What is GT's Reputation?

[Techster]

For anyone who questions GT's place in the world of education (and I literally mean the world), just check out this survey:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013/reputation-ranking

We're #38. That's in the WORLD. Our reputation as one of best universities is apparently grounded pretty well with the academic types.

(BTW...for recruit's parents who questions GT as a "regional" university...ahem)

 

[Animal02]

Our 13 performance indicators are grouped into five areas:

• Teaching: the learning environment (worth 30 per cent of the overall ranking score)
• Research: volume, income and reputation (worth 30 per cent)
• Citations: research influence (worth 30 per cent)
• Industry income: innovation (worth 2.5 per cent)
• International outlook: staff, students and research (worth 7.5 per cent).

I wonder if size becomes a factor.......i.e research volume, income, and citations. Tech is still a small school in comparison.
And how much does Tech get "dinged" by lacking many of the fields. (Oxford, Harvard, Stanford etc. all rank high in the top for "arts and Humanities, Life sciences, Social sciences etc.)

Probably more important is this ranking
http://www.timeshighereducation.co....14/subject-ranking/subject/engineering-and-IT

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Probably more important is this ranking
http://www.timeshighereducation.co....14/subject-ranking/subject/engineering-and-IT

Even in this ranking, Stanford kicks our arse. How is that possible? Just goes to show that picking Stanford over GT for football, or academics, is a no-brainer.

 

[Animal02]

Even in this ranking, Stanford kicks our arse. How is that possible? Just goes to show that picking Stanford over GT for football, or academics, is a no-brainer.

Some of it may depend on how the ranking or research volume, income etc is tabulated....gross? percentage? Since Tech is a small school compared to many, that could definitely hurt its rankings.
Also, with Stanford ranking high in other areas....it will naturally raise its reputation in specific fields.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

I could be wrong, but I think class sizes impact this somewhat, and being a private school and limiting the number of engineering students, the class sizes are probably smaller. Just a guess, though.

 

[alaguy]

Does anyone know(Eric?) if in our recruiting process ,we have a Hall of Fame/career success "book" of Tech grads to show to the recruits BESIDES a showing of ex-Tech NFL guys .
A whole presentation could be made on what folks have done with a TEch degree in various majors ,.with the statistics of earnings that may be expected.
It certainly wouldn't affect certain recruits but hopefully would get the attention of parents and the brightest anyway..

 

[MGTfan]

I honestly think very few recruits actually care about academics, even the ones who say they do. Every kid who is playing big time college football has NFL aspirations, and there's nothing wrong with that. They even know that only a small percentage of college players make the NFL, but they all think they will be a part of that small percentage. Most 5 star recruits probably have the attitude that they are a lock to make it to the league, while the three stars are convinced they are going to prove everybody wrong.

Just my opinion, but I don't academics is a very hot selling point to most recruits these days, though not all of them. Pushing academics too much may even give the player the idea that the coach doesn't believe they can make the NFL, which would obviously be a turn off to the player.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I honestly think very few recruits actually care about academics, even the ones who say they do. Every kid who is playing big time college football has NFL aspirations, and there's nothing wrong with that. They even know that only a small percentage of college players make the NFL, but they all think they will be a part of that small percentage. Most 5 star recruits probably have the attitude that they are a lock to make it to the league, while the three stars are convinced they are going to prove everybody wrong.

Just my opinion, but I don't academics is a very hot selling point to most recruits these days, though not all of them. Pushing academics too much may even give the player the idea that the coach doesn't believe they can make the NFL, which would obviously be a turn off to the player.

I think's it all in how it's sold. If you show them all the former NFL stars who are now broke because they were too dumb to wisely manage their money and tell them how GT will prepare them better in that regard then you have it as an advantage. "Most schools prepare you for the next 4 years, GT prepares you for the next 40."

 

[ATL1]

I'm not even sure is fare to compare GT to Stanford. GT & MIT(2) or Cal Tech(11) is more of a better comparison. Obviously Tech isn't there yet.
Now when you think of it on those terms that GT is attempting to get to MIT & Cal Tech level in reputation academically and win a NC in football & hoops.

 

[alaguy]

I think's it all in how it's sold. If you show them all the former NFL stars who are now broke because they were too dumb to wisely manage their money and tell them how GT will prepare them better in that regard then you have it as an advantage. "Most schools prepare you for the next 4 years, GT prepares you for the next 40."

Cheese,
Whose saying is that? Tech? ,if not you should send that to Tech recruiting/ AA -a great approach for them

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

I honestly think very few recruits actually care about academics, even the ones who say they do. Every kid who is playing big time college football has NFL aspirations, and there's nothing wrong with that. They even know that only a small percentage of college players make the NFL, but they all think they will be a part of that small percentage. Most 5 star recruits probably have the attitude that they are a lock to make it to the league, while the three stars are convinced they are going to prove everybody wrong.

Just my opinion, but I don't academics is a very hot selling point to most recruits these days, though not all of them. Pushing academics too much may even give the player the idea that the coach doesn't believe they can make the NFL, which would obviously be a turn off to the player.

I think they do care, but on signing day it is about FOOTBALL (or whatever sport). They have busted their rump for usually 3 years, and on that one day academics does not enter into their lexicon. Even our signees. And people don't give a rat's behind on Saturday afternoons about calculus. It is about competing on the field and winning a football game.

And it does not mean one negative thing about academics at GT, and people do not want to hear about academics when we lose come Monday. It actually hurts GT.

 

[collegeballfan]

D. Orlando Ledbetter ‏@AJCFalcons 1h
Going through the NFL combine bios and this is a real college major: Community Recreation, Sport & Camp Management

OK you GT people. You want to be a top 10 program, the above tweet is a clue. Almost as good as the old Clemson major "Playground Design".

 

[33jacket]

38 in the world. What are we in the usa according the us news? 36.

And so that summarizes how much i pay attention to rankings or how much they mean. 38 in the world is higher than 36 domestically. And 36 domestically isnt 38 in the world. Yea i get the criteria is probably different and all that. But come on. This is a bit off on either end.

 

[IEEEWreck]

Our 13 performance indicators are grouped into five areas:

• Teaching: the learning environment (worth 30 per cent of the overall ranking score)
• Research: volume, income and reputation (worth 30 per cent)
• Citations: research influence (worth 30 per cent)
• Industry income: innovation (worth 2.5 per cent)
• International outlook: staff, students and research (worth 7.5 per cent).

I wonder if size becomes a factor.......i.e research volume, income, and citations. Tech is still a small school in comparison.
And how much does Tech get "dinged" by lacking many of the fields. (Oxford, Harvard, Stanford etc. all rank high in the top for "arts and Humanities, Life sciences, Social sciences etc.)

Probably more important is this ranking
http://www.timeshighereducation.co....14/subject-ranking/subject/engineering-and-IT

I found the answer: the teaching quality section is full of crap. They use class size as their education quality proxy, then have more points in doctoral/undergrad ratio, income/staff ratio, and graduate/staff ratios. Essentially they penalize for being a large institution while paradoxically rewarding exploitative faculty/grad student ratios. This survey also counts GTA's and postdoc teachers as students, not staff. A lot of that seems pretty inexplicable to me, and specifically penalizes GT for being a major producer of engineers on the undergraduate and graduate level.

Think about it this way: given equal accomplishment of all students, this survey says MIT is a better school because Georgia Tech produces 3 times as many engineers. I would suggest this is the opposite of true.