You didn’t get into Georgia Tech? Blame Legislature for underfunding higher ed and voters for allowing it

The Regents announcecd a 2 percent increase at the state’s 28 public colleges today.

In the last two weeks, I’ve received emails from parents of accomplished students — high ACT/SAT scores, eight AP classes, 4.0 GPAs — who did not get into Georgia Tech, especially in the areas of computer science and engineering. This includes households where both parents graduated Tech, and, in some cases, a grandparent also attended.

A common complaint: Why does Tech turn down such outstanding Georgia kids in favor of students from other states or countries? Shouldn’t Tech give preference to in-state students since taxpayers fund the university?

Here is a rejoinder to that complaint from T.J. Murphy, who says Georgians have allowed the General Assembly to essentially starve the state’s public colleges, forcing these campuses to generate their own revenue, some of which they derive from the higher tuition of out-of-state students.

Murphy is the founder of the Atlanta-based Gradschoolmatch, which connects future graduate students with the people who run the graduate programs they should attend. He writes about trends in higher education at blog.gradschoolmatch.com. He also serves on the faculty of the Emory University School of Medicine.

By T.J. Murphy

The springtime admissions decisions are out and only 60 percent of entering students at the Georgia Institute of Technology will be Georgia residents. Many high achieving students in Georgia hoping to attend this truly premier educational institution are deeply disappointed, along with their parents.

What is going on here?

In my opinion, there are two principal drivers of this trend. The first is Georgia Tech’s pre-eminence as an engineering-focused research institution. Quite simply, it is among the top two or three such universities in the world.

The stellar reputation Georgia Tech enjoys allows the institution to define itself and its mission in less constrained ways. The admissions process, which is to bring together a highly accomplished and eclectic mix of new students, as described on this blog recently by Georgia Tech’s admissions director, is one of several important ways a university defines its trajectory.

The second driver is the continuing and relentless trend by political leaders across the country to divest their states from their public institutions of higher education. This trend is rooted largely in conservative political ideology and forces these institutions to increasingly fend for themselves.

Another consequence of this divestment trend is that students are required to shoulder a higher burden of the educational cost.

In 2000, appropriations from the state of Georgia totaled $2.85 for every dollar Georgia Tech collected in net tuition. In 2014, that number was down to $0.77 appropriation dollar for every dollar of tuition. This is not specific to Georgia Tech. The ratio at Georgia State went from $1.99 to $0.83 over that same period, whereas at University of Georgi went from $3.34 to $1.06.

I look at this number as a privatization ratio. As state appropriations get smaller relative to tuition collected, the state shoulders less of the cost of education. Thus, the public institution looks more and more like a private university.

At Georgia Tech, that ratio in 2014 is about one-fourth what it was 15 years before, whereas at Georgia State it is one-half. Thus, you could say that Georgia Tech is privatizing at a rate twice that of Georgia State. UGA is privatizing at a rate somewhat between the two other University System flagships.

As the institutions slowly privatize, they must become more resourceful. One important way is to diversify their various revenue streams. Thus, at Georgia Tech, 40 percent of the entering undergraduate class are non-resident students who pay tuition at roughly twice the rate of Georgia residents.

People are sometimes surprised to learn how multifaceted are these big institutions. At Georgia Tech, for example, tuition accounts for only 16 percent of its overall revenue. The cost of education accounts for only 25 percent of its spending. A lot of other things go on at Georgia Tech.

In 2014 state appropriations accounted for even less. Just 12 percent of revenue. In other words, 88 percent of Tech’s revenue comes from sources other than the state coffers. It is hard not to imagine that sometime in the future that state appropriations to Georgia Tech will be so low they will be on the scale of a rounding error.

Georgia Tech is moving forward, boldly and successfully, despite the ever lower contributions from the state. As it does so, it is less beholden to the state and its residents. They have a deep pool of strong non-resident applicants.

Their admissions practices, which close out state residents, are designed to help ensure the institution’s reputation continues to strengthen. They will be in a solid position when the day comes that state appropriations are truly minuscule.

The simple fact of the matter is that the voters in Georgia made this bed a long time ago. Georgia residents who have supported the existing political establishment can’t expect to have their cake and eat it, too. The seats they want for their children might have been there if they voted for a Legislature that provides these institutions the resources necessary to educate Georgia residents.

Georgia Tech and the other flagships have been slowly but surely cast adrift by Georgia politicians. These are very strong institutions run by incredibly talented people with clear visions of what a university can be. I don’t have any doubt that the Georgia public universities will grow stronger and make their marks in the world. There are many revenue streams out there that can replace those from the state.

But as Georgia residents reduce their investment in higher education, they force the same universities to diversify not only what they offer but to whom it will be offered. Georgia residents who want seats saved for their children should first demand that the divestment stops.

 

Reader Comments 10

203 comments
Dawn Leiser King
Dawn Leiser King

Since I have reached my limit of reading free posts and you block me from reading I will eliminate you from my news feed, how about that?

Carlos_Castillo
Carlos_Castillo

Golly!  I wonder how those other esteemed engineering schools -- the ones called MIT, Cal Tech and their hi-tech cousin, Stanford, survive as private schools?  Might it be they have larger endowments?


Their presidents are hired partially for their administrative expertise, but also for their fund raising prowess.  The composition of their Boards of Directors is quite different from that of state Boards of Regents, with the deep pockets winning at the private institutions.


Past a certain growth point, shouldn't schools like Tech and UGA  be tossed from the state subsidy crib?

DrTruth
DrTruth

@Carlos_Castillo According to the above, GT only receives 12% of its funding from state taxpayers while 60% of students are GA residents.

jerryeads
jerryeads

Nice analysis, DrT. The fact remains that Georgia - and many other states - have been reducing their proportion of funding for the operation of the state's colleges and universities for some time. 

SOME of that appears to be a function of Republicans letting infrastructure rot, including public education, a phenomenon closely related to the forked tongue of verbally pandering to high school dropout bigots while in reality doing nothing more than feeding off of (very) rich contributors for whom college tuition for their kids is pocket change - and who use HOPE support simply for the kids' bmw payments. 

But the other part of the equation seems to be the skyrocketing costs of Tier 1 shops competing for grant-mongering faculty who, for all intents and purposes, not only don't teach much of anybody, much less undergrads, but detest students' very existence. I don't decry their work - while most of it appears to be nothing more than petty gamesmanship and career advancement, a few good things come every now and then from "university research."

Admittedly, I have spent the last five years of my career at a small 4-year college taking home less than a quarter of what GT pays its bigwigs. But my take, having studied K-12 and higher ed as a policy wonk for many decades, is that kids would be FAR better off taking their undergrad work at "lesser" colleges and universities where faculty consider them as something more than cat poop stuck to their shoes, and then applying to 'big' schools for their graduate degrees.

Astropig
Astropig

@jerryeads


Note to educators of every stripe,at every level:


Read the above ^^ from this guy and vow to NEVER stay in your job or career long enough to get this bitter and full of hatred.


If you see nothing but the negative in every situation,you need another line of work.

AvgGeorgian
AvgGeorgian

Don't really understand why so many posters equate academic rigor with high level service to Georgians. The goal of a college is not to make it as academically difficult as possible - it is to to provide instruction that teaches skills and allows students to apply those skills. GT may or may not do that in its classes. My experience has been that most beginning engineers have few applicable skills, and those skills were most often learned in internship experiences. 


Do we have tracking data that shows the degree to which GT graduates contribute to the GA economy? Just wondering.

Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Not your child Kay Whitley Jankiewicz, but very interesting read. Just shows how truly great of an accomplishment Jordyn Jankiewicz achieved by just getting in at GT.

Surelyyoujest
Surelyyoujest

Part of the problem of "not getting admitted" rests with the applicants and their parents/advisors for not knowing how the game is played.  There are only so many "slots" for any major; hence, those who want to major in any of the engineering programs need to evaluate whether they stand a chance or a VERY GOOD chance of being admitted to that particular major area of study.  Then, they should apply for those majors that are not necessarily as competitive, and get into Tech first, then attempt to change majors AFTER they are in the school.  I say "attempt:" to change majors because not everyone is allowed to do so, nor are there enough people who flunk out of a particular major to allow for said transfers.  However, if someone who is already enrolled at Tech attempts to change majors, and they are compared to someone who is attempting to transfer into Tech, guess who gets first consideration for that particular major slot?

Dochara
Dochara

@Surelyyoujest Georgia Tech admits without regard to majors.  Major is only considered for transfers.

Joe Boisvert
Joe Boisvert

Regardless of how the state funds higher education, the only way that you can get more state residents into tech is to force state univs to have a cap on out of state residents. There is some rationale behind this - as state taxpayers fund the univ in some way. This is good in helping to keep in-state students in state. It's bad in that this may now allow the institutions to bring in the best talent from around the world if the caps are in place. However tuition is bound to go up as some of thei revenue will be cut in the form or higher tuition for out of state residents. An indirect benefit of this situation is that it does help drive the betterment of other major state universities in GA namely Ga State, Ga Southern and KSU. NC had a similar "problem" in that top in-state students were not getting into NC State or UNC CH. This did lead to some students going out of state but more importantly it helped better other sometimes overlooked schools like App State, UNC Greensboro and ECU.

JacketMan
JacketMan

It was also omitted that the Georgia Board of Regents is virtually comprised of all UGA alums who do everything in their power to help UGA and stick it to GA Tech, like allowing Georgia to expand their Major offerings to include Engineering (what GA Tech is known for) while refusing to expand Majors at GA Tech so they could also potentially attract a wider diversity of students, particularly for their athletic programs.

Surelyyoujest
Surelyyoujest

@JacketMan What a croc - you should get over your inferiority complex at some point before you expire....

DrTruth
DrTruth

You speak the truth! Been that way for decades. Obvious for those of us who saw it frequently during our time at Tech....

1SunnyD
1SunnyD

BOR

UGA - 7

Tech - 3

Ga So. 2

Morgan St. 1

ABAC 1

Valdosta St 1

Augusta Uni 1

Univ of South 2

All Ga. Residents. If Ga. Tech continues trend of increasing out of state/nation student acceptance, it's hard to see a increase in their numbers. These are political appointments. Gov will appt members to represent different areas of our state to suit political calculations.

State of Georgia needs to increase spending for our universities, and enlarge them. We are now nations 8th largest state. Our two flag ship schools need to grow. Tech and UGA are great institutions and I doubt any Dog fan or Tech fan would deny the other the funding or respect they are both due ( outside athletics).

We just have white trash leadership under gold dome whose major concern is taxes and not progress or wealth investment.

CSpinks
CSpinks

@1SunnyD Who is the Augusta University(Augusta College/Augusta State/ Georgia Regents) grad on the USG's BOR? Not Jim Hull.

Lee_CPA2
Lee_CPA2

The glaring fallacy in Murphy's commentary is that he failed to recognize the HOPE effect as well as the inflationary trends of tuition.


Georgia flagship institutions have been raising tuition at a rate that far exceeds the rate of inflation - often, at an exponential rate of 4-5 times the rate of inflation.  Part of the reason is the HOPE Scholarship, which was a financial windfall to Ga universities and they began raising rates in an attempt to chase the HOPE dollar.   While tax dollars may have decreased, the funds from the STATE RUN lottery more than compensated.


Another effect of HOPE was that it kept the top tier students, those who might have otherwise chosen a Vanderbilt or Duke, to stay in state.  From a reputation standpoint, UGA especially benefited from keeping these students in state.


Finally, unlike other states which have several universities with engineering schools, Georgia has Ga Tech and tiny Southern Tech (now KSU, I know).  Ga Tech has fought tooth and nail to keep it that way because it gives them exclusive access to the top engineering students in the state.


Bottom line, what was the inflation adjusted taxpayer funding per student?  Add in the STATE RUN Hope funds.  That is your public funding.  Just because the powers that be decide to raise tuition 15-20% every year doesn't mean the taxpayer has to keep pace.


Maybe all those Phd's should take a course in common sense finance.


DrTruth
DrTruth

@Lee_CPA2 I was surprised to learn that the BOR didn't raise tuition at any school this year.  Zero.


There are also 14 universities in GA that (combined) offer more than 40 engineering degrees.  GT is the flagship, but there are alternatives.

TOJacket
TOJacket

Nice try Maureen..........woof?

Dochara
Dochara

To continue my point:


(1) Georgia Tech admits without regard to in-state or out-of-state status.  Admission is purely based on qualification.


(2) If Georgia Tech admits more in-state students, this decreases the amount of tuition collected, but also decreases the amount USG retain from Tech, so it has a net neutral impact on GT, which is to say that GT will remain a donor to the State and not the other way around.


Therefore, the entire point of the article is moot.  The correct interpretation is that GT's percent of in-state students is declining because GT is becoming an even more desirable option for out-of-state applicants.  



DrTruth
DrTruth

@Dochara GT's percent of in-state students is NOT declining.  I proved it in a previous post.  The 60% for 2016 is the same as it was 5 yrs ago in 2011.  In fact, this yr's expected class size of 2,800 is 150 students more than it was in 2011, so TOTAL in-state students expected to enroll this yr is actually HIGHER than it was 5 yrs ago by 90 students....


One more thing lost here is the incoming 2016 class would actually be 1,000 more than the current expected 2,800.  But 1,000 more of the "accepted" last year (2015) actually ended up enrolling, reducing this yr's target enrollment by 1,000.  Of course that means 600 more in-state students enrolled last year than expected.  But the "drop" this year isn't a result of "state funding cuts".


It also bears pointing out that GT actually "accepted" about 7,500 applicants for 2016, but they only expect 2,800 to end up enrolling.  At least that's the target.  If this yr's class ends up being larger than expected again, then acceptance for 2017 could again be lower than this yr's original 3,800 target or the final 2,800 (to maintain total student/professor ratios).

Steve Downin
Steve Downin

The first question to ask is whether a 60/40 in-state to out of state ratio is reasonable. Remember, Georgia Tech is among the Top 5 engineering universities in the WORLD! Given that kind of reputation and education, and the number of students from around the country and the world that want a Georgia Tech education, ask yourself what SHOULD it be? 70/30? 80/20? Do Georgia High Schools produce that many students that are world class engineers, IT professionals, and scientists? Given that Georgia Tech can select from the best and brightest students in the entire world, 60/40 seems perfectly reasonable and generous. Especially since historically, it's been between 50-60% in state for quite some time. 60% is on the higher end historically speaking.

northernneighbor
northernneighbor

Point well made. If Tech ranked all applicants regardless of residence, would the top 60% be Georgia residents? 

Dochara
Dochara

One disappointment in this reporting is the missed fact that Georgia Tech actually pays more to the State than it receives.  The University System of Georgia receives all tuition from USG universities and then doles it back to the universities.  Georgia Tech receives back less than it sends to the USG, with the difference going to fund other USG schools without research facilities.


The end result is that GT pays more to USG to fund other institutions than it receives back.  And this ignores all of the other ancillary benefits of the Institute, including state taxes from incubator activities and industries that move to Atlanta because of GT research.  

Joe Cobb
Joe Cobb

Jim Grubbs thanks,I'm divorced as a result of this.Other powers wanted my child out of state,good sense prevailed.Looking back they won't submit..no problem. .I'm good

BurroughstonBroch
BurroughstonBroch

Maureen, do you investigate such pieces before you print? If you do investigate then you missed a major flaw in this one. If you do not then you should.

Or perhaps you prefer your readers to do your job for you.

Either way, you were instructed better at university, as my siblings who are UGA Grady School alumni tell me.

DrTruth
DrTruth

This piece is a big LIE and I proved it in a previous post.  GT only had 54.3% GA Residents enrolled 35 yrs ago and this yr's 60% GA student rate is exactly the same as 5 yrs ago.  There's nobody to "blame" here.  GA taxpayers now pay just 12% of GT's funding revenue, but reap a tremendous amount of benefits that I also outlined in a previous post.


GT is simply a victim of its own success.  Despite losing most of its public funding, the Institute has risen to become the #1 Smartest Public School in America.  If you condemn this, then you condemn success.


30,520 students applied for a 2016 target freshman class of only 2,800.  That's a new record and it's SUCCESS, not failure.  The fact that we GA taxpayers only fund 12% of GT's revenue, but they still admit the same 60% of GA residents that they did 5 yrs ago is something to be commended!  Obviously they don't have to admit 60% when the state only provides 12% of their funding....but they do.


We have the BEST public university in the nation in our own back yard.  Trying to blame anyone for that is just ignorant.

sethandrews22
sethandrews22

Here's another alternative to the opinion of Mr. Murphy. Despite 4.0's, high test scores, and a slew of AP courses, perhaps Georgia students, and American students more generally, just aren't prepared for the academic rigors of GT. (I fit that demo, and i wasn't.) 


Perhaps the blame lies not with an "underfunded" higher ed but a misguided K-12 system that underperforms against the world despite outspending all but four nations. Perhaps the blame lies with bureaucrats who have created a beastly, top-heavy institution more intent on justifying their existence than creating lifelong learners. Perhaps some of the blame lies with a system designed to churn out widget-like workers rather than thinking, questioning, exploring, striving, creating, discovering, truth-seeking human beings.


Perhaps some of the blame lies with teachers, parents, students, and an electorate who have been complicit in stripping American education of its purpose and aim. Perhaps more money isn't the answer. 

EastAtlanta
EastAtlanta

This has more to do with the writer's politics than the truth.

w00drow
w00drow

The Republican's believe in keeping poor people stupid. That way the companies that own the Republican's can pay lower wages and hire more foreign workers for depressed wages. You people voted these guys into office. I call this voter apathy, or voter ignorance.

Andrew Hotchkiss
Andrew Hotchkiss

Jordan Webb glad we got ours when we did \U0001f41d\U0001f393\U0001f44c\U0001f3fc

Andrew Hotchkiss
Andrew Hotchkiss

I think that is a good thing that our alma mater is one of the educational institutions that focuses on academics over athletics. I haven't done the research, but I can easily imagine the average SAT scores at schools like Alabama, OSU, UF, etc. are declining. I don't mind where GT gets the student body from, as long as it allowed my kids to be exposed to the highest educational potential - from staff and peers.

Jordan Webb
Jordan Webb

I recently saw the average SAT score was in the mid 1400s/1600. No way I could get in now.

northernneighbor
northernneighbor

Amen to that.  I am proud that my kids were smart enough to get into Tech in today's environment

skruorangeclown
skruorangeclown

Hey Legislature has more important priorities than higher education to spend time on. Just think of all those Baptist ministers being forced to perform gay marriages- now there is a top priority.

Kevin Kitchen
Kevin Kitchen

It doesn't matter even if the customer shows up AFTER closing. You let them in, take their order and serve them with courtesy. The customer is always right. Even when the customer is wrong.

DrTruth
DrTruth

I'm about to show that this TJ Murphy "expert" only wrote this piece as a political hit job on the Republican Legislature of GA, and I rarely defend politicians.  Here's how he starts, and I quote:


"The springtime admissions decisions are out and only 60 percent of entering students at the Georgia Institute of Technology will be Georgia residents. Many high achieving students in Georgia hoping to attend this truly premier educational institution are deeply disappointed, along with their parents.  What is going on here?  In my opinion, there are two principal drivers of this trend."


So his premise is that only 60% of entering freshmen will be GA residents (true) and this is somehow a "new trend" that he eventually explains is the fault of the Republican Legislature and the parents who voted for them.  He says that because the Georgia Legislature continues to cut public funding for GT (true), this means GT "is less beholden to the state and its residents" and it now uses "admissions practices, which close out state residents..."


In other words, Murphy claims that the reason only 60% of entering freshmen for 2016 are GA residents is specifically because GA voters elected a conservative (Republican) legislature that has reduced GT's funding so drastically that GT has been forced to admit more non-resident students (who pay 3 times the tuition of GA residents) and this has taken "seats" away from GA kids who would otherwise have been accepted.  He even directly blames GA parents by saying, "The simple fact of the matter is that the voters in Georgia made this bed a long time ago."


Those are some pretty heavy accusations.  So it's useful to see if this "new trend" of GA residents losing out to non-residents is true, since he doesn't actually take the time to prove it.  And with all of the reductions of state funding that have brought the GA resident percentage down to 60%, what was it before?  Did it drop from 80% to 60%?  I'll start by going back 35 years:


On page 17 of this document ( http://www.irp.gatech.edu/wp-content/themes/GeorgiaTech/FB-Archive/FB80-81.pdf ), you'll notice there's breakdown of GT's total enrollment for Fall 1980.  Here's what is says:


Residents of GA = 6,116

Residents of Other States = 4,156

Residents of Foreign Countries = 989


That's a total enrollment of 11,261, with GA Residents representing 54.3%, Other States equals 36.9% and Foreign Countries comes in at 8.8%.


So not only has GT thrived (see my post below) as taxpayer funding has been cut to only 12% of revenue, but Residents of GA have increased as a percentage of enrollment from 54.3% 35 yrs ago to 60% today.


Since Murphy claims that relentless cuts to GT's state funding by the current legislature created this recent trend where only 60% of GA residents are now enrolled freshmen, let's look at 5 years ago.  Surely that number had to be 70%, maybe 80% 5 years ago, right?


According to GT, this was the breakdown for the 2011 class:


Freshman Class of 2011 Profile:

 Applications - 14,241
   Admitted - 7,200
   Expected Freshman Class Size - 2,650
   Admit Rate - 50.58%
   Average GPA - 3.9 (weighted)
   Average SAT - 2042
   Average ACT - 30
   Female - 38%
   Male - 62%
   Minority - 41%
   Georgia - 60%
   Non-Georgia (including international) - 40%
   International - 9.85%


Wow.  GA Residents represented 60% of the 2011 class, just like the 2016 class.  So either Mr Murphy isn't being completely honest here, or maybe he just doesn't know what he's doing.  You can make up your own minds about that.


The fact remains that Mr Murphy has falsely accused the Republican Legislature of Georgia and the parents who voted for them.  There is no "new trend" of GA students losing more and more "seats" at GT to non-residents because of state funding cuts.  The 60% GA freshman rate for 2016 is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago....and it's higher than it was 35 years ago.


So this entire piece boldly titled "you-didnt-get-into-georgia-tech-blame-legislature-for-underfunding-higher-ed-and-voters-for-allowing-it" is obviously NOT TRUE.


Someone needs to APOLOGIZE to the Republican Legislature and the parents that voted for them.....

DrTruth
DrTruth

@Astropig  YW.  Thanks for the acknowledgement.  I knew from some of the posts on here already that I wasn't taking a popular position.  Normally I have little love for politicians since nearly all of them put their own interests before ours and spend our tax $$$ like drunken sailors....but he also blamed parents/voters, directly.


Also amusing is he not only made up a non-existent trend to support his attack, but he probably picked the one institution that has performed the best in the entire nation when confronted with decreasing taxpayer $$$ as reason to "blame" the politicians.  Is GT suffering budget deficits and academic sanctions, closing down degree programs and buildings and having trouble filling a freshman class?  No....the exact opposite is happening.

Astropig
Astropig

@DrTruth


Thank you for speaking up.You are entirely right.This is just a clumsy propaganda piece by someone arrogant enough to believe that he would never be confronted by facts and statistics that disprove his bogus point.


The mostly Republican legislature in Georgia is no better and no worse than the lawmakers in other states.They cannot please everyone all of the time.They's sometimes stupid,some times drunk and silly and sometimes tone deaf,but we put them there and to blame your every grievance on them is to shirk your own responsibility for making your life better.


Again,many thanks. Your piece was very well stated.

Tanya Bailey
Tanya Bailey

My child got in but chose not to accept their offer. The freshmen dorms are made of cinderblock and look like a mold infested jail cell.

Tanya Bailey
Tanya Bailey

Everyone needs to be concerned about their kids not breathing in black mold and living in squalor. My daughter got into a school better than Tech in the rankings. The dorm was not fancy by any means, but it was clean and even more importantly it was safe. Smaller campus with no thugs, shootings, rapes, etc.

Scott Chambliss
Scott Chambliss

So, they care more about the quality of their living conditions than the quality of their education? Good luck to them.

Like-It-Is
Like-It-Is

@Tanya Bailey...How shallow of you and your child.

ATLAquarius
ATLAquarius

Lol when was that? Virtually every dorm has been renovated on the east side of campus along with the west dorms and the new stock from the Olympics

NewName
NewName

You don't get the kind of success GA Tech is seeing from letting in many of the students educated in one of the worst states for education in the country. 


There is a HUGE gap between the education most students in GA are getting and the abilities and knowledge a student must have in order to do well at GA Tech.

Stephanie Helton Johnson
Stephanie Helton Johnson

Karen Suttles Williams Tara Smith Maner Angie Skinner Whiten Anne Lupo Stephanie Boyd interesting read.

TSindelar
TSindelar

@ibogost I guess the silver lining is how long do Us have to be run like businesses for people to see that doesn't work?

Wanda Ramos Trevino
Wanda Ramos Trevino

So... basically, you want to bring down a worldwide reputable institution like GA Tech? As an alumni, I couldn't be more insulted by the comments here