U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-12-2010, 05:37 PM
 
12,917 posts, read 20,990,812 times
Reputation: 4076

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3 View Post
Tech has very similar demographics to Emory with two exceptions: less Jews and more guys. Many in-state students have made special arrangements and I even know a few people whose families moved here a couple years in advance in part so children or child could receive in-state. My fraternity demographics are very telling. In-state students at Tech are virtually all from Atl metro, rarely from too far away. In my fraternity maybe 30% is actually "from" Atlanta or GA and another 20-30% are on in-state tuition or their families have since moved here, etc. One of my best friends (who is a girl at Tech, heh) is from New Orleans, but her mom bought a house in GA and transferred the deed to my her who found a part-time job in Atlanta that paid enough to cross the threshold where she could then receive in-state. I would view the 30-40% number with caution, and considering that 33% of students at Tech are at least originally from out of the country entirely; maybe now they live here (I have a fraternity brother from Sri Lanka who entered on out of state and his parents have since moved here to Atlanta, he graduated in state).

I do agree that GT out of state tuition is still a bargain. This year it went up to $28K, which was a considerable jump, but still the tuition is almost a steal compared to other top notch state universities like Chapel Hill and UVA and Berkeley. It's not exactly cheap living as a student in Midtown Atlanta, though, compared to other southern and midwestern college towns.

I see where you are coming from. I am not there now, so you know more about the "on the ground" situation better than I do--I was just quoting published stats--and the statsfrom when I was there (and my knowledge of the "on the ground" situation during the mid/late 90's).

Whatever the case--one thing I loved about Tech was the large out of state population--getting to know people easily from all over the country/world while paying a total steal of an in-state tuition! (Plus, I had HOPE and I was an RA {called a "CA" back then}!)

My father and I still can't believe the deal that was in-state Georgia Tech...!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2010, 09:50 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
2,112 posts, read 5,130,284 times
Reputation: 898
Like I said, lots of GT in-state students are catching special deals or their families are doing their part to fit the criteria. And if you are on-the-ground at GT (i.e. a student), you realize that the international component is way higher than 6.6%. I am not an architecture major, but I am taking a couple of courses in the COA, and the professor was pointing out something about Paris. He asked the class if anyone was from Paris, and 5 people raised their hands. He asked a girl that raised her hand a question and she had a French accent, so she wasn't kidding. Normally you see Asians, but there are Europeans and people from just about everywhere at Tech. I wouldn't have put it past that girl to have found a way to receive in-state either.

Also, I will concede that we receive more funding from the state than I let on, but we could survive without it and the numbers you provided still aren't very high. I have nothing against UGA and I think for large state schools it is a very very good one (I would have gone there over my state school and people from my neck of the woods think my state school is really good). I have never said anything bad about UGA (in any of the school threads for that matter), but there are program and financial differences between the two schools, as well as differences in the student bodies. I was only pointing those out (BTW the Foundation for 2010 is back up slightly to over $1.4B, was at $1.6B).

I am happy that GT outside of the BOR actually has a working relationship with UGA and it's a friendly rivalry. That should continue. I just stand by my thoughts that Tech should go private. I think it's a disadvantage to the school that it has to pick up a certain quota from the state when it's such a nationally known and internationally known school that there are truly qualified kids who are trying to squeeze in from out of state. That's why families actually move to GA to get their kids in (I promise you that happens, at least back when the economy was robust enough to take that risk). Tech is sooo concerned over rankings and has done a hell of a job bringing all of its rankings up even with its fairly limited ability to select students, but it will never get super high marks in SAT scores and other criteria when it has to pull from GA so much. I was at the top of my freshman class in the SAT range and I was shocked to find that out. I would not have been at the top at say Emory, where there are perfect score students.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2010, 11:28 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,261,125 times
Reputation: 4205
People move here to get in... I get it. I know it happens. It happened when I was at UGA as well. It is easier to get into, but not by much. Mainly, it was people who were looking to take advantage of the Hope scholarship.

The international student numbers I gave you for undergraduates are going to be pretty accurate (there are many many international students that are grad students at both schools, than undergraduates. That is a common trend. Student visas are easier to come by when you hold a university degree from your home country). The numbers are from GT's 2009 factbook and they usually make that seem as diverse as possible, because it makes a university seem well-rounded.

The other issue, which hasn't been touched on and needs to be. Is Georgia and Atlanta are rapidly growing. Most of the growth is not from babies, but from people moving here from other places. Atlanta grew by about 25% over 9 years. That is a common trend for us. What happens is there are people who are Georgians, but they are originally from many different places. They moved here for cost-of-living/job/economic opportunity reasons. So many of the in-state tuition people at both (and for that matter most of Georgia's universities that attract many Metro Atlantans are in fact originally from other places, but they became Georgia residents when they moved here.

In fact I would say my high school was like that. We use to say it was a rare thing to see an actual true local.

And with that said... many of the people you meet under in-state tuition, but moved to Georgia several years just before college weren't always moving here just for the school. Its just been that so many people have been moving here in general.

Where we are going to have to disagree is on a few points when all is said and done:

1) I am not entirely sold that the state of Georgia is holding GT down and harming it outside of the budget cuts.

2) As a long term Georgia resident... I have to offer one more point of view. We do provide 25% of the schools budget and over the years we have provided much much more than that. We paid to start the school and the current 25% figure is an all time low. On top of that we provide GT more money per student than UGA and even more money per in-state student than UGA. It was built by the state of Georgia not built from the private funders, so if GT goes private now they would be carrying off a large part of Georgia State assets and that is not really fair. (In contrast Emory University was built, funded, and owned by the Methodist Church)

I think your original arguments were too tied on the idea that the state didn't provide anything. You also forget GT funds itself through investments in research, which are mostly byproducts of the state's original investment for GT to have those research facilities.

3) is self-sustainably. I would also be cautious to be too quick to try to leave. If GT was private next year they still have to fund a $289 million gap ($14,229 more per existing student.) If they used their endowment to do that it, then it wouldn't be growing anymore and it would probably start shrinking. (keep in mind thats approximately 1/5 of GT's endowment per year, which a large part of already funded for restricted purposes by the donors and some of those assets are used for real estate/campus expansion purposes as well. UGA does the same thing through the UGA Real Estate Foundation. It is all private money. The foundation builds a building or buys property and then leases it to the University. It allows the university to use more creative financing and investing strategies that I state institution couldn't do. That is why the GT Foundation is a private non-profit foundation. They accept donations on behalf of the university, but the donations don't go straight into university coffers, so there are private entities associated with the schools for certain reasons.)


Anyways... that debate aside and back to the original point of the post. I feel it is unfair to make UGA expanding its engineering program a UGA vs GT matter as the title of the OP insinuates. I think ultimately it will be more beneficial to the state without impacting GT. It will also give UGA to benefit of being able to forge into more research partnerships in the area. There is also something to creating a large amount of intellectual talent in on place to attract businesses', which is why I pointed out the bio-research pro-business advertisement site.

UGA also has the capabilities of funding it on their own without extra state funds and they see it largely as what our school will need to move forward and compete with other major state schools that have no constraints on what programs they have.

Most of GT's successes comes down to the fact it is an engineering (Emory: medical) school. There is something to that. There is alot of money there in research, patents, and creating fairly wealthy alumni. That is why we want a real engineering program (vs. our current "agricultural engineering" program) and it is also why we are strengthening our ties to the medical college of Georgia. It also allows our bio-sciences more flexibility to research and compete with already existing resources. That will help us better compete with UVA, UNC, and UF, which are all good examples of successful state flagship schools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 06:44 AM
 
28,134 posts, read 24,659,949 times
Reputation: 9534
One hurdle Tech would face in an attempt to go private is the lack of a large endowment. What really propelled Emory into the front ranks, for example, was the massive infusion of private donations (much of it Coca Cola related). Today they're sitting on around $5 billion. For a private university that really makes the difference, and allows them to compete with publicly funded institutions.

I think adding engineering to UGA is a fantastic idea. The U.S. needs to produce many more engineers to meet domestic requirements and to stay competitive globally. It's great for our state and region to be in the forefront of that. The program at UGA will enhance Tech's already world class program.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 02:46 PM
 
7,113 posts, read 8,121,061 times
Reputation: 1772
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
One hurdle Tech would face in an attempt to go private is the lack of a large endowment. What really propelled Emory into the front ranks, for example, was the massive infusion of private donations (much of it Coca Cola related). Today they're sitting on around $5 billion. For a private university that really makes the difference, and allows them to compete with publicly funded institutions.

I think adding engineering to UGA is a fantastic idea. The U.S. needs to produce many more engineers to meet domestic requirements and to stay competitive globally. It's great for our state and region to be in the forefront of that. The program at UGA will enhance Tech's already world class program.
Tech already has over $1 billion in its endowment. Last I've seen it is about $1.3 billion. It was $1.7 billion before the economic downturn.

Emory was propelled by two things. The Woodruff gift of $101 million in Coca-Cola stock in the late 1970s and Coke's CEO Goizueta driving up the value of Coke stock in the 1980s. That's why the business school is named after him.

I think adding engineering at Georgia is mostly to serve UGA's goals. UGA will say anything to make it look like this is for the good of the state. UGA wants the image of a major university and it is lacking medicine and engineering. These are the last pieces of the puzzle for them.

Last edited by MathmanMathman; 11-13-2010 at 03:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,458 posts, read 7,261,125 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathmanMathman View Post
I think adding engineering at Georgia is mostly to serve UGA's goals. UGA will say anything to make it look like this is for the good of the state. UGA wants the image of major university and it is lacking medicine and engineering. These are the last pieces of the puzzle for them.
You are right about this for Georgia and it's goals, but I think you are being unfair the way you characterize the arguments that this is a good for the state.

Typically speaking throughout this country businesses tend to locate and invest in areas where the are multiple strong universities. They don't want to rely on one school or one stream of thought produced by a single school...not to mention we would be producing more engineers as a state.

To say otherwise you would either have to argue that universities don't really help the state's economy or argue that GT is producing enough engineers by itself (including future projections). I don't feel either is really the case, so I have a tough time seeing how this doesn't help the state economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 03:48 PM
 
7,113 posts, read 8,121,061 times
Reputation: 1772
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3 View Post
Like I said, lots of GT in-state students are catching special deals or their families are doing their part to fit the criteria. And if you are on-the-ground at GT (i.e. a student), you realize that the international component is way higher than 6.6%. I am not an architecture major, but I am taking a couple of courses in the COA, and the professor was pointing out something about Paris. He asked the class if anyone was from Paris, and 5 people raised their hands. He asked a girl that raised her hand a question and she had a French accent, so she wasn't kidding. Normally you see Asians, but there are Europeans and people from just about everywhere at Tech. I wouldn't have put it past that girl to have found a way to receive in-state either.
In some cases, it is because the student couldn't get into the European university. The American college/university system is much more open and for the sake of "diversity" seeks out international students. Getting into university in France is very competitive. For those that don't pass "le bac", some seek entrance at an American university. In fact, American colleges actively recruit in Europe for those students. When I was at Tech, I knew a French girl who did just that. She didn't pass le bac in France so she enrolled at Tech. But you'll find international students at a lot of American universities because American higher education is pretty good.

Quote:
Also, I will concede that we receive more funding from the state than I let on, but we could survive without it and the numbers you provided still aren't very high. I have nothing against UGA and I think for large state schools it is a very very good one (I would have gone there over my state school and people from my neck of the woods think my state school is really good). I have never said anything bad about UGA (in any of the school threads for that matter), but there are program and financial differences between the two schools, as well as differences in the student bodies. I was only pointing those out (BTW the Foundation for 2010 is back up slightly to over $1.4B, was at $1.6B).
Tech received more than $250 million in its share of appropriations from the state of Georgia for this fiscal year. That's about 25% of Tech's overall budget. Plus the state pays most of the cost for academic buildings Tech requests. Tech is free to pursue funding on its own but it always lobbies for state funding none the less. Tech enjoys strong outside support but I think it still likes the state funds as well.

Quote:
I am happy that GT outside of the BOR actually has a working relationship with UGA and it's a friendly rivalry. That should continue. I just stand by my thoughts that Tech should go private. I think it's a disadvantage to the school that it has to pick up a certain quota from the state when it's such a nationally known and internationally known school that there are truly qualified kids who are trying to squeeze in from out of state. That's why families actually move to GA to get their kids in (I promise you that happens, at least back when the economy was robust enough to take that risk). Tech is sooo concerned over rankings and has done a hell of a job bringing all of its rankings up even with its fairly limited ability to select students, but it will never get super high marks in SAT scores and other criteria when it has to pull from GA so much. I was at the top of my freshman class in the SAT range and I was shocked to find that out. I would not have been at the top at say Emory, where there are perfect score students.
Tech gets very good students anyway. I don't see the advantage of Tech populating itself with only the elite students. If students want elite, they should enroll at MIT, Harvard, Cal Tech, etc.

But if Tech did buy itself out of the university system, the money would probably go to UGA and its engineering program would take off. The university system owns a lot of Tech so GT would have to pay a lot. The result would be Tech being even more expensive and probably even harder to get into. Probably see a dramatic drop in enrollment as well. UGA is not known for engineering obviously but it does have a good academic reputation so that along with the BOR flush with new state funds could help fast track UGA's engineering program. So maybe in the long run, it would be for the best, but I suspect Tech would suck even more in football.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 03:56 PM
 
7,113 posts, read 8,121,061 times
Reputation: 1772
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
You are right about this for Georgia and it's goals, but I think you are being unfair the way you characterize the arguments that this is a good for the state.

Typically speaking throughout this country businesses tend to locate and invest in areas where the are multiple strong universities. They don't want to rely on one school or one stream of thought produced by a single school...not to mention we would be producing more engineers as a state.

To say otherwise you would either have to argue that universities don't really help the state's economy or argue that GT is producing enough engineers by itself (including future projections). I don't feel either is really the case, so I have a tough time seeing how this doesn't help the state economy.
No, what I am saying is that UGA doesn't care one way or the other. They want engineering and medicine. If it really does benefit the state, UGA's attitude is...."um...yeah...sure...that's why we need it". Otherwise, UGA should be urging that SPSU have their programs elevated and not have them at UGA. Or even urge that more schools start up engineering programs. This is really all about UGA, and Georgia Southern is just a useful tool to make them look less selfish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 05:52 PM
 
86 posts, read 124,341 times
Reputation: 28
I agree with both sides. However there is a Variable that needs to be look at: About 95 to 100 percent of GT programs are accreditated through ABET in which 1 to 2 programs are ABET Accreditated. The process is that in order to get ABET accreditated there have to be an graduate class in order to be accreditated and that is not a given that ABET would accreditated those programs of these newly schools. Personally, with myself an engineering major, I would probably go to GT just the fact of it already be accreditated. I wouldn't mind going to UGA or GSU but thats a chance in which its hard to make. Also I have a question, with schools with pre engineering programs like GSU and others, with GSU starting their Engineering program are they still going to have the GTREP or the RETP programs there are will that go away?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 06:41 PM
 
7,113 posts, read 8,121,061 times
Reputation: 1772
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3 View Post
Tech receives close to 100% of its support from private individuals and corporate partnerships; the state is too broke to underwrite or guarantee diddly squat aside from HOPE scholarships enabled by the lottery. Even many of the faculty are supported as endowed chairs or part of private campaigns to bring on professors. Their salary, research, benefits, and pension are supported privately. That is the simple truth. Tech is too expensive for the state to handle and no offense to the board or the state officials, but they are simply not talented enough to handle running Tech. It's a different beast and plenty of articles and research into the matter agree with me.
Oh wow, no. Tech receives close to 100% funding from private individuals and corporations? Huh? What?

Sponsored research and contracts covers 36%
Tuition covers 16%
Housing, Transportation, Dining, Parking, etc covers 10%
State appropriations covers 23%

The state's mere pittance contribution is around $270 million. Because of the economy, state appropriations are down. It's supposed to be 25%. But if Tech thinks it's small potatoes, I'm sure a lot of Georgia schools would like to have it.

And I'm not sure that endowed chairs and professorships are fully funded by its endowment. You can endow a chair for about $2 million but I doubt that invested it can generate enough money to fully pay a salary, travel, and benefits for an eminent scholar. While schools do like to have endowed chairs, they can be a problem as the school will still have to provide monetary support of its own. Endowed chairs supplement the salary enough to cover the higher pay an eminent scholar demands.


Quote:
Besides, I quit listening to you after this thread.
Your comments seem to belie that. It was just an observation I made years ago. I thought of Tech as a great institution but overtime, as scholars were featured on television shows, etc. I almost never saw Tech mentioned. And when I thought about it, I couldn't think of one great discovery or great innovation that came from Tech. And I mean directly from Tech. Not some alumnus who got his undergraduate at Tech and 20 years later did something significant. I asked other people I knew at Tech and they couldn't tell me either. They insisted that Tech was great but couldn't tell me anything of great significance Tech has done. The only thing people could point to on that thread was Tech's rankings but those rankings don't measure significance of research. The rankings takes measures in various areas and computes a number and in the case of US News, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are used to normalize the numbers. In other words, no one is better than HYP.

In short, the "emperor" has no clothes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top