Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
The dynamics of recruiting, a historical perspective
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IEEEWreck" data-source="post: 232020" data-attributes="member: 617"><p>This made me think, and I think maybe it's an important realization:</p><p></p><p>Lobbying the administration effectively means stepping back from labels like STEM and pressing for the specific.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>But, on the other hand, does building construction really have a function for teaching the vigorous calculus that we require of all students?</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IEEEWreck, post: 232020, member: 617"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
The dynamics of recruiting, a historical perspective
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top