Georgia Tech vs. Berkeley
thc
Abe Kohen
"thc" <cthc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b4809df5.04061...@posting.google.com...
> A Georgia Tech student, writing in Technique, details the differences.
>
> http://nique.net/issues/summer2004/2004-06-11/7.html
Thank you for the article.
Applicants and parents should realize that MIT, CalTech, and Georgia Tech
are tech schools. They are NOT full service schools like Berkeley, Stanford
or Cornell.
You don't go to MIT to study history or English, although you can take
classes in them at Tech, or even cross register at Harvard.
Some full service universities offer tech classes that are comparable to
tech classes at MIT or CalTech, but MIT does not offer the breadth nor the
depth of history classes offered at Berkeley or Stanford.
Abe
David Ames
MIT does have a Humanities major, with several options available, I
believe. A Jeopardy contestant once said that she realized she
disdn't care whether a function was differentiable, and she wound up
majoring in Political Science at MIT.
Undoubtedly you are correct that the non-tech departments would have
little breadth to them, but your judgment of lesser depth seems to
involve a judgment of the people teaching the courses, which I would
consider unfair.
I might even surmise that a pushy student in a non-tech department at
MIT can get individual attention leading to a solid recommendation.
David Ames
thc
Georgia Tech with the one a student can get at MIT. The Georgia Tech
founders looked at MIT as a possible model and rejected it in the very
beginning. Georgia Tech was created as a trade school, to train
barefoot Georgia farm boys for the regions textile industry, and it
retains that philosophy and outlook today. While research and
education was the foundation and are the pillars of MIT. A job or
trade remains the #1 goal of a Georgia Tech grad, not grad school or
research. There is a difference.
There is an old joke.
An MIT and a Georgia Tech grad are walking along. The Georgia Tech
grad says "We consider MIT the Georgia Tech of the North, and Georgia
Tech the MIT of the South."
The two walk along, now in silence. After a while the Georgia Tech
grad asks, "Well, what do you consider us?"
The MIT grad looks at the GT grad and says "Sorry, but we don't
consider you at all."
KSG
> I'm a little surprised you'd compare the education available at
> Georgia Tech with the one a student can get at MIT. The Georgia Tech
> founders looked at MIT as a possible model and rejected it in the very
> beginning. Georgia Tech was created as a trade school, to train
> barefoot Georgia farm boys for the regions textile industry, and it
> retains that philosophy and outlook today. While research and
> education was the foundation and are the pillars of MIT. A job or
> trade remains the #1 goal of a Georgia Tech grad, not grad school or
> research. There is a difference.
According to virtually every shred of evidence, your statements are
not true.
From GTs web page:
"In 1948, the School's name was changed to the Georgia Institute of
Technology to reflect a growing focus on advanced technological and
scientific research. "
"The Georgia Institute of Technology is one of the nation's top
research universities, distinguished by its commitment to improving
the human condition through advanced science and technology."
While GT may have started as a trade school it's goals were always
similar to MITs (bringing relevance to a more industrialized world).
To this day MIT and GT share in their goals of cutting edge research
activities and teaching.
Ram Lau
don't think GT is the exact counterpart of MIT in the South, one has to be
more biased than FOX news to say it's a trade school. As a Math TA and a
second-year senior at Tech, I'm very proud of the school's tough stance on
grade inflation and maintaining our vigorous curricula.
I'm not here to defend Tech, but I sometimes do have the urge to clarify the
misconceptions about a decent institution. I'm an insider, after all.
thc
Georgia Tech student newspaper last winter...
Tech's moniker reveals its true history
By Karl Guertin
Online Editor
ATLANTA
February 13, 2004
North Avenue Trade School. Most students are familiar with this
moniker for our beloved institute, but I'll venture to say that few
are familiar enough with Tech's history to realize just how accurate
it is.
Our origins are actually very close to a trade school, and those
origins are still reflected today in the attitudes of the students and
faculty. Tech, that is, the Georgia School of Technology, was founded
for the purpose of turning out engineers to work in the factories of
the post-reconstruction New South. The committee established to
investigate the feasibility of a technology school in Georgia decided
to build a school modeled after the shop-oriented Worchester Free
Institute of Industrial Sciences (today's WPI) rather than the
research-oriented Boston Tech (currently MIT).
Under the Worchester model, the students enrolled in the school would
spend part of their day in classes and part in the machine shop. There
they would go through an apprenticeship to learn the tools of the shop
and then proceed to produce goods that would be sold by the school.
This way they gained experience and earned revenue for the school to
subsidize their tuition.
There were several advantages for the Worchester model. First, the
experience of working in and running a machine shop gave graduating
students the skills necessary to build and run a working factory in an
area that had a small industrial base. Second, the revenue generated
by the shop would help pay for the school. This was significant
because the state government had extremely limited funds. In fact, the
school was founded for the nominal sum of $19,000, which is roughly
$350,000 in today's dollars. Finally, the shop work reduced tuition
and gave full scholarships to many students.
Therefore, for the first years of Tech's existence, students studied
courses in the morning and worked in the shop in the afternoon.
Students started off as apprentices their first year and worked their
way up through the ranks of the shop as they studied through their
course load.
Unfortunately, the shop wasn't a total success. Production quality and
volume were not high enough to generate significant revenue for the
school, though it did break even. It was, however, still run for a
number of years to provide students with practical experience. The
shop building itself was burned to the ground in 1892, was rebuilt in
1893 and subsequently razed in 1967. The steam engine in front of Tech
Tower marks this location and serves as a reminder of Tech's origins.
As our school matured, the shop took on a smaller role and has now
been eliminated, but the pragmatic leanings that it represents have
been a constant influence on Tech's policies and agenda. For example,
up until the mid-1940s all students, regardless of major, had to build
a working electric motor as a graduation requirement. During World War
II, the school adopted an accelerated schedule to meet the needs of
the military, and nearly all students participated in ROTC. We
currently have, as the co-op office is so happy to point out, the
largest voluntary co-op program in the country.
In every case, Tech has produced excellent engineers to get work done,
get it done efficiently and to fill the needs of industry, whatever
that industry might be. The idea of producing rank-and-file graduates
to fill the needs of industry has become ingrained in the Institute
psyche, the academic policies, and the attitudes of the student body
and faculty.
I believe that Tech attracts, prepares and graduates people who are
workers rather than dreamers. This is the root cause for a number of
Tech's quirks among what the Hill likes to refer to as our "peer
institutions."
Among these quirks are the student body's political apathy and our low
six-year graduation rate. It's the reason I can count the number of
students I know who are even thinking about starting a business on one
hand. It is the reason you don't hear about companies started by Tech
alumni taking the world by storm. I'm sure some Tech startups must
exist, but I can easily think of a number of Fortune 500 companies
started by MIT, Stanford and Berkeley grads. The schools that are most
highly ranked, such as Industrial Engineering, are those whose
graduates tend to work within large organizations. Put simply, Tech is
an environment that promotes results over innovation. It's the reason
we're not the highest-ranked school in the country. It will take time
to change this, and I believe the administration is, knowingly or not,
working towards a more innovative environment. We're just not there
yet.
KSG
> Georgia Tech student newspaper last winter...
>
>
> Tech's moniker reveals its true history
>
> By Karl Guertin
> Online Editor
> ATLANTA
> February 13, 2004
This article hardly says anything not known. It says that Tech is a
tech school and has the characteristics of tech schools.
How many "take the world by storm" start-ups can you name from
Princeton, Cornell, Brown, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, or Duke?
Stanford, Berkeley, and MIT are rare in their startup appeal, but
really they stand apart from most every other university on the planet
in this respect (with places like UCSD, UofWash, Harvard, and a couple
of others now making inroads).
KSG
thc
Tech. Best of luck.
thc
and comments - 52 say they would go to the school again, 54 say they
wish they had gone somewhere else. As this is a discussion of Georgia
Tech vs other technology schools, MIT has 99 reviews and comments - at
MIT 69 students say they would go there again, while 20 say they wish
they had never stepped foot on on MIT's campus - some difference ,
don't you think? Sounds like the average MIT student is much happier
with his or her education and college experience, than the average GT
student...
Abe Kohen
"David Ames" <world...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:f79f061c.04061...@posting.google.com...
A smart student at MIT (and almost all are) can ace any humanities course,
but why would a student waste money on studying humanities as a MAJOR at
MIT? There is an excellent school at the other end of Cambridge providing a
liberal arts education.
As for depth, during one parent's weekend I sat in on a humanities class and
was greatly underimpressed.
Abe
Abe Kohen
"Ram Lau" <raml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb0c5j$kpo$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> Most people in academia know very well where GT stands. While I honestly
> don't think GT is the exact counterpart of MIT in the South, one has to be
> more biased than FOX news to say it's a trade school. As a Math TA and a
How did FOX news get into this thread? And why do you see a need to qualify
FOX news as being biased? Aren't all news providers biased?
> second-year senior at Tech, I'm very proud of the school's tough stance on
Second-year senior? Do you mean sophomore or you mean fifth-year
undergraduate?
> grade inflation and maintaining our vigorous curricula.
>
> I'm not here to defend Tech, but I sometimes do have the urge to clarify
the
> misconceptions about a decent institution. I'm an insider, after all.
Feel free to clarify misconceptions, but don't add to the confusion by
bringing in irrelevant statements about FOX news.
Abe
David Haardt
> "Ram Lau" <raml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Most people in academia know very well where GT stands. While I honestly
> > don't think GT is the exact counterpart of MIT in the South, one has to be
> > more biased than FOX news to say it's a trade school. As a Math TA and a
>
> How did FOX news get into this thread? And why do you see a need to qualify
> FOX news as being biased? Aren't all news providers biased?
A news provider which insists on proven lies being the truth just
because they come from the US president who happens to be from the
right (no pun intended) party (GOP) can be called biased.
A Latin quote which summarises the situation very nicely: Cuiusvis
hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
David Haardt
Abe Kohen
"David Haardt" <haar...@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:6bed43cc.04062...@posting.google.com...
> "Abe Kohen" <ako...@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > "Ram Lau" <raml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Most people in academia know very well where GT stands. While I
honestly
> > > don't think GT is the exact counterpart of MIT in the South, one has
to be
> > > more biased than FOX news to say it's a trade school. As a Math TA and
a
> >
> > How did FOX news get into this thread? And why do you see a need to
qualify
> > FOX news as being biased? Aren't all news providers biased?
>
> A news provider which insists on proven lies being the truth just
READ, PLEASE:
How did FOX news get into this thread? And why do you see a need to qualify
FOX news as being biased? Aren't all news providers biased?
Abe
Ram Lau
qualify
> FOX news as being biased? Aren't all news providers biased?
Because I couldn't find a word that combines the meanings of biased and
shameless in the dictionary. NPR is almost as biased, but the difference is
that FOX news has substantially less shame.
> Second-year senior? Do you mean sophomore or you mean fifth-year
> undergraduate?
A senior with more than 120 credit hours and in the fifth undergraduate
year. Or "fifth-year" senior if that sounds better to you.
> Feel free to clarify misconceptions, but don't add to the confusion by
> bringing in irrelevant statements about FOX news.
Where's the confusion?
Ram Lau
of students who can't excel in academics. There are also many Tech students
who were accepted by other top colleges (Mich, UIUC, Duke, WashU, and such)
but chose Tech, and they later found out that engineering was not to their
liking. As a result, Tech students are unhappy for many different reasons.
And then, some are just outraged by their outrage.
rick++
> but why would a student waste money on studying humanities as a MAJOR at
> MIT? There is an excellent school at the other end of Cambridge providing a
> liberal arts education.
A couple of the humanities majors are world class. An MIT economics grad
runs Harvard; a poly-sci grad was Clinton & Bush's terrorism czar.
Mostly I'd say inertia. These humanities students were likely top math &
science students at the their high schools and people encouraged them
to try a school like MIT. But mid-way they discovered they didnt want
to be an engineer or scientists, but already had deep roots at MIT.
KSG
Of course he would have been right on if he said "one has to be more
biased than Stanford and their affirmitive discrimination that kept me
out of business school despite being the worst white applicant of the
bunch, but surely there was at least one black person I outclassed, to
say that GT is a trade school."
KSG
KSG
> Tech. Best of luck.
Your statement doesn't logically make sense following my post. Based
on my post you should have recommended Berkeley, Stanford, or MIT...
or maybe UCSD, UofWash, and maybe a couple of others.
It seems the truth hit a nerve with you.
KSG
Abe Kohen
"rick++" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7422d8e.04062...@posting.google.com...
> > A smart student at MIT (and almost all are) can ace any humanities
course,
> > but why would a student waste money on studying humanities as a MAJOR at
> > MIT? There is an excellent school at the other end of Cambridge
providing a
> > liberal arts education.
>
> A couple of the humanities majors are world class. An MIT economics grad
> runs Harvard; a poly-sci grad was Clinton & Bush's terrorism czar.
First, I would exclude Course 14 from "humanities." It ain't exactly science
or engineering, but neither is it "humanities," which would include the
likes of Course 17 and 21s.
BTW, who was Clinton/Bush's terror czar?
Abe
Abe Kohen
"KSG" <ksg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f55f01d6.04062...@posting.google.com...
The mental midget strikes again.
The school was Berkeley, and I did get in, after speaking with Dean
Balderston, who noted my stellar qualifications.
The Dean was not enamored by the social engineers thrusting mental welfare
beneficiaries into the Biz school.
Abe
Abe Kohen
news:<b4809df5.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> > If that's what you think, then you and yours should go to Georgia
> > Tech. Best of luck.
>
> Your statement doesn't logically make sense following my post. Based
While I disagree with thc on the issue, his statement makes absolute sense
to anyone with analytical skills.
Abe
Su Jin Gatlin
Abe -- calm down. Comments like "the mental midget strikes again" makes you
look like the mental midget.
Can't we get back to the debate?? I know Abe is going to claim that the Fox
news comment is what brought things off course, but it the comparison was
simply used to illustrate a (relevant and on-topic) point. Who cares
whether you agree or not, or if you feel better illustrations exist? I sure
don't.
Back to Georgia Tech vs. Berkeley, please!
On 6/21/04 7:46 PM, in article 2jpkqpF...@uni-berlin.de, "Abe Kohen"
Su Jin Gatlin
put-downs may be valid arguments where ever you're debating, they're not
here.
Explain how KSG is wrong in how his post would not lead a reader to believe
that he'd suggest Berkeley, Stanford, or where ever else he said and not
Georgia Tech.
Let's get this thread back on track....
On 6/21/04 7:49 PM, in article 2jpkvnF...@uni-berlin.de, "Abe Kohen"
thc
different, no better, no worse, than any other tech school. If ones
ability to logically discriminate - that is understand the differences
- between one school and another, if that is what KSG (or anyone)
thinks, then GT is the perfect school. He will not know what he is
missing, and he is likely to be part of the 50% who think they had a
good educational experience, as opposed to the 50% who wish they'd
gone to a different college. I've posted two articles in this thread,
both written in the Georgia Tech student newspaper, that suggest there
are differences in tech schools, and Georgia Tech students are well
aware of the differences.
KSG
Explain how thc's comment makes logical sense following my post? It
doesn't. It makes sense only from thc's perspective, because he
doesn't like GT. But my post did not attribute any special standing
to Georgia Tech, but it did to five or six other colleges (none of
which were GT).
The only thing my post does is to make clear that GTs lack of startups
is NOT indicative of it being a collegiate outlier, rather it fits in
the general population.
How does thc's statement then follow?
thc's statement would follow if I stated that GT in fact did excel
beyond the norm (or if he was being particularly vicious, if I said
that GT had low standards -- or something to that effect). I stated
neither.
KSG
KSG
What makes you think that I was referring specifically to your
situation? Touchy touchy touchy Abe. ;-)
By the way can you remind me again of how you were the worst qualified
white student at ... Berkeley was it? So let me get this straight --
you were the worst qualified white student, but apparently you were
NOT the worst qualified of the mental welfare applicants. I'm
impressed!
KSG
Ram Lau
KSG
> KSG was defending Georgia Tech with the old saw that GT is no
> different, no better, no worse, than any other tech school.
I did not make that argument. I actually believe, based on GT alums I
know of [including some who went on to get PhDs from MIT], GT is
better than most tech schools (although not MIT). But the statement I
made had nothing to do with the general quality of GT.
It had to do with the characterization of the school, and the startups
from the school. My post was relatively short so it should have been
obvious to anyone who read it.
Actually if you attended Georgia Tech, that in itself might be the
best reason to not attend the school. I'd hate to think that your
level of literacy and analytic skills is indicative of what is taught.
cth's next post: "GT sucks! Just look at me, I went there!"
KSG
KSG
> LOL! Do you watch Jon Stewart sometimes, KSG?
I think I've seen it before, but I don't watch it regularly. Although
I've heard he is excellent.
I do watch The Chappelle Show on the Comedy Central -- What most
people don't know is that it was originally slated to be the Abe Cohen
Show. But before the first pilot aired, the head of Comedy Central
realized that they didn't fill their black mental welfare midget
quota, so they hired David Chapelle to take his spot.
Oddly the Fox News Network is all mental welfare midgets... apparently
someone didn't tell them that they already met their quota a long time
ago. :-)
KSG
Ram Lau
completely off-topic:
"Lets talk about the real world for a moment. We had been discussing it
earlier, and I... I wanted to bring this up to you earlier about the real
world, and this is I guess as good a time as any. I don't really know to put
this, so I'll be blunt. We broke it. Please don't be mad. I know we were
supposed to bequeath to the next generation a world better than the one we
were handed. So, sorry. I don't know if you've been following the news
lately, but it just kinda got away from us. Somewhere between the gold rush
of easy internet profits and an arrogant sense of endless empire, we heard
kind of a pinging noise, and uh, then the damn thing just died on us. So I
apologize. But here's the good news. You fix this thing, you're the next
greatest generation, people. You do this--and I believe you can--you win
this war on terror, and Tom Brokaw's kissing your ass from here to Tikrit,
let me tell ya. And even if you don't, you're not gonna have much trouble
surpassing my generation. If you end up getting your picture taken next to a
naked guy pile of enemy prisoners and don't give the thumbs up you've outdid
us."
Jon Stewart ('84), 2004 Commencement Speech at the College of William and
Mary
Gymd...@webtv.net
OR
Go to Berkeley and get an education.
Gee I know which one George W Bush would go to. Do You?
Ram Lau
which one GW Bush would go to, probably neither. But he went to Yale and
Harvard with his then-Congressman father's help.
thc
> Jimmy Carter the "illiterate hillbilly" did go to Georgia Tech.
And like many/most GT students (50% according to
www.studentsreview.com) would do if they could - Jimmy Carter got the
Hell out of there. Never looking back, he got his education in
Annapolis, MD, and graduated from Navy.
Ram Lau
> www.studentsreview.com) would do if they could - Jimmy Carter got the
> Hell out of there. Never looking back, he got his education in
> Annapolis, MD, and graduated from Navy.
According to www.studentsreviewscientificpollisapieceofshit.com, the vast
majority of the GT students and alums did not and/or would not participate
in the survey conducted by www.studentsreview.com.
It also states that Jimmy Carter went to Tech as a naval ROTC student to
receive his education in nuclear physics, and went on to fulfill his
childhood dream of entering the Naval Academy on appointment to finish his
undergraduate study. He looked back often and received the Ivan Allen Award
at Georgia Tech in 2002. In his memoir "An Hour Before Daylight" Carter
wrote that he "enjoyed the first 5 years of [his] scholastic education in a
one-room country school and cherish the skills and friendships acquired" in
Plains, Georgia, and later on said the following:
"Georgia Tech was the best school in the nation to prepare me for the Naval
Academy," he said. "I took the most advanced courses I could in chemistry
and physics. The Tech experience was wonderful for me. Tech was much more
difficult academically than I thought it would be. I've been to four
universities, and Tech was the most difficult. I made fairly good grades
because I was a dedicated student."
http://www.gatech.edu/presidential-visit/presidential-history.html
By the way, here is the quote of the week:
"Go fuck yourself." - Dick Cheney, U.S. Senate, 6/22/04.
Ram Lau
> www.studentsreview.com) would do if they could - Jimmy Carter got the
> Hell out of there. Never looking back, he got his education in
> Annapolis, MD, and graduated from Navy.
According to www.studentsreviewscientificpollisapieceofshit.com, the vast
majority of the GT students and alums did not and/or would not participate
in the survey conducted by www.studentsreview.com.
It also states that Jimmy Carter went to Tech as a naval ROTC student to
receive his education in nuclear physics, and went on to fulfill his
childhood dream of entering the Naval Academy on appointment to finish his
undergraduate study. He looked back often and received the Ivan Allen Award
at Georgia Tech in 2002. In his memoir "An Hour Before Daylight" Carter
wrote that he "enjoyed the first 5 years of [his] scholastic education in a
one-room country school and cherish the skills and friendships acquired" in
Plains, Georgia, and later on said the following:
"Georgia Tech was the best school in the nation to prepare me for the Naval
Academy," he said. "I took the most advanced courses I could in chemistry
and physics. The Tech experience was wonderful for me. Tech was much more
difficult academically than I thought it would be. I've been to four
universities, and Tech was the most difficult. I made fairly good grades
because I was a dedicated student."
http://www.gatech.edu/presidential-visit/presidential-history.html
By the way, here is the quote of the week:
"Go fu-k yourself." - Dick Cheney, U.S. Senate, 6/22/04.
(This is a sanitized version.)
Abe Kohen
"KSG" <ksg...@hotmail.com> wrote> > > "Abe Kohen" <ako...@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote
> > > > "David Haardt" <haar...@gmx.at> wrote
While Affirmative Discrimination may help some unqualified students to be
admitted, it cannot, and often does not, close the reason comprehension gap.
As has been reported in various articles and in posts to this ng, disparate
impact on various ethnic groups in the application of affirmative
discrimination, results in students with the highest qualifications being
rejected. Dean Balderston recognized this, and encouraged me to reapply.
Abe
Abe Kohen
"Ram Lau" <ram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g9rDc.29695$Y3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
It's too bad that neither Georgia Tech nor the Naval Academy prepared Carter
for the presidency.
Abe
Ram Lau
Carter
> for the presidency.
At least he learned not to bankrupt the country he loves, unlike Reagan and
Bush II. And yes, he was a part of the effort to tear down the Berlin Wall.
It didn't come down because Nancy Reagan the ventriloquist said so.
Abe Kohen
Then why do you think Reagan won by overwhelming majorities in 1980 and in
1984? America was voting for presidential leadership after it (and myself
included) made the mistake of voting for the sorry excuse of a candidate in
1976.
Jimmy Carter was run out of office because of his handling of the Iran
hostage debacle, brought upon because of his failure to support the Shah of
Iran, and the reason why Iran is a threat to world peace today. (Reagan
sided with Saddam Hussein in Iraq's war with Iran, only because he thought
it was the lesser of two evils. Support Saddam or support the Ayatola
Homeini. Bad choice either way.)
Abe
Abe Kohen
> > "second-year senior" ???? This was published in The Technique, the
> > Georgia Tech student newspaper last winter...
> >
> >
> > Tech's moniker reveals its true history
> >
> > By Karl Guertin
> > Online Editor
> > ATLANTA
> > February 13, 2004
>
> This article hardly says anything not known. It says that Tech is a
> tech school and has the characteristics of tech schools.
>
> How many "take the world by storm" start-ups can you name from
> Princeton, Cornell, Brown, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, or Duke?
>
> Stanford, Berkeley, and MIT are rare in their startup appeal, but
> really they stand apart from most every other university on the planet
> in this respect (with places like UCSD, UofWash, Harvard, and a couple
> of others now making inroads).
As someone with ties to all 3 schools, I must still take exception with the
statements above.
Apple was founded by 2 graduates of the school of hard knocks. The Woz went
back to school (under an alias) to get his BS (at Cal) after founding Apple.
Microsoft was founded by a Harvard dropout - way back then.
Larry Ellison of Oracle - U of Chicago. Wait a minute! Did you say Chicago?
What about all the companies started by India Institute of Technology
alumni?
Abe
Ram Lau
1. He was an actor, and America always loves the actor-turn-politicians.
2. He supported Barry Goldwater in 1964 and was against the Civil Rights
Act. White America loved that.
3. He adopted the same Southern Strategy that even worked for Nixon in 1968.
4. The entire 1970s was a very bad decade after all the turmoils, and Carter
just happened to be the last President who had to deal with the downtrend.
5. Reagan got shot and martyrized. His popularity surged.
6. Paul Volcker saved his ass from the crooks like David Stockman.
7. He really knew how to act like a President.
8. The "Wall" had already collasped when the weak-ass Gorbahev became the
leader of the other side.
9. "Star Wars" just sounded so cool.
10. 8 consecutive years of deficit spending definitely made people happy.
Who cares about what would happen 50 years?
I have no comment on your opinions. My only comment is that he is almost as
overrated as JFK.
Reagan the Overrated
By Mike Hersh
Apr 5, 2004
Let's begin our examination of the real Reagan Legacy by taking a look at
myth number one: Democrats dominated Congress all through Reagan's terms,
and called all his budgets Dead On Arrival.
That's numerically and historically false. Reagan's people shoved his
program through the Congress during the early Reagan years. James A. Baker,
David Stockman and other Reaganites ran roughshod over Tip O'Neill and the
divided Democrats in the House and Senate, and won every critical vote. This
is because of the GOP majority in the Senate and the GOP-"Boll Weevil" (or
"Dixiecrat") coalition in the House.
Phil Gramm was a House Democrat at the time, and he even sponsored the most
important Reagan budgets. Only after the huge Reagan recession -- made worse
by utterly failed Reagan "Voodoo Economics" - did Democrats regain some
control in Congress. They halted some Reagan initiatives, but couldn't do
much on their own. That was a time of gridlock.
Six years into Reagan's presidency, Democrats retook the Senate, and began
to reverse some of Reagan's horrendous policies. By that time, Reaganomics
had "accomplished" quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L
crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.
Which brings us to myth number two: Jimmy Carter wrecked the economy, and
Reagan's bold tax cuts saved it. This is utterly absurd. Economic growth
indices -- GDP, jobs, revenues -- were all positive when Carter left office.
All plunged after Reagan policies took effect.
Reagan didn't cure inflation, the main economic problem during the Carter
years. Carter's Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker tried when he raised
interest rates. That's the opposite of what Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has
done to keep inflation low.
Carter's policies and people fought inflation, but maintained real growth.
On the other hand, Reagan's policies helped cause the worst recession since
the Great Depression: two bleak years with nearly double-digit unemployment!
Reaganomics failed in less than a year, and it took an entire second year
for the economy to recover from the failure.
Carter didn't cause the inflation problem, but his tough policies and smart
personnel solved it. Unfortunately for Carter, it took too long for the good
results to kick in. Not only didn't Reagan help whip inflation, he actually
opposed the Volcker policies!
Another major myth: Reagan cut taxes on all Americans, and that led to a
great expansion. Here's the truth: the total federal tax burden increased
during the Reagan years, and most Americans paid more in taxes after Reagan
than before. The "Reagan Recovery" was unremarkable. It looks great only
contrasted against the dismal Reagan Recession -- but it had nothing to do
with Supply Side voodoo.
With a red ink explosion -- $300 BILLION deficits looming as far as the eye
could see -- GOP Senators, notably including Bob Dole, led the way on tax
hikes. The economy enjoyed its recovery only after total tax increases
larger than the total tax cuts were implemented. Most importantly, average
annual GDP growth during the Reagan 80s was lower than during the Clinton
90s or the JFK-LBJ 60s!
Enough about the economy. Here's the biggest myth of them all: Ronald Reagan
won the "Cold War". In reality, Reagan did nothing to bring down the Soviet
Union.
By 1980, the Soviet Union was trying to cut its own defense spending. Reagan
made it harder for them to do so. In fact, Reagan increased the possibility
of a nuclear war because he was -- frankly, and sadly -- senile. He thought
we could actually recall submarine-launched nuclear missiles (talk about a
Reagan myth), and bullied the Soviets to highest alert several times.
Critically, Reagan never even tried to bring down the Soviet Union. Blind
hero worship of Reagan - which ignores the facts and spouts pure fantasy -
is a testimony to the great Reagan public relations operation. Reagan's
handlers were among the best at putting the best spin on events, and in
Reagan they had a trained actor able to hit his mark and fake any emotion
they needed at the time.
Reagan clearly did NOT win the Cold War. It's foolish to claim that anything
he did decisively undermined the Soviet Union. In fact, Reagan lifted
crushing sanctions Carter put on the USSR, enabling them to stave off their
hard currency crunch. Reagan rhetoric aside, he actually made the USSR
stronger than they would have been.
Reagan's aggressiveness undermined Soviets with a cooperative bent like
Gorbachev and empowered hard-liners in the USSR. Reagan's "jokes" about
attacking the Soviets nearly provoked WW III as Andropov put their nuclear
missiles on the highest alert - closest to launch.
Reagan didn't "win the cold war" - in fact he didn't even try to defeat the
USSR. Reagan claimed the USSR was a threat to attack the USA, and even
insisted the Soviet Union had a more powerful military. Reagan called this
"the Window of Vulnerability."
After Reagan left office, he visited the USSR where he said it was no longer
"the Evil Empire" and predicted his "friend" Gorbachev would continue to
lead the USSR for many years to come.
Mere months later, a surprise kidnapping / coup swept the Soviets from
power. Nothing Reagan did made that fluke more likely and nothing Reagan did
made certain that the hard-right conspiracy would fail when Boris Yeltsin
stood up to the tanks.
It could have easily turned the other way, with a junta of generals
prevailing and heating up the Cold War. Reagan didn't win the Cold War,
we're lucky he didn't start WW III. The bravery of Yeltsin and Gorbachev,
rather than anything Reagan did, brought about freedom in the former Soviet
empire.
Wasteful overspending on defense didn't end the Soviet Union. In fact, it
played into the hands of authoritarian "Communist" hard-liners in the
Kremlin. Reagan thought the Soviet Union was more powerful than we were. He
was trying to close what he called "the window of vulnerability."
This was sheer idiocy. No general in our military would trade our armed
forces for theirs. If it were to happen, none of the Soviet military command
would turn down that deal. We had better systems, better troops, and better
morale.
Here's the truth: we'd already won the Cold War before Reagan took office.
All Reagan needed to do was continue the tried-and-true containment policies
Harry S. Truman began and all subsequent presidents employed. The Soviet
Union was Collapsing from within. The CIA actually told this to Reagan as he
took office.
Here's an example: the Soviet Union military couldn't deal with a weak state
on its own border, the poor, undermanned Afghanistan. Most of the Soviets'
military might had to make sure its "allies" in the Warsaw Pact and subjects
along the South Asian front didn't revolt. Even Richard Nixon told Reagan he
could balance the budget with big defense cuts. Reagan ignored this, and
wrecked our budget.
We didn't have to increase weapons spending, but Reagan didn't care. He ran
away from summits with the dying old-guard Soviets, and the new-style
"glasnost" leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev baffled the witless Reagan and
his closed-minded extremist advisors.
Maggie Thatcher finally cajoled the Gipper into meeting Gorby, and Gorby
cleaned Reagan's clock. Reagan's hard-right "handlers" nearly had to drag
Reagan out of the room before he signed away our entire nuclear deterrent.
Reagan -- and the planet -- was lucky Gorbachev sought genuine and stable
peace. Had Yuri Andropov's health held, Reagan's "jokes" and gaffes might
have caused World War III.
Eventually Reagan even gave Gorbachev his seal of approval. Visiting Moscow
before the August Coup, Reagan said the Soviet Union was no longer the "Evil
Empire." He predicted his friend Gorbachev would lead the Soviet Union for
many years to come.
As usual, Reagan was wrong. A few months later, disgruntled military
officers kidnapped Gorbachev, throwing him out of power forever. Reagan
remained disengaged: nothing he did caused the coup, and nothing he did made
the Soviet military support Boris Yeltsin over their superiors. We're all
fortunate things happened as they did -- but once again, Reagan did nothing
to make this fluke more likely.
All this is vintage Reagan. Reagan took credit for others' hard word and
hard choices, and blamed them for his failures. Reagan even blamed Jimmy
Carter for Reagan's foolish, fatal, and reckless decision to leave 243
Marines stationed in Beirut, helpless and unguarded.
Reagan hired over 100 crooks to run our government, and broke several laws
himself. His policies were almost uniformly self-defeating, wrong-headed,
immoral and unfair.
Reagan was an actor playing the part of the president. He was style over
substance; lucky, not good. And once the myths are stripped from the
"legacy", the truth becomes obvious: Reagan was by far the most overrated
man in American history.
Abe Kohen
"Ram Lau" <ram...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> I have no comment on your opinions. My only comment is that he is almost
as
> overrated as JFK.
>
>
> Reagan the Overrated
> By Mike Hersh
> Apr 5, 2004
Who is Mike Hersh and from what source is this taken?
Abe
Ram Lau
thc
Michael Moore proves otherwise....
Ram Lau
> Michael Moore proves otherwise....
Wait and see what will happen when people start questioning the Bush family
about their relationships with James Bath, the bin Ladens, and the
businesses with the Saudis since the Watergate era. They still haven't
publicly denied the specific claims Moore made in the movie.
They want to use silent to counter the bitter truth.
Ram Lau
Abe Kohen
"Ram Lau" <ram...@yahoo.com> wrote
> http://www.mikehersh.com/
He seems to have NO credentials - just a kook with a web site.
KSG
> "KSG" <ksg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f55f01d6.04061...@posting.google.com...
> > cthc...@aol.com (thc) wrote in message
> news:<b4809df5.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "second-year senior" ???? This was published in The Technique, the
> > > Georgia Tech student newspaper last winter...
> > >
> > >
> > > Tech's moniker reveals its true history
> > >
> > > By Karl Guertin
> > > Online Editor
> > > ATLANTA
> > > February 13, 2004
> >
> > This article hardly says anything not known. It says that Tech is a
> > tech school and has the characteristics of tech schools.
> >
> > How many "take the world by storm" start-ups can you name from
> > Princeton, Cornell, Brown, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, or Duke?
> >
> > Stanford, Berkeley, and MIT are rare in their startup appeal, but
> > really they stand apart from most every other university on the planet
> > in this respect (with places like UCSD, UofWash, Harvard, and a couple
> > of others now making inroads).
>
> As someone with ties to all 3 schools, I must still take exception with the
> statements above.
>
> Apple was founded by 2 graduates of the school of hard knocks. The Woz went
> back to school (under an alias) to get his BS (at Cal) after founding Apple.
>
> Microsoft was founded by a Harvard dropout - way back then.
It's the culture and self-selection, not the "degree" that matters.
Woz, Gates, and Allen attended schools rich with startup history.
> Larry Ellison of Oracle - U of Chicago. Wait a minute! Did you say Chicago?
Well we can exclude Chicago if we only count companies that make a
decent product ;-)
Really though, there are a lot of companies in this world. It's like
asking what schools tend to produce US presidents. If you said Yale,
Princeton, Harvard -- well you'd be right. With that said there are
presidents who went to Ohio Central and Union. The same could be said
for Fortune 500 CEOs.
> What about all the companies started by India Institute of Technology
> alumni?
For non-US universities I'm sure there were plenty others.
Thanks,
KSG
Ram Lau
College. At least they don't teach Voodoo Economics at Cornell as I know.
Reagan is that overrated, and Hersh did a good job explaining it even with
no mention about Reagan's Southern Strategy.
thc
Don't you go to Georgia Tech? Oh what a gift... to see ourselves as
others see us...
I refer you to the current www.theonion.com for how the real world
sees Georgia and Georgia Tech.
Jim
graduated in 2001 with a bachelors in computer engineering.
I don't think others understand that Tech students really like to
complain...I think there is a general sense of cynism among the
students...when I was at Tech, my friends and I didn't think we would
have picked Tech if we had to do it again...I definitely wasn't sure
Tech was worth all the stress...but all the students coming in knew
that Ma Tech was going to be tough. Its not a surprise that Tech is in
the middle of Atlanta and crime can be a problem...its not a surprise
that the ratio of male to female students is majorly off...its not a
surprise that like most research schools, professors can be a little
hard to deal with...I think Tech just attracts a certain kind of
personality that likes and can deal with challenges.
You know what? I hope my kids go to Tech...if they can put up with the
hassle and stress of Tech, and get out with a decent GPA, they can
handle whatever life throws at them.
> as a side note at www.studentsreview.com Georgia Tech has 116 reviews
> and comments - 52 say they would go to the school again, 54 say they
> wish they had gone somewhere else. As this is a discussion of Georgia
> Tech vs other technology schools, MIT has 99 reviews and comments - at
> MIT 69 students say they would go there again, while 20 say they wish
> they had never stepped foot on on MIT's campus - some difference ,
> don't you think? Sounds like the average MIT student is much happier
> with his or her education and college experience, than the average GT
> student...
thc
> First time poster here...thought I'd pipe in since I went to Tech and
> graduated in 2001 with a bachelors in computer engineering.
>
> I don't think others understand that Tech students really like to
> complain...I think there is a general sense of cynism among the
> students...when I was at Tech, my friends and I didn't think we would
> have picked Tech if we had to do it again...I definitely wasn't sure
> Tech was worth all the stress...but all the students coming in knew
> that Ma Tech was going to be tough. Its not a surprise that Tech is in
> the middle of Atlanta and crime can be a problem...its not a surprise
> that the ratio of male to female students is majorly off...its not a
> surprise that like most research schools, professors can be a little
> hard to deal with...I think Tech just attracts a certain kind of
> personality that likes and can deal with challenges.
>
> You know what? I hope my kids go to Tech...if they can put up with the
> hassle and stress of Tech, and get out with a decent GPA, they can
> handle whatever life throws at them.
This is what I call the boot camp defense. "I hated every second of
boot camp or Georgia Tech, but it made me a better person." Fair
enough. If that is what you want for your son or daughter - then,
sincerely, all the best to you, and I wish your kids the best, as
well. I want something very much different for my kid's education (and
estimated $150,000 it takes for 5 or 6 years of out-of-state expenses)
than survival of the fittest. My only point in posting here is that
parents and students considering Georgia Tech go in eyes-open, as
educated consumers - not dupes of admission's office propaganda. 70%
of the students at GT are Georgia kids on full scholarships (98% this
in-coming freshman class), many/most without other options - If they
survive the 5 or 6 years it takes to get an undergrad degree, they'll
get an ok, even a good, degree (as long as it is in engineering) - but
that depends more on the quality and character of the student, than on
the school. The problem is the way that GT markets itself to the
out-of-state, out-of-country 30% the school needs to survive - as a
world class research institute, offering a world class college
education and experience - at a bagain basement price - and that is
just not true. Georgia Tech undergrad is a regional college, with
regional perspective, an ugly and dangerous inner city campus with
professors and administration that don't care, that about 50% of the
students manage to survive without post-truamatic stress
syndrome...and its expensive. You don't get what you pay for - unless
you are a Georgia kid paying nothing. At that price, you do get what
you pay for.
Ram Lau
> sees Georgia and Georgia Tech.
Huh? I'm really lost. I just somehow cannot connect all these four nouns in
one logical sentence like you did. I think even Abe can't help you out on
this one.
Ram Lau
trade school. Most just do not agree with you here. It doesn't feel good to
be a minority, I know.
Jim
> boot camp or Georgia Tech, but it made me a better person." Fair
> enough. If that is what you want for your son or daughter - then,
Describing it as a boot camp mentality is exactly right. But thats the
good part about it. Tech engineering is simply not a place where you
can "explore" your options. If a potential student isn't sure they
want to study engineering, he should definitely not come to Tech.
About hating Tech, I think part of the problem is that Tech students
like to complain. Its kind of what you are supposed to do. Its
something hard to explain if you have nothing to do with Tech. Tech
student have the attitude that Tech is supposed to be tough.
Up till about 3 or 4 years ago, the school didn't even enforce
prerequisites. Any student could pretty much take any class in their
major. I took a couple of senior-level courses as a sophomore, even
though I had not taken the prereqs. That was kind of the attitude of
the school. The school had a general plan of courses that a student
should take and expected the student to be responsible enough to
follow it. Lots of kids didn't and lots of kids failed out. Thats just
the kind of place that Tech is.
> sincerely, all the best to you, and I wish your kids the best, as
> well. I want something very much different for my kid's education (and
> estimated $150,000 it takes for 5 or 6 years of out-of-state expenses)
> than survival of the fittest. My only point in posting here is that
There are plenty of kids that graduate in 4 years. I'm sure part of
the problem is that Hope Scholarship pays for most of the kids, and it
isn't costing them to stay an extra year. Also, there about 3000 kids
co-oping. 5 year or 6 years isn't a stretch anymore.
> parents and students considering Georgia Tech go in eyes-open, as
> educated consumers - not dupes of admission's office propaganda. 70%
> of the students at GT are Georgia kids on full scholarships (98% this
> in-coming freshman class), many/most without other options - If they
Unless you have some sort of proof to back up your "many/most without
other options" comment, I'm gonna assume you made it up. It is fair to
say that a lot of Georgia residents didn't apply to many schools if
they got into Tech. Thats not the same thing as saying they didn't
have any options.
> just not true. Georgia Tech undergrad is a regional college, with
> regional perspective, an ugly and dangerous inner city campus with
What does that regional college comment mean? Its a state school...and
by mandate most of the student have to be from Georgia. Are you saying
that most of the students don't leave Georgia? Thats not really true.
I don't have the link but I believe 40% of Tech students leave the
state because their jobs are elsewhere around the country. As far as
an ugly campus goes, Tech will spend over the next 2 years and has
spent over the last 5 years around $500M on new buildings. You should
stop by, its kinda nice ;-)
>You don't get what you pay for - unless
> you are a Georgia kid paying nothing. At that price, you do get what
> you pay for.
I missed these couple of lines the first time I read it, otherwise I
wouldn't have replied at all. It honestly seems like you have serious
vendetta against Tech. I'm new to this newsgroup, but this just sounds
personal.
thc
> good part about it.
I think that is that bad part about it - a school is a place to be
educated - not survival of the fittest - or sink or swim - that is not
to say that some will swim and be better for it - school of hard
knocks is just not what I consider education.
Tech engineering is simply not a place where you
> can "explore" your options. If a potential student isn't sure they
> want to study engineering, he should definitely not come to Tech.
I agree 100%, but Tech admissions markets the school as a place where
you can explore your options - where you can get a (nearly worthless)
degree in history, foreign languages, psychology, English literature,
business....whatever. We both know riding the M Train may get you a GT
degree, but it is not one that anyone - especially - GT engineers -
respects.
> About hating Tech, I think part of the problem is that Tech students
> like to complain.
Visit any college campus. All students like to complain. Tech students
complain more because they have more to compain about.
Re: vendetta??? - I have nothing against Tech students - they are some
of the finest young men and women I know - but they are getting the
Shaft - left and right - and prospective parents and students should
know that before they arrive in Mid-town. There are reasons (and it is
not me) that Georgia Tech shows up poorly on dozens of websites,
guidebooks (ISI & PR) and almost every student survey -
studentsreview, princeton review, gtsux, the FBI crime report,
Hispanic and African-American recommended colleges to name a few. The
Tech Shaft is real.
Jim
> > Describing it as a boot camp mentality is exactly right. But thats the
> > good part about it.
>
> I think that is that bad part about it - a school is a place to be
> educated - not survival of the fittest
Wow, so are you saying that I'm uneducated since I went to Tech? Tech
is like any other school, you can get by putting in minimal effort and
learn absolutely nothing. This isn't a school that will hold your
hands. Thats all there is to it.
> I agree 100%, but Tech admissions markets the school as a place where
> you can explore your options - where you can get a (nearly worthless)
> degree in history, foreign languages, psychology, English literature,
> business....whatever. We both know riding the M Train may get you a GT
> degree, but it is not one that anyone - especially - GT engineers -
> respects.
I wouldn't be worried about what GT engineers respect. Students refer
to the industrial engineering department (which is ranked #1 by USNews
for whatever thats worth) as imaginary engineering and a big
percentage of the IE students started in other majors, only to become
IEs in the end. So, making fun of the M Train is nothing big.
I don't know about the foreign languages and english department, but
there a plenty of history students who head to law school after Tech.
No clue about the psych department either, but I know at least 2 grads
who are in PhD program at UIUC...so I assume the undergrad program
isn't that bad ;-)
> not me) that Georgia Tech shows up poorly on dozens of websites,
> guidebooks (ISI & PR) and almost every student survey -
> studentsreview, princeton review, gtsux, the FBI crime report,
Are you serious? you just used he gtsux site to make a point? This is
a quote from the site:
"If that's not bad enough, take a look at the kind of gay ass problems
they give for homework. How much homosexuality can a guy take?"
Excellent point of reference.
What is the FBI crime report you are referring to? Crime is
unfortunately going to be a problem. Its an open campus in the middle
of Atlanta. And pleae don't tell me parents get duped by the
admissions office.
thc
Nothing of the sort. I'm saying that there are better ways to get an
education than a "boot camp survival of the fittest" philosphy of
education. The fact that you got a degree from GT says much more about
the quality of your character, than it does about the quality of
Georgia Tech. In the top 100 US News schools, GT ranks at the very
bottom for freshman retention and for percentage of students
graduating in 6 years. 90-plus of the other top 100 schools do a
better job of fullfilling their promise to entering students to
educate. Last year the Wall Street Journal did a survey of which
colleges act as feeder schools to the nation's top law, business and
medical schools. Georgia Tech was #70, or so, on the list, with fewer
than 1% going on to the better professional schools.
> Are you serious? you just used he gtsux site to make a point?
The point is, what is it about the GT learning environment that
inspires that level of student anger? I showed this site to an
academic friend who writes about higher education. His reaction was
"Wow. I've seen negative websites about other schools, but none this
bitter and acerbic." The administration takes the site seriously. The
creator was threatened with a law suit and the site was discussed in a
Jan. 2003 report on the wave of negative publicity GT has recieved.
(Do a search on the GaTech website for "negative publicity") You said
yourself that your experience at GT was not that good, but after a few
years, you've come to see the value of that experience. I can't argue
with that, but it is not what I want for my family.
>
> What is the FBI crime report you are referring to?
11/13/03 – Creative Loafing on FBI crime report naming Georgia Tech
the #4 most dangerous and crime ridden campus in the United States
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-11-13/news_feature2.html
For more detailed information, a quick search of Technique archives
will show you dozens of stories about rising crime on campus, auto
theft, armed robbery in dormatories, sexual assault, hate crime, etc.
I don't expect any of this will convince you any more than you can
change my way of thinking. Two people can look at the same set of
facts, and based on their experience, come to different conclusions.
Reasonable people can disagree.
KSG
> Wow, so are you saying that I'm uneducated since I went to Tech?
>
> Nothing of the sort. I'm saying that there are better ways to get an
> education than a "boot camp survival of the fittest" philosphy of
> education. The fact that you got a degree from GT says much more about
> the quality of your character, than it does about the quality of
> Georgia Tech. In the top 100 US News schools, GT ranks at the very
> bottom for freshman retention and for percentage of students
> graduating in 6 years. 90-plus of the other top 100 schools do a
> better job of fullfilling their promise to entering students to
> educate. Last year the Wall Street Journal did a survey of which
> colleges act as feeder schools to the nation's top law, business and
> medical schools. Georgia Tech was #70, or so, on the list, with fewer
> than 1% going on to the better professional schools.
The data I've seen says that USNews ranks them 69th in graduation and
retention rate, not 90th+. Furthermore they rank #1 in alumni giving
for all public universities. You probably have more time to verify
these statements, but if they are true, can you explain this?
KSG
psantodo...@mka.org
> A Georgia Tech student, writing in Technique, details the differences.
>
> http://nique.net/issues/summer2004/2004-06-11/7.html
I just found this thread in 2018 and it just made my day.