been done.

Tech just needs to recruit better more consistently. You can paint it however which way helps you sleep better.

It was our only top 25 recruiting class in the last 15 years. It was one of only a few top 20 classes in the history of the program. I'm not sure how you can argue that it wasn't an outlier. We traditionally don't recruit well. There is really no way to argue against that. It is the reason that numerous coaches have spoken candidly about recruiting difficulties. It is the reason David Braine made the comments he did. It is probably the reason we hired CPJ in the first place. We have room for improvement, but if you are expecting consistent top 20 classes then you are going to be disappointed.

 

[forensicbuzz]

@IEEEWreck: After a discussion with my wife this evening, I recant at least part of what I said earlier. She said that although her PhD was heavily math and science oriented (focus was Science and Technology Policy), it was, in fact, not technically a STEM degree. I stand corrected by the one person on this earth that can get away with correcting me.

 

[alagold]

Now you have done it! My father, GT graduate in Textile Engineering class of 1950 said he spent many an afternoon in that building creating different kinds of dyes and what have you. I thought it had become a math building of some kind. Of course, he spent only a few years working as a plant manager for Piedmont Mills in Aragon, Georgia. Then he went off to more lucrative careers that had nothing to do with textiles. but he always said that being at Tech gave him the confidence to handle any problem no matter what.

"gave him the confidence to handle anything,no matter what"----HOW TRUE!--that is the essence of a Tech experience.That is what you pay for and what all should strive for. I never had the continuous challenge over the next 40 yrs that I did at Tech.

 

[IEEEWreck]

@IEEEWreck: After a discussion with my wife this evening, I recant at least part of what I said earlier. She said that although her PhD was heavily math and science oriented (focus was Science and Technology Policy), it was, in fact, not technically a STEM degree. I stand corrected by the one person on this earth that can get away with correcting me.

This made me think, and I think maybe it's an important realization:

Lobbying the administration effectively means stepping back from labels like STEM and pressing for the specific.

Your point, before and after correction, boils down to a discussion of what exactly STEM means. I'm going to argue that if we want GT to change that's a discussion to sidestep entirely. A more relevant question is do the requirements serve the school and the students. Should science policy experts understand multivariate and differential calculus? I'd argue that yeah, those are probably fundamental skills if you want to engage with the study of the study of science and engineering.

Another example: Econ is not, generally, called a STEM major. Many Econ programs require only basic calculus requirements. GT wants (and should want) you to take DiffyQ's. Being that major parts of basic economic theory are differential equations, not teaching it makes your econ classes cookbook bs at the undergraduate level. Fine for freshman chemistry, but actually requiring that understanding is a big advantage for GT Econ graduates at the graduate level.

But, on the other hand, does building construction really have a function for teaching the vigorous calculus that we require of all students?

Sometimes, it shapes your program in perhaps limiting ways. Take the example of Industrial Design. There are jobs where ID's are used like designing mechanical engineers when mathematical models aren't needed in design work. There are ID jobs that design user experiences. An advanced understanding of calculus is critical to one and irrelevant to the other. If we want our ID program to grow in a major way, we probably need a track with math and a track without math.

From there. it's much easier to put pressure on the question of why exactly we define the students we want for ID based in part on such stringent highschool math criteria, etc. etc.

 

[DvilleJacket]

I kinda skimmed over this entire discussion. The problem remains and always will, kids have to study here. Most 4 and 5 star recruits have the NFL on there mind and see college as a 3 or 4 year tryout for the pros. Most schools at least have a few majors these kids can coast through. We need more majors if you want to ever see 4 and maybe even a couple 5 stars on the roster.

 

[awbuzz]

ALL colleges require a math and science component to their degrees. That isn't the issue with GT...the degree of difficulty of the math and science component is usually the issue with some of our prospective SAs. For instance:

BS Management Major at GT:

http://catalog.gatech.edu/programs/business-administration-general-management-bs/#requirementstext

BA Management Major at 'Bama:

https://www.ua.edu/academics/catalogs/catalog10/502587.html

Pretty similar requirements to GT in terms of Math (they have "survey" of Calc requirement) and Science. They are even required to to take a "learn computers" course.

Now look at the Communications Major at 'Bama. And this is where you can get into the argument that 'Bama can hide SAs. They have a Math and Science requirment, but not at the Calc level of GT:

https://www.ua.edu/academics/majors/communication

Re: all schools require math AND science for bachelor degree... I know a music major with a BA that had NO math and one science (basic biology).

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I know a music major with a BA that had NO math and one science (basic biology).

at GT?

 

[awbuzz]

at GT?

Michigan