At Tech, Nezir Teke, CS ‘00,  was given the foundation of data engineering principles that he would build upon throughout his career — a career which has featured working for top companies such as Delta Airlines, Coca-Cola, Warner Brothers, Loot Crate and Google.

Upon graduating, Teke launched his professional career at Delta Airlines as a data warehousing developer. As a fresh graduate, Teke was exposed to the broader industry where he gained his first look at how his classroom studies applied in the data warehousing space. 

At Delta’s data warehouse, Teke worked with customer data and implemented data pipelines using technologies such as Teradata. Although he enjoyed overseeing the development of the warehouse, Teke wanted to refocus his efforts toward other aspects of his technical skillset. 

After one year of working at Delta, Teke accepted a senior developer position at another Atlanta-based powerhouse, the Coca-Cola Enterprises. 

After almost three years at Coca-Cola Teke took a step back to make a big change. This big change took Teke across the country to Burbank, California where he worked as a lead manager in data warehousing at Warner Brothers.

Teke’s advice on re-establishing himself in a new city with a new job?

“Waste no time rebuilding professional and personal connections,” Teke advised.  

Developing a platform at a company as widespread as Warner Brothers allowed Teke to refine new areas of his expertise such as storage system design, database optimization and overall system health and performance​. 

Teke also involved himself in the mentorship and training of his team members, aiding in the progression of his career as he managed and oversaw the development of the entire Teradata Warehouse.

Despite the success he encountered at Warner Brothers, Teke decided to make yet another big career change after more than ten years with the company. In contrast to his earlier positions with large-scale prominent companies, Teke began to work for the smaller startup Loot Crate. 

Transitioning from established corporations to an unexplored entrepreneurial space was exciting and rewarding for Teke. As the director of business intelligence, Teke was responsible for building the analytical space and data warehouse from scratch, transforming the company infrastructure from Excel spreadsheets and CSV files to a robust environment running on Amazon Web Services. 

In the spirit of developing his technical aptitude, Teke decided to take it to the next level by returning to Tech for an Online Masters Degree in Computer Science — a triumph he conquered all while working a full-time job. 

“Although an Online Masters Degree Program is a less traditional route, it was more convenient and gave me flexibility with my professional career,” said Teke. 

“A master’s degree in a technical field is a great way to expand your knowledge on topics you’re actually interested in.” 

Having to learn how to balance the stresses of  both a professional and school life, Teke offered advice to other students who are considering a similar path. 

“In order to avoid burning out, I only took one class at a time because I wanted to enjoy the experience,” said Teke. 

During the three years it took him to complete his Master’s degree, Teke ended his journey with Loot Crate, served as a Business Intelligence Manager at Google for a year and a half and then returned to Warner Brothers Entertainment to work as a data engineering architect.  

“Having multiple career shifts while pursuing a technical post-graduate degree is not recommended, but made me more disciplined,” Teke explained. 

Teke currently still works for Warner Brothers, where he continues to progress their data space while applying the wisdom he has learned throughout his academic and professional careers.

Fox introduced its latest multiple camera sitcom on Jan. 23 when it premiered Lon Zimmet’s (“Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt”) new series “Outmatched.”

The show stars Jason Biggs (“American Pie”) and Maggie Lawson (“Psych”) as Mike and Kay, the ordinary working-class South Jersey parents of three genius kids — and, for comedic effect, one ordinary one. Mike and Kay struggle to parent their hyper-competitive and precocious children — pre-teens Nicole (Ashley Boettcher, “Alone Together”) and Brian (Connor Kalopsis, “Days of Our Lives”) and the much younger Marc (Jack Stanton, “Copi and Cami Ask the World”).

Thanks to the gimmicky premise and unknown cast, the critical expectations for the series were low. Still, critical expectations are not the yardstick against which a sitcom is measured; virtually all successful multiple camera sitcoms — “Friends,” “That ‘70s Show,” “The Big Bang Theory” — had similarly humble beginnings. 

Where “Outmatched” really comes up short is in its comedy. Despite Zimmet’s attempt at creating a premise that does all the work for the writers, the show is just not funny. The tone is set early, when the pilot opens with a conversation between Mike and Kay which is packed full of attempted jokes that fall completely flat. It would be difficult to even determine what the writers intend the audience to find funny if it were not for the rehearsed laughter of the live studio audience. 

This continues throughout the pilot. There are a few jokes which prompt reserved chuckling, but the episode is almost entirely devoid of jokes that work at all, let alone ones that elicit gut-busting laughter. For many of the jokes, it is not an issue with the writing. Rather, the show suffers from chronic poor delivery and bad acting.

The blame for these poor performances should not fall on the actors. Excellent sitcom performances are not about being convincing, conveying genuine emotions or even perfect comedic delivery. While “Friends” found success with a more emotional and dramatic performance style, “That ‘70 Show” kept audiences engaged by not taking itself too seriously and “The Big Bang Theory” presented outlandish caricatures of familiar characters with an equally outlandish delivery style. The acting on these two less serious sitcoms is not superior to that in “Outmatched;” these shows simply had a clear direction and identity for the actors to structure their performance around, while “Outmatched” does not.

Some of the jokes are delivered in a realistic tone, as though they are actual jokes told between real human beings, a la the “Friends” style. Some are delivered in an unrealistic, performative tone, as in the almost fourth wall-breaking style of “That ‘70s Show.” The result is the feeling that the actors do not know exactly what they are supposed to be doing, a feeling that is uncomfortable for the audience and certainly not funny.

The show’s un-funniness and lack of identity is why it will never be a great sitcom. Still, there are plenty of not-great sitcoms that have survived long enough to make several moderately successful seasons. “Outmatched” is unlikely even to reach that level, for another reason entirely.

Sitcoms often stick around not because they are funny, but because viewers find them relatable and comforting. Most reasonably successful shows depict relatable characters encountering relatable challenges. This does not mean that a show cannot have an unusual premise, but there must be a kernel of realistic truth at the center. “The Big Bang Theory” features a group of brilliant and geeky scientists living in extremely unusual circumstances, but each character is an extreme version of a stereotype that viewers are familiar with. For all of its critical flaws — and there are many — “The Big Bang Theory” relates to audiences.

The premise of “Outmatched” lacks that kernel of truth at its center that keeps the show familiar for the viewer. As people, Mike and Kay are relatable characters, but their circumstances are not reflective of a reality that any viewers are likely to have lived through. Sure, there may be viewers who have raised or are raising children who are much more intelligent than them on paper, but in the everyday experience of raising those kids the viewer would not feel the same frustrations and encounter the same challenges that the characters do. 

It is one thing to place characters in wacky situations for comedic effect, but it is another thing entirely for the show’s premise to be built around a conflict which feels foreign and unfamiliar to the viewer. The poor quality of the comedy does not help, but this flaw is ultimately why “Outmatched” will struggle to draw viewers. Fox’s new sitcom is the rare one that is neither funny nor relatable.

On Jan. 13, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences revealed the field of nominees for February’s upcoming Oscars ceremony. As per usual, some of the nominees and omissions were surprising and even disappointing. Awards are unrepresentative in any industry, but the Academy Awards are even more-so. For example, cinema and art are so much more subjective than sports championships. So why is there so much annual hysteria over the Oscars?

One reason is that the Academy calls the public’s attention to a number of terrific works and achievements through their ceremony. Each year, scores of moviegoers rush to theaters to see the Best Picture nominees, and are introduced to new stories, perspectives and artistic expressions. While the actual nominees and winners often fail to coincide with the year’s finest, the reality is that the Oscars provide a living history of movies. All the attention a nomination brings has the potential to elevate or promote the careers of its participants.

This is what makes this year’s field so complicated. On one hand, most of the movies nominated are pretty good. On the other, the homogenous collection of nominees fails to reflect the excellent diversity that was available in theaters in 2019. This oversight is even more disappointing given the Academy’s recent efforts to diversify their membership. In a similar vein, many of the categories are filled with the usual suspects. 

“Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood” garnered recognition for director Quentin Tarantino (“Pulp Fiction”) and actors Brad Pitt (“Moneyball”) and Leonardo DiCaprio (“Titanic”). Likewise, director Martin Scorsese (“Taxi Driver”) earned a nomination for “The Irishman,” which brought acting nods for Joe Pesci (“Goodfellas”) and Al Pacino (“The Godfather”). The best actress fields are similarly populated by recurring Oscars participants Laura Dern (“Marriage Story”), Renee Zellweger (“Judy”) and Scarlett Johansson (“Jojo Rabbit” and “Marriage Story”), the last of whom actually received two acting nominations.

While each of these listed nominees put forward superb work, perhaps the most notable quality that they share is their whiteness. Of the 20 acting nominations, only one is filled by a nonwhite actor — Cynthia Erivo (“Harriet”). In a similar vein, Bong Joon Ho (“Parasite”) is the only director of color to be honored this year. No women were nominated for Best Director, leaving Greta Gerwig (“Lady Bird”) as the only woman to receive that the Academy’s recognition for the entire decade in that category.

In addition to a general lack of equality, what makes this so alarming is the volume of contributions from diverse filmmakers and actors in 2019. Directors Greta Gerwig (“Little Women”), Lulu Wang (“The Farewell”), Jordan Peele (“Us”),  Olivia Wilde (“Booksmart”) and Lorene Scafaria (“Hustlers”) each created beautiful, critically acclaimed works of art. In front of the camera, “Waves,” “Parasite,” “The Farewell” and “The Last Black Man in San Francisco” featured exceptional performances from nonwhite actors; Lupita Nyong’o (“Us”) put forward one of the best acting jobs in a thriller in recent memory, yet received no nomination.

Despite their excellence, none of the aforementioned artists were nominated, with the exception of Greta Gerwig’s writing nomination. Many of the movies they represent were totally absent from the entire field of categories altogether. In twenty years, maybe one of them will win their overdue Oscar, like Spike Lee (“BlacKkKlansman”) did last year; most may never have that opportunity, though.

Inequalities aside, some surprises and snubs exist. Adam Sandler, best known nowadays for his trashy Netflix comedies, was overlooked for his transcendent role in “Uncut Gems.” Conversely, “Joker” received an astounding eleven nominations, implying that the Academy’s response to the film is much warmer than that of the critical consensus. However, not all of the shocks were as disappointing.

Newcomer Florence Pugh (“Little Women”) garnered her first Oscar nomination after a stellar year of work. Antonio Banderas earned one for “Pain and Glory.” Cinematographer Jarin Blanschke squeaked in for his terrific work on “The Lighthouse.” Rian Johnson scored a screenplay recognition for “Knives Out.” Surprisingly, “Parasite” received six nods — a hefty amount for a foreign-language production.

With the field set, prognosticators are beginning to settle on favorites for various categories. Brad Pitt, Laura Dern, Joaquin Phoenix (“Joker”) and Renee Zellweger are expected to win for their respective acting categories. Meanwhile, the Best Director and Best Picture competitions appear to be a two-horse race between Bong Joon Ho’s “Parasite” and Sam Mendes’ “1917.”

At the end of the day, the Oscars might be a meaningless awards show. That does not, however, make their continued whiteness any less frustrating. 2019 felt like a particularly ripe year to break the perpetuation of the ceremony’s inequality, yet the Academy’s selections failed to do so.

Still, this year’s nominees have merits of their own. While many of the nominations have certainly proven surprising or disappointing, the Academy still has the ability to right the ship in some regards. They can find ways to call attention to and celebrate the artists and craftsmen who made 2019 a truly special year for movies. 

The 92nd Academy Awards ceremony takes place on the evening of Feb. 9 on ABC.

After three straight top 25 rankings, the Jackets are eager to enter the 2020 season. The team has now earned recognition from D1Baseball as No. 19, Baseball America as No. 21, and most recently USA Today as No. 22 in the country. 

Last year’s stand-out season sure has some big shoes to fill in 2020. Not only that, but also with five of eight position returners there will be a heavy learning curve as 19 freshmen get acclimated to the program’s expectations. 

The Technique sat down with four of the baseball stars themselves to get a look into preseason practices and look ahead into the season ahead.

Senior pitcher, Andy Archer, was out for the entirety of the 2019 season due to injury. While some may see an injury as a setback, Archer shares, “Missing so much time reignited my passion for the game. I can’t wait to get back out on the field and win games with my teammates that supported me so well when I was injured.” 

Although Archer’s tenure on the team is longer than most, he explains that it doesn’t make preseason practices any less stressful. In fact he talks about a decent level of healthy competition as teammates work for their starting roles. 

Archer says, “We always say that ‘competition breeds success,’ and I believe that when there is playing time on the line, we have the players that will rise to meet the occasion.” 

Junior infielder, Luke Waddell, scored 58 appearances last season- starting in all of them. In 2019 alone, Waddell was extremely decorated with titles including 2018–2019 ACC Academic Honor Roll, 2019 All-ACC Academic Team and 2019 Brooks Wallace Shortstop of the Year Finalist. If that isn’t enough, he averaged 10.6 at-bats per strikeout earned him recognition as third in the ACC and 45th in the country. 

This upcoming season Waddell shares he is most excited about the matchup against UGA, after their game at SunTrust Park last season, because, “we had all of our fans there and we won the series that day and overall it was just a great win for our program.” There’s just something about the saying “To Hell with Georgia” that gets more than just the Tech baseball fans going. Last year’s game in SunTrust had, “The largest attendance at any regular season college baseball game in 2019,” according to another junior infielder, Michael Guldberg. Guldberg is another teammate who is extremely eager for the big battle of the state against the Dawgs this season. 

Guldberg led the Jackets in hitting to land second in the ACC with .355 last year. Preseason for him this year means excitement and lots of hard work. 

Guldberg says, “Preseason practice is a really exciting time. We start with position specific defensive drills, then go into ‘team defense’ [when fielders work on bunts, cuts and relays]. After that, we have batting practice and often play an intrasquad game.” 

Finally, freshman Jake Holland shares his experience and mindset as he jumps onto the roster with 18 other freshmen Jackets. Holland says, “I’m looking forward to learning from our older guys. They’ve been through things they can pass onto me that will help us be an even better team this year.”

With the team’s goal of being “best team in the state, the ACC and the country,” according to Archer, there is potential in store for this star roster of athletes. Archer, Waddell, Guldberg, Holland and team look to see Russ Chandler packed for their Feb. 14 opener.

There are few experiences all Tech students share, but one that most — if not all —  have in common is completing the ENGL 1101 and 1102 courses. Although these are graduation requirements, there is more at work in these classes than simply teaching students communication skills. 

Many of the professors teaching these writing and communication classes participate in the Marion L. Brittain Postdoctoral Fellowship and use these classes as a chance to conduct research.  One such fellow, Dr. Nick Sturm pointed out the unique characteristics of the fellowship.

“The purpose of those classes that the fellows teach isn’t necessarily about any of our specific subject expertise, but we are encouraged to use our subject expertise in these classes as a vehicle for teaching this pedagogy,” said Strum. 

“It’s really neat to see a fellowship at a university like Georgia Tech that’s encouraging a multidisciplinary humanities-based approach to teaching communication.”

The Fellowship treats the teaching experience as an opportunity for the fellows to further their research in various topics.

“One of the things that’s most important for us as faculty is that we’re encouraged to merge our research and our teaching completely,” said Strum. 

This research can be either pedagogical research or research on the topic the fellows specialized in for their doctorate. Sturm, who holds degrees in history, poetry and creative writing, now teaches classes at Tech focused on poetry, painting and film. He is able to use these topics for more than just teaching his students about the surface content. 

“We can see students as pure researchers in our work, said Sturm. “My students contribute to my research and often are creating projects that contribute to my field of study.” 

As a way of documenting the work done by the Brittain Fellows, the online forum TECHStyle was created in 2011 for sharing articles fellows write on a variety of topics related to communication and writing pedagogy. Currently, Sturm acts as the head editor of TECHStyle. 

“It is a place for us as Brittain Fellows to formalize for ourselves in writing the way that our research and our teaching is reciprocal,” said Sturm, who sees TECHStyle as having become similar to an academic journal in recent years. 

Additionally, TECHStyle provides a record of ways in which education is constantly changing over time. 

“We’re framing all that work in a really public facing way to show that the pedagogy is not mechanical,” said Strum. “It’s absolutely the way that we’re thinking and it’s helping us innovate in our work and we want to show that through TECHStyle.”

Sturm sees this process of innovative education over time as a way of proving to students the power of multimodal communication.  

“My students come in, and they know nothing about poetry, painting, or they think they don’t,” said Sturm. “Fifteen weeks later, they produce incredible, innovative, multimodal work that is contributing to the field of study.”

But TECHStyle’s reach is not limited to just the Tech community.

“The blog is also really useful as a tool for instructors at other institutions who are looking to innovate with their pedagogy,” said Sturm. “We’re providing all sorts of examples of how our students use multimodality to create really interesting research-based humanities work.”

Sturm also emphasized that for the Brittain Fellows, TECHStyle is a friendly community where academic writing can first be published, before moving on to another platform. 

“Academic publishing can be pretty intimidating. There’s a lot of gate-keeping,” said Sturm, advocating the welcoming environment of TECHStyle as an alternative. 

“It’s a way to publish your work in a way that’s really friendly.”

On TECHStyle, both written articles and other forms of media, such as podcasts, are published. 

“If we’re teaching multimodality, we want to show our students that we’re working in these modes as well,” said Sturm. 

“We’re also not interested and invested in.”

Although Sturm’s time as editor will be coming to an end this semester,  he still has a vision for TECHStyle’s future as well for its success. 

“My idea for it is that it just stays a lively place for conversation,” said Sturm. “It needs to be alive and it needs to be a place where ideas are in progress, not where things are defined and set in stone. 

“I think that’s the whole
point of blogs in general is that they are these active places where people are participating.” 

Sturm pointed out that there are many individuals who contribute to the continued success of TECHStyle, including Dr. Rebecca Burnett, the Director of the Writing and Communication Program at Tech. He also reiterated that the uniqueness of the Brittain Fellowship allows for not only the fellows to benefit, but also the students, as they are able to actively apply the skills they learn in English classes at Tech. 

“Posting my students’ work on TECHStyle in a different context shows them that their work has public facing value,” said Strum. “That’s something that’s often lacking. I think students don’t see, ‘How’s the work that I do in class matter?’ And this is an example of the way it matters.”

“Posting my students’ work on TECHStyle in a different context shows them that their work has public facing value,” said Strum. 

“That’s something that’s often lacking. I think students don’t see, ‘How’s the work that I do in class matter?’ And this is an example of the way it matters.”

Alright, for those of you that have the lung capacity, take a deep breath. On Dec. 20, 2019, an amendment was made to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, raising the age for purchasing tobacco and vape products to 21 years old. This amendment includes the trendiest source of lung disease, the Juul, which gained its mainstream popularity in highschool bathrooms all across America. 

Even today, tobacco stands as the number one cause of preventable death in the United States of America. By increasing the age requirement to buy tobacco, hopefully, fewer younger people will be exposed to the dangers of tobacco products. There have been many aggressive campaigns in the past few decades to ensure that smoking has a negative connotation among younger generations. The actions of groups like the Truth campaign could not have foreseen the popularity of juuling. While its target audience was those seeking to quit smoking, it found appeal in the eyes of underaged teens. 

Once seen on social media, it spread like wildfire, primarily through memes. The goal of most of the memes was to make fun of those who used Juuls, but it only served to help further the number of people using them.

Even as it stands, tobacco products are still relatively easily accessible. Another issue in the fight against underage tobacco use is while the ads do manage to reach their target audience, they fail to resonate. I do not know if I was the only one, but while growing up, tobacco ads felt like they were all made by an out of touch elderly white man. While the ads have gotten more modern, they still fail to reach the target.

Teenagers are predisposed to risky behavior and making choices that help them feel more in control of their lives. Many ads argue their message with a “you can’t do that!” attitude. A better solution is to propose a different option. If you consider using tobacco products as an act of rebellion, it would be far easier to offer a less dangerous and addictive act of defiance rather than shutting it down altogether. Put something else on the table that will satiate the desire.

Raising the age for tobacco use is an excellent idea, but it is not enough. I have already heard from some peers under the age of 21 that they are preparing to deal with it in various ways like “stocking up.” 

When you are losing a fight, sometimes you need to change the tactics you are using, and I think those fighting against big tobacco should consider it.

While I have been going to Tech career fairs for about five years now, there is always a feeling of apprehension as I walk out to talk with recruiters. The career fair on Friday had more than the usual share of jitters. Impressive venue notwithstanding, there was a good reason to feel nervous. I am graduating soon, and I knew that this career fair could have a big impact on my future job prospects. After visiting several booths, I took a look around for any other companies that I wanted to check out. One in particular caught my eye. I had noticed them earlier in the day, but the line was so long that I had passed them over. Now, the line had dwindled to nothing, so I decided to try my luck. I chose one of the three available recruiters, walked over, and introduced myself. Immediately, the afternoon began to go terribly wrong. I proceeded to have possibly the worst interaction I have ever had with a recruiter, an interaction so bad that I will most likely never seek employment at that company again.

Whether or not he knew it, this guy gave the master class on how to drive potential talent away from a company. How could he have done a better job? Two things: encouragement and self-awareness. At all the other companies I visited, I never once felt like I was under attack for something I did not know. This recruiter started grilling me on C++, a language that I do not even have listed on my resume as one of my skills. He attempted to conduct a small technical interview, right in front of everyone at the career fair. Asking attacking questions that the student obviously does not know the answer to only serve to alienate them, not to encourage them. As far as self-awareness goes, this guy had little to none of it. 

Whether he was tired, in a bad mood or just plain mean, simply responding with lifeless “uh-huh”s is beyond unprofessional. Not only is it unprofessional, it is demeaning to the student. These are some of the best computer science students in the world, and they deserve more than to be treated like bores that will not go away. Instead of acting bored, recruiters should be curious about the student. Ask good questions, inquire about their background and why they care about computing. Make them feel like a person, not just another resume. In addition to verbal feedback, non-verbal cues are just as important to communicating interest in the student. Facial expressions can make or break a conversation. 

This recruiter had a smug smirk on pretty much the whole time that we were speaking. There was never any genuine interest or friendliness in his face. Humans are wired to respond to non-verbal cues, so making sure that you have a grip on your expressions and stance is key. In essence, the recruiter should make the student feel welcome, not like they have something to prove or like they are somehow inferior. Grilling me with technical questions before flexing how famous and successful the company was made me feel like I was not good enough. If I had been really looking forward to talking with this company, I would have been crushed to be treated this way. Making students feel like they do not belong in the industry does not help anyone. It hurts both parties by pushing talent away, and by making students less confident in their abilities. Even though it might not seem like it, recruiters have power to shape students’ careers. Do not waste that chance to have a positive impact! 

In the past one-hundred days since Ángel Cabrera was invested as Georgia Tech’s 12th president, he has been involved with numerous breakthroughs and advancements on campus. Back in October of last year, Cabrera officially became the first Spanish-born president of any American university. 

One of the first things on Cabrera’s agenda was to fully immerse himself within the student body and the various organizations on campus. In his first few weeks as President, he met with the Student Government Association and the Society of Black Engineers. He got to know student leaders and discuss different issues that afflict the student body. 

In September, he addressed guests at Georgia Tech’s 11th Annual Diversity Symposium. The symposium panel featured the first three African American students and first graduate of this university. At the conclusion of the ceremony, a sculpture of the three students was unveiled in order to commemorate the great strides the institution has made to increase diversity since then. 

In his first few months, President Cabrera also traveled to New York City to be involved in a meeting regarding Sustainable Development Goals. These goals cover an array of problems plaguing the human race like climate change, poverty, hunger and gender equality. Seventeen goals are advocated by the United Nations General Assembly with the intention of being completed by the year 2030. After this meeting, Cabrera brought back numerous ideas and concepts to Georgia Tech and in turn made the student body aware of the UN’s biggest concerns.  This past November, President Cabrera was also responsible for hosting the Association of University Research Parks for its annual international conference. This organization provides a platform for districts across the continent to take part in research and technological innovation. 

One of Cabrera’s main focuses since being invested has been to keep the Institute moving forward in all aspects.  One example of doing this was the idea of having “Visioning Sessions” which  would be conducted by the Strategic Consulting department and allow students to give their opinions as to how Georgia Tech can improve in the next ten years. These “Visioning Sessions” will be conducted via iPads and carried out in order to increase efficiency within the administration. 

On Tuesday, Jan. 21, Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Faculty Development Dr. Bonnie Ferri announced that the search committee for finding the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts’ next dean had condensed their pool to the four best candidates: Dr. Cameron Thies of Arizona State University (ASU), Dr. Carolyn Thomas of the University of California (UC), Davis, Dr. Kate Drowne of Missouri University of Science and Technology (S&T) and Georgia Tech’s own Dr. Kaye Husbands Fealing.

As of Jan. 27, Dr. Carolyn Tomas, Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education at UC Davis and professor of American Studies chose to withdraw from the selection process. The remaining three will qualify for the position as planned.

According to Dr. Ferri’s email, in the last week of January and the first two weeks of February, the three candidates will each host “an open seminar addressing their broad vision for the humanities and social sciences at Tech. The hour-long seminars are open to all students, faculty and staff. Interested individuals can attend in person, watch real-time via livestream or watch a post-event video of each candidate presentation.” All three seminars will be in CULC 152 at 12:15 p.m. on their respective dates, included below. Readers can view these livestreams, as well as individual candidate profiles, at https://provost.gatech.edu/ivan-allen-college-liberal-arts-dean-search. The surveys will be available until Feb. 14 at midnight.

Dr. Cameron Thies is currently a professor and the director of the School of Politics and Global Studies at ASU. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from ASU and a M.A. in Political Science from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. According to his ASU faculty bio, his research is in “statebuilding in the developing world, interstate and civil conflict, international trade, and international relations theory.” He is also on the editorial board for the journal Foreign Policy Analysis. His seminar took place on Monday, Jan. 27.

Dr. Kate Drowne is currently the interim dean of Missouri S&T’s College of Arts, Sciences, and Business, as well as the director of the university’s Center for Science, Technology, and Society in addition to being a professor of English. She holds a Ph.D. in American Literature from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a M.A. in English from the University of Connecticut. According to her Missouri S&T faculty bio, her research is in the “intersection of literature and popular culture in the American 1920s and beyond.” Her seminar will take place on Feb. 10.

Dr. Kaye Husbands Fealing is a professor and the chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Public Policy. She holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University and a B.A. in Mathematics and Economics from the University of Pennsylvania. According to her faculty bio, her specialties are “science and innovation policy, the public value of research expenditures, and the underrepresentation of underserved groups in STEM fields and workforce.” She received the 2017 Trailblazer Award from the National Medical Association Council on Concerns of Women Physicians, and she once served as an economics program director at the National Science Foundation. Her seminar will take place on Feb. 3.

The search for a new Ivan Allen College dean began in September of 2019 when Dr. Jacqueline Royster stepped down from the position after having occupied the office since 2010.  Dr. John Tone currently serves as interim dean in the meantime.

The Technique sat down with the undergraduate Student Body President Pooja Juvekar, fourth-year IE, to reflect about the challenges and accomplishments of the Fall 2019 semester.

The Student Government Association had a lot of change to weather in the fall semester, including a new institute president and other administration turnover. The semester also came with its usual number of challenges: coaching students through changes to the community farmer’s market, advocating for the rights of undocumented college students, defending the campus from protesters who upsetted passers-by and fielding complaint after complaint about the ever-vilified parking and dining services.

In addition, with the unexpected challenges that had to be tackled when they arose, each member of SGA was working on projects they felt would better the Tech campus community. SGA recently released an executive review that summarized the work of each committee and board throughout the semester.

“It’s a good way for us to kind of pulse check during the middle of the year,” said Juvekar. “What did we say we were going to do, and how have we gotten there? If we haven’t gotten there, what are the projections for the spring? It’s something that I think is beneficial to give to the next administration.”

One of Juvekar’s chief concerns last semester was ensuring that all students remain informed and involved in SGA’s activities. The Information Technology Board began live streaming the Undergraduate House of Representative meetings, which take place on Tuesday nights, launched a new website and solicited student feedback on the Course Critique website. 

The Communications Board launched the “What is SGA?” program, which connected with five organizations on how they can collaborate with student government. The Communications Board stepped up engagement on social media platforms such as Reddit and rebranded a monthly external newsletter.

SGA Chief of Staff Alice Francis, sixth-year ME, ensured that the student body stayed informed and involved in the various search committees and strategic planning sessions that took place last year. They participated in a search committee for the Executive Vice President of Administration and Finance, and led an External Advisory pilot program, which aims to ensure collaboration between students and Tech administration.

“We’ve really tried to prioritize as much as we can letting people know what SGA is doing,” said Juvekar. “Obviously there is great improvement we can have in what those communication metrics are and making sure that they are actually the most effective, but I think I’m proud of us for prioritizing that.”

Another of Juvekar’s concerns is that it is difficult to track the progress and impact of the numerous task forces, action teams and committees that are formed and dissolved in the attempt to better campus life. One of her goals before she graduates in December is to see the creation of some effort to track the progress of these organizations over the medium and long term. 

Some of the most visible recent changes to campus life include several developments from the Board of Academic affairs. This team, led by third-year BME Brielle Lonsberry, oversaw the implementation of the minimester program, which included 14 courses and engaged 199 students. In addition, the board worked to identify the need to add mental health curriculum to the GT 1000 and GT 2000 classes.

The Student Life Board, led by Vice President Genny Kennedy, fourth-year INTA, also enacted many changes that can be spotted around campus. October saw the launching of the Menstrual Product Program, and dispensers for these products have been installed in several locations on campus. The Board created an Arts Committee to identify artistic opportunities and advocate for the necessity of the arts on campus. The Board designated meditation corners at different spots around campus, gauged student interest in electric buses and held several other discussions regarding campus concerns.

The Campus Services Board, led by Kathryn Otte, third-year IE, became the home of several new advisory boards. The Campus Safety Advisory Board, co-led by Juvekar, ensures the channels of communication between students, SGA, administration and the GTPD stay open and that any issues get addressed quickly. In addition, the Student Center Advisory Board has been communicating student opinions regarding the construction on the Student Center building.

Juvekar, who has now been student body president for just over half a year, reflected on her experience as president and said that it has been the best year of her life, despite the challenges it posed. Mainly, she says, she has attempted to keep a finger on the pulse of the student body and fight hard to make their voices heard.

“Speaking up for what you think is right and vocalizing your concerns is super pivotal. Students being informed of who their administrators are is pivotal. I think students being involved in the processes that govern Georgia Tech is pivotal,” said Juvekar. “I think there’s a level of civic engagement that I’ve learned in this role. I’m not a Public Policy major, but you don’t have to be to care about what’s going on in a policy sense around you.”

For more information about the work of these and other executive boards, visit https://tinyurl.com/udmz2n2.