My roommate, a current graduate student at Tech and a University of Florida graduate, has his phone ringing off the hook every day — someone from UF is trying to contact him to convince him to donate to the school.

Their argument is as follows: even though students have poured tens of thousands of dollars into their school with their tuition and associated costs of attendance, it is worthwhile for students to donate even more money; a larger endowment leads to a higher quality of education for future students, which in turn increases the reputation of the school and the value of their degree. It’s a very compelling argument. But what happens when a school does something that decreases the value of their name?

I was forced to confront this conflict personally when I found out about a recent economic study on SunTrust Park, the newly-constructed home of the Atlanta Braves. The Atlanta Business Chronicle parroted without reservation the study’s conclusions in an article last month: “The Atlanta Braves will be an economic home run for Cobb County and its school system over at least the next 20 years, according to a new study done by Georgia Tech.”

The study, released by the Tech Center for Economic Development Research, claims that SunTrust Park and its associated commercial developments — called, “The Battery” — would generate “an average, total, net fiscal impact of approximately $18.9 million annually for Cobb County.”

Is this not a positive development? Why should I not want Tech’s name associated with such work?

Because the study is so grossly problematic that it lessens the overall reputation of Tech.

SunTrust Park was funded after Cobb County’s government effectively stole $40 million in taxpayer money that had been earmarked for public parks  — not baseball stadiums — in order to throw an incentivizing offer at the Braves, and further raised taxes to fight off their growing debt.

As per a June Atlanta-Journal Constitution report, Cobb County faces at least a $30 million deficit in its 2019 budget. Multiple studies have found the deal to function at a net loss to Cobb County, its businesses, and citizens.

The recent GT CEDR report was commissioned by the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce — hardly an unbiased or independent source in evaluating the deal.

There is an inherent conflict of interest with the parties involved in the study, in that the people performing the study are being paid to perform the study by the very entity who made the decision that they are studying.

Kennesaw State University Economist J.C. Bradbury took to Twitter after the report was published and criticized multiple aspects of the study, from its generous economic-region analyzed — it more measured economic factors elsewhere in Cobb County than the economic impact of the stadium — to its use of black box models that violate traditional economic wisdom with regards to publicly subsidized sports stadiums.

A 2008 survey of economists across the economic spectrum found a “nearly unanimous conclusion that ‘tangible’ economic benefits generated by professional sports facilities and franchises are … smaller than the size of the subsidies (used to pay for the stadiums)”.

In other words, a study commissioned by the very entity that took this money reflects positively on that entity after operating in manners unbecoming of proper economic studies.

Bradbury spoke for me when he asked, “Why does Georgia Tech allow its name to be used to brand pseudo-science “economic impact studies” for a fee?”

I cannot in good conscience donate to my alma mater when I know that some of the money is going towards a cause that cheapens and weakens the value and reputation of my diploma. Tech is an academic institute, not a business, and having an offshoot that sells off Tech’s name in such a manner is unacceptable.

On Wednesday, Oct. 3, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos visited Tech as the first stop on her second annual “Rethink School” tour. As part of the “Rethink School” tour,” DeVos visited schools in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana between Oct. 3 and 5 to gather new perspectives on how to foster student success in education.

DeVos’s visit to Tech was separated into a morning session, where she was able to tour the Centergy Building in Tech Square and learn about Tech’s various student innovation programs, and an afternoon luncheon in the Wardlaw Center, where DeVos talked with high school students and unveiled a mobile application to ease federal student aid applications.

Called myStudentAid, the app is an alternative to the desktop Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), and supplements the financial aid application through a user-friendly interface, student or parent role-playing and skip logic, according to Federal Student Aid’s Chief Strategy and Transformation Officer Wayne Johnson, who helped to unveil the application at the luncheon.

By bringing FAFSA into the mobile age with myStudentAid, DeVos and Johnson hope that more students will apply for financial aid.

In the morning at Centergy, President G.P. “Bud” Peterson and other Tech officials spoke with DeVos about how Tech promotes student innovation and makes studies more accessible for people across the world through online classes. Among the programs discussed were the startup incubator Create-X, the Inventure Prize entrepreneurship competition, and Tech’s various Online Master of Science (OMS) programs. So far, three different OMS programs exist: the OMS in Computer Science, the OMS in Analytics, and the OMS in Cybersecurity.

DeVos praised Tech’s efforts as “meeting the needs of students today and tomorrow and really changing to meet those needs in very innovative ways,” and was impressed by Tech “taking risks and marching into unknown territory on behalf of students.”

In addition to on-campus programs, DeVos learned about Georgia Tech’s outreach efforts to help high school students in their pursuit of a higher education, which includes Project ENGAGES (Engaging New Generations at Georgia Tech through Engineering and Science). Through Project ENGAGES, Tech works with six high schools to spur involvement of underrepresented minorities in engineering and science.

High school student participants from Project ENGAGES were invited to the luncheon in Wardlaw to talk with DeVos about how the program has impacted their career choices and interests.

Outside of Wardlaw Center, where the luncheon was held, around 50 students expressed their discontent with Devos’s policies through chants like “Betsy DeVos go home; Betsy DeVos resign” and posters stating “schools for students, not profits.” Students in the protest, which was organized by the Tech chapter of the Young Democratic Socialists of America, held banners, posters, and megaphones to make their voice heard. At the beginning of the luncheon, DeVos thanked students for their hard work in Project ENGAGES, and asked them about their experiences in the program.

Students responded that Project ENGAGES has helped them both broaden their interests and focus on the topics they find most interesting, its side projects allowing for them to explore new areas of study.

One student praised the program as helping her realize that she could pursue anything to which she set her mind.

Despite a competitive and
contentious first half, Tech crumbled late and lost to the Duke Blue Devils 14-28
on Saturday. With 5:00 to go in the third quarter, Tech was tied with Duke 7-7,
but Tech fumbled on the next two drives and then fumbled again on a subsequent
kickoff deep in their own territory which Duke capitalized on to the tune of a
21-point advantage. Tech’s mistakes in ball handling proved too much to
overcome as the Jackets fell to 3-4 on the season.

QB TaQuon Marshall struggled on the
ground and went for just 41 yards on 16 rushing attempts, but his pitching
ability had noticeably improved, especially from Tech’s game against Clemson
earlier last month. Jerry Howard, Jordan Mason, and Clinton Lynch each went for
30+ yards during the game. Still, the Jackets struggled with scoring and ball
handling across both halves, as Tech was held to less than 15 points in their
first game since last year’s game against Georgia.

Echoing his remarks from weeks
prior after Tech lost to Clemson on the back of multiple fumbles and missed
plays, Tech head coach Paul Johnson again expressed frustration with his offense’s
ball handling. “I thought we cleaned that up, but we haven’t,” Johnson said.
“There’s a small margin of error. We can’t win games when we turn the ball over
three times [like that].”

Tech’s offense had found its rhythm
against two of the worst defenses in the country in their most recent games,
beating up on Bowling Green State and Louisville. Tech had punted the ball just
once in those two games after Johnson had emphasized that he would take a more
hands-on approach to coaching ball-carrying. Johnson reiterated his commitment
postgame Saturday: “We’ve got to do a better job coaching ball security. It
comes back to us.”

Anree Saint-Amour leads Tech Defense

                  Tech’s
defense got off to a rocky start against Duke, as Tech gave up three first
downs and a touchdown on four straight plays, as Duke knifed down the field
with a series of quick passes. But Tech’s defense was lights out on the
following drives –Tech’s defense held Duke to 5/10 on third downs and 0/2 on
fourth downs. Tech’s defense did yield those three touchdowns by Duke in the
third quarter, but each fumble had occurred deep in Tech’s red-zone,
handicapping the defensive unit. Leading the charge again was Anree
Saint-Amour, who continued to build his case for All-ACC honors, picking up 2
sacks and forcing a fumble during the game. Duke’s offense was tied for second
in the FBS in turnovers lost entering the game with just three, but Tech forced
five turnovers, including a key interception in the first quarter that gave
Tech its first score.

                  Saint-Amour
praised his defensive unit following the game. “I feel like we do a pretty good
job getting takeaways, which is a big thing on defense with the ability to
change the game. We’re making less mistakes every game and I feel we’re growing
as a defense, so we’re all going to get better.”

                  Blue Devils and Tech Get Physical

                  Tech’s loss on the road at
the hands of Duke last season did nothing to imply the level of animosity that
was present between the two teams Saturday. Duke and Tech got into multiple
altercations during the second quarter, from pushing and shoving to a Duke
player restraining a Tech player on the ground following the downing of a punt
attempt by the Jackets. The tensions escalated to an all-out brawl after Tech
kicked off following their only first-half touchdown, where Duke LB Jacob
Morgenstern and Tech LB Victor Alexander engaged in a fist-fight as the benches
emptied on both sides. Both players were assessed personal fouls for their
roles in the fight, and Alexander was ejected from the game.

                  Tech Bitten by Injury Bug

                  While most of Tech’s woes
during the game were self-inflicted, Tech also lost multiple players during the
game. LB David Curry and WE Stephen Dolphus each left the game early and did
not return, and Marshall was forced to leave the game as well during the fourth
quarter with injury. Johnson indicated that he believed Marshall would be fine
as the nature of Marshall’s injury was not serious but said that he would need
to wait until Sunday to find out more. Because of Marshall’s injury, RS
freshman and former four-star recruit QB James Graham received his first snaps
of the season, picking up four yards on one carry.

Ask a Tech fan about the team’s performance in nearly any sport and they will detail the latest gruesome news — perhaps a heartbreaking loss or an injury to the key player, maybe even both — and then break off, with a favorite justification.

“You know, it’s really hard to recruit here.”

Yes, for whatever reason — academic rigor, dearth of majors, a student body that by and large does not care about athletics, the litany of schools nearby — Tech does not have it easy on the recruiting trail. The football team, in particular, has had a difficult time; an open letter from Todd Stansbury to Tech season ticket holders after the team’s poor showing against Clemson (a team with which Tech could compete closely with until recently) in essence says that if fans want a better program, they had better pay for it.

Yet there is a team at Tech that does not face such an uphill battle attracting talent and it plays its home games at McCamish Pavilion. It is not the men’s basketball team, which just lost its brightest star in years, Josh Okogie, to the NBA after an injury-shortened sophomore season. Rather, it is MaChelle Joseph’s women’s basketball team that, despite facing similar constraints to Tech’s other programs, has been quietly impressive on the recruiting trail over the past few years. 

It is difficult to determine exactly what allows the women’s basketball team to succeed where football, men’s basketball and others fall short. An intuitive first guess is that the team is just that much more successful; after all, UConn attracts many of the best prospects across the country despite the school’s unexciting locale and general mediocrity in the “money” sport: football. That, in a nutshell, is the effect that a coach like Geno Auriemma can have on a program. But a quick look through Tech’s recent season results suggest that the team is not winning talent thanks to the Auriemma effect. A typical Tech season involves a near-.500 record in conference, a slight winning record overall and a bid to the Women’s National Invitation Tournament, considered the consolation prize for teams unqualified for the NCAA Tournament. Yes, the Jackets went to the NIT Championship Game a few years ago and lost in a heartbreaker to Michigan, but surely that moderate success is not enough to give the team an edge; the men’s basketball team accomplished the same thing that year and still struggles to pitch top recruits.

The next logical though would be that perhaps Tech’s academic prestige matters more for women’s basketball than it does for other major sports. After all, the professional prospects for the women’s game are not particularly bright; WNBA players are paid a small fraction of their male counterparts; per Forbes, the average WNBA salary last season was $71,635. (For comparison, NBA player Tristan Thompson was fined $25,000 for being ejected during a Finals game and Vladimir Radmanovic was docked $500,000 for injuring himself while snowboarding.) Perhaps, cognizant of that reality, women’s basketball recruits prize a top-notch degree?

The evidence seems to confirm that. Of the teams ranked in the year-end USA Today Coaches’ Top 25, only four – No. 1 Notre Dame, No. 7 UCLA, No. 12 Duke and No. 13 Stanford – are ranked above Tech in the latest US News and World Report academic list. It also helps to explain why Notre Dame and Stanford have excellent women’s teams despite unspectacular men’s teams; their academic advantages matter more. 

The other advantage Tech’s women’s basketball team seems to utilize to great effect is its ability to recruit players from abroad. All of Georgia’s players hail from American high schools, as do all of Notre Dame’s, all of Baylor’s and all but two of Stanford’s. Tech’s team is a patchwork quilt of nationalities; Anne Francoise Diouf is Senegalese, Elizabeth Balogun moved to the United States from Nigeria for ninth grade, Lorela Cubaj and Francesca Pan come from Italy and Lotta-Maj Lahtinen hails from Finland. Tech’s advantage may come less from a unique recruiting pitch than a willingness to look for talent where other teams do not.

Whether thanks to its academic profile, its strong connections abroad or something else all together, Tech women’s basketball’s recruiting prowess is impressive. The 2018 class ranks No. 9 in ESPNW HoopGurlz’s annual list, thanks in large part to the two Elizabeths: Balogun and Dixon, both of whom were five-star recruits. Added to an excellent team featuring the likes of Kierra Fletcher and Francesca Pan, they could vault the women’s basketball team sharply upwards in 2019 and certainly beyond.

Tech’s 66-31 thrashing of the Louisville Cardinals last Friday night represented many things. For one, it was a turning point in their season, making the jump back to being a .500 team. For another, it was a show of strength against a genuine opponent But most importantly, it was revenge — bloody, gory vengeance, claimed by none other than Paul Johnson himself.

Johnson’s path to Friday’s game began not last week, but years ago, before Johnson and his option-offense had risen to national prominence thanks to his efforts at Navy and Tech. As offensive coordinator, Johnson installed his famed triple-option offense for Georgia Southern and ran it successfully before leaving for Hawaii and later Navy in 1987. But Johnson returned to his first home in 1997, joining the Eagles as their head coach, and catapulted the program to unheralded success, bringing home two NCAA DI-AA national championships and posting a 62-10 record. As a result, he was hired back to Navy to be their program’s head coach, bringing his signature offense along to Annapolis, Md.

But when Johnson left Statesboro, his triple option remained under the care of his former offensive coordinator Mike Sewak. Sewak stepped in as head coach in Johnson’s absence, and again found immediate success. But when Sewak was fired after the 2005 season, in came new coach Brian VanGorder.

VanGorder had previously been a defensive coordinator for the University of Georgia, and received rave reviews for his rush defense. When VanGorder was offered the Georgia Southern head coaching position in 2006, he took it and continued his crusade against all things rushing — not only did he bring his rush defense to Statesboro, VanGorder expelled the triple option that had worked so well for Georgia Southern in the past. Worse, VanGorder jeered at the option on its way out. Georgia Southern published promotional clips that included VanGorder saying to the camera, “There is no option.” VanGorder claimed that he was bringing Georgia Southern into the twenty-first century.

For Johnson, the triple-option’s greatest champion, this was sacrilege. Upon hearing about VanGorder’s comments, Johnson allegedly called up his athletic director and demanded that Navy be scheduled for a game against Southern. Why? “‘Because I want to beat the hell out of Brian VanGorder,” he allegedly said. VanGorder had dug his grave.

The game never materialized, as Brian VanGorder led Georgia Southern to a 3-8 record, at the time their worst in modern history, and left after a single season.

Despite his rocky history defending the triple option, VanGorder still presented himself as an expert in preparing for it. After finding work as Louisville’s defensive coordinator, VanGorder continued to present himself as such, even discussing with the press prior to Friday’s game his secrets and strategies for defending the triple option.

VanGorder’s credibility is now shot. With the Jackets up 52-17 in the fourth quarter, Johnson kept pressing and kept scoring. Such are the ways of Paul Johnson.

Nearly every college student worries about grades, employment and the odds of making it to an 8 a.m. class on time. At Tech, these are considered common concerns that students openly discuss amongst peers, faculty and staff.

Less openly discussed is the issue of poverty and how it impacts college students. It can be easy to assume that every student has the freedom to learn and succeed in all aspects of college life. In reality, the lack of financial resources affects the quality of life for many students and prevents them from succeeding in school. Some are not able to afford adequate food, housing or clothing. Others struggle to pay medical bills or to afford other personal expenses.

The Institute has resources in place to alleviate some of the financial stressors for students in need. The Students’ Temporary Assistance and Resources (STAR) program coordinates between four campus organizations that provide aid: Klemis Kitchen, Campus Closet, Dean Griffin Hip Pocket Fund and an emergency housing scholarship.

“STAR is basically the safety net for students who have a financial crisis,” said STAR coordinator Steve Fazenbaker. “It is hard to get into Georgia Tech and it is hard to stay at Georgia Tech. You don’t want a little financial hiccup to derail what would otherwise be a pretty successful career here, so our job is to help minimize the distractions from any kind of hiccup that might come along.”

The STAR program was founded as a project of the Provost’s Office but moved to the Division of Student Life earlier this year in order to expand its reach. During this transition, two independent studies indicated that there are around 2,000 students on campus who would benefit from the program. The studies showed that 70 students currently use STAR resources.

Klemis Kitchen works with the nationwide, student-run Campus Kitchens organization to provide meals to students with food insecurity. Student volunteers collect leftover food from dining halls twice a week and package these leftovers into individual meals that are then used to stock the Klemis Kitchen pantry.

Campus Closet began as a service for students who come to college without professional attire to borrow suits for interviews and career fairs. The service has since built a collection of over 800 suits for men and women that anyone can loan regardless of financial need.

Another service that helps students whose financial situations may suddenly change is the Dean Griffin Hip Pocket Fund. This resource provides students interest-free emergency loans of up to $1,000.

“It could be something like your laptop got stolen or broken, and you just don’t have the time to go through the process of going to financial aid. It is zero percent interest and you have the semester to pay it back, so students really appreciate that,” Fazenbaker said. The fund also takes into account situations where students cannot pay the loan in the allotted time; however, the return rate on the loans is 98 percent.

The final area of assistance provided by STAR is the emergency housing scholarship. If students find themselves suddenly in need of housing the student may work with STAR and Health Initiatives’ VOICE program to find temporary housing until a more long-term solution can be secured.

The previously mentioned studies found that the demographics of those who are resource-challenged at Tech match those of the population at large. However, at least half of the cases of students in need of emergency housing involved LGBT students.

“A lot of times it either has to do with a student coming to college and coming to understand his or her sexuality, and as they begin living it out, either roommates are uncomfortable with it and they are forced to leave, or in much more tragic cases, parents are uncomfortable with it and the student is cut off,” said Fazenbaker.

Situations like these demonstrate how quickly a student’s financial situation can change. That is why it is important for the campus community to be aware of the resources available to those with financial need.

Despite the fact that many students in need could benefit from these programs, many do not take advantage of the programs. The reason for this discrepancy is likely due to a lack of awareness, so Fazenbaker is working to raise the profile of STAR on campus. One way is by establishing a board of students to increase the visibility of these issues and provide a network of support.

Students who wish to be involved with this managing board are encouraged to contact Fazenbaker. In addition, applications will open up later this semester for STAR Ambassadors.

There are other ways to help those in need on campus. Campus Kitchens and Klemis Kitchen need volunteers to package meals; a schedule for volunteering is available on OrgSync. In addition, this semester STAR is launching an initiative where campus departments can sponsor Klemis Kitchen for a month and collect goods for the pantry.

“This is overly simplistic, but the fact that we’re at a place like Georgia Tech, where we’re trained to identify a problem and solve a problem, it is very easy for us to overlook where there are struggles,” Fazenbaker said.

“It is important to raise awareness of these issues and the fact that we’re all human beings and we all hit bumps, and we need each other to get through those times. If we can accept and embrace that, then life would be a lot easier for all of us.”

For more information about STAR, visit studentlife.gatech.edu/content/need-help.

On Sept. 9, 2018, the president of the Georgia Tech Musician’s Network (GTMN), Heath Murphy, sent out an announcement to the organization’s official mailing list informing members that the new Wenn Campus Center complex would not include space for Under the Couch.

As a result, the announcement claimed, Under the Couch would not exist after it closed in 2020 for the renovations. Currently, the GTMN coordinates with the Student Center to run the Under the Couch, a music lounge and practice space venue on the second floor of the Student Center.

As part of the same email, Murphy announced that he would be sending out a petition following the GTMN meeting on Sept. 10.

As of writing, the petition has over 1,800 responses from current students, faculty members, prospective students and alumni. Each response to the petition affirms that the signer agrees that “Under the Couch should be included in the new Campus Center with no diminished utility from its current state.”

Murphy, who has been a member of GTMN since 2016, said the new Campus Center complex would not contain Under the Couch, but that GTMN would instead have “practice spaces, but that there would not be a stage or lounge in the same regard.”

“There’s never felt a [sic] space on Tech campus that’s like ‘Oh yeah, that’s for music,’ with the exception of Under the Couch,” Murphy said.

With regards to the Campus Center plans, Murphy explained that he thinks “it’s kind of more of the same. They tend to, rather than dedicate a music space or something like that, they would just convert something else into a room that works,” Murphy said. “The alternative that the Student Center has pitched to us and that is in their current plans is a general-use, smaller theater … but that doesn’t really work for the style of performances that we put on.”

Murphy emphasized that Under the Couch has a unique quality as a space managed by students.

“With Under the Couch, the people that I have managing the space want to do it. We get to choose — we buy the lights; we set up the speakers. All that stuff is designed by Musician’s Network and that’s part of the enjoyment of it,” Murphy said.

Lindsay Bryant, Ed.D., the Student Center director, explained the process behind the Campus Center planning process.

“During the Spring semester, we met with probably over 200 different students, faculty and staff. Different organizations, we did specific meetings, so MN had a specific meeting to talk about their space. We talked with student groups to see what the needs were,” Bryant said.

According to Bryant, the Student Center heard from GTMN that the organization needed four areas available in the new space. “When you think of their space, four areas — four purposes that it solves, and kind of what they need. The first one is practice space,” said Bryant. “The second one is recording, which they will still have in the new space. The third is a venue, like a stage and everything, and then a lounge.”

According to a set of plans for GTMN space in the new Campus Center shared by Bryant, the organization will have access to a small practice room of 100 sq. ft. as well as a large practice room of 300 sq. ft. which will be attached to a recording and control booth. According to the document, the practice space will have integrated A/V for recording and will be open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Bryant also said that the Campus Center will have general-purpose venue and lounge space. “The venue space will be reservable and can be used by anyone, as well as lounge space for everyone,” said Bryant. “Within this space, there will be more options, too — we’re having a large theater, which will seat about 298 which will have a stage in it. There will be a little theater which will seat 150 but you can also clear off the floor and so it’s just one big area.”

According to Bryant, students will be able to reserve the new venues the same as always via the online Event Management System, and student groups will not be charged for reservations.

When asked how the new Campus Center will meet the same needs as Under the Couch, Bryant stated that “it fills the first two that I talked about very well. Obviously with the recording space and then the practice rooms and then the lounge and then the venue. I think that there are going to be several different opportunities for venues.”

Evan Gillon, undergraduate student body president, said that the Student Government Association (SGA) will be working to help mediate the process to ensure student group needs are heard.

“SGA’s role is ultimately to advocate for the best interests of the entire student body, which includes supporting the interests of niche communities and communities in need,” Gillon said.  “The Musician’s Network is indeed one of these communities, and we are searching for a solution that allows them to fulfill their purpose, while also allowing the many other performing arts groups to achieve theirs. We are currently having these conversations with Student Organizations, Student Center administrators, and other Campus Center planning groups.”

On Monday, Sept. 24, Bryant and her colleagues visited the GTMN general meeting to hold a Q&A session, where students were able to raise their concerns.

GTMN is a Tier II student organization, placing it on the same tier as the SGA, and other high impact student organizations.

The Atlanta Motor Speedway has been the home to the Imagine Music Festival for the past couple of years. The generous space is a refreshing change from the crowds of Music Midtown the week before. The Imagine Music Festival was themed “An Aquatic Fairytale” and featured three days of talented artists. Imagine is most properly characterized as a mid-sized EDM festival — not quite as large as the greats of the genre like Ultra or Tomorroworld. Imagine’s unique size sets it apart as a niche festival that still holds the epic feel of a large-scale festival without the lines and unnavigable crowds.

This past weekend, Imagine featured 70+ artists on five stages, of which four were open on day one of the festival. Each stage was equipped with its own complete decorations and 3D backdrop. The visuals are perhaps as crucial as the music itself for an EDM festival, and Imagine delivered. The main stage was mesmerizing — crosshatched lasers vibrated in the air space above the heads of the crowd as optical illusions backed the artists and reflected the pace and mood of the set.

The view for the concertgoers was much more complex in comparison to hip-hop festivals. At peak sets, dancers came out in levitating orbs while acrobats performed alongside them. Meanwhile, bursts of fire adorned the sides of the stage — so close to the audience members that it might have singed their hair.

There was never a cold minute at Imagine. Smaller stages held viewers’ attention as they moved among the bigger stages — the two largest stages were separated by a row of food trucks. There were a variety of choices all in the range of $8 and up. A full meal cost attendees around $20, and for a festival as long as Imagine, food is an important consideration. 50+ vendor shops filled up the rest of the tarmac. The EDM culture at Imagine is defined and is full of tradition; the shops, the people and the dress all reflect a singular coherent vibe.

Varied installations throughout the speedway caught the eyes of passerby. A geodesic pyramid pulsed different colors while a metal orb rotated open to expose an untamed flame. Decorated wooden canvases featured art made by many of the concertgoers themselves — the people who helped to create the festival are some of the most adamant in enriching the EDM culture and community. The sense of ritual is developed and the positive attitude is infectious.

This year’s lineup was rumored to be the best Imagine has ever seen. Atlanta was fortunate enough to see some EDM greats — Armin Van Buren, RL Grime, Kaskade and more. Each day of the festival had a collection of artists that complemented each other’s style well. As the weekend progressed, the names on stage got bigger and the sets used more lyrics and hit songs.

By nighttime, each set became a cyclical process between building up to the next drop to the rapid lights and roaring fire that accompanied it. The crowd energy nearing peak sets like Bass Nectar and Galantis was unmatched. In terms of a cost analysis for the viewer, an EDM festival like Imagine undoubtedly has the highest return on investment. The price of the ticket is comparable to Music Midtown or a ticket to an arena concert like Taylor Swift or Aubrey and the Three Amigos, but these options do not have the same effects, production, stages, or vendors that Imagine does.

After speaking to some veteran EDMers, it was clear that Imagine’s size in comparison to larger festivals was a nice sweet spot. At Imagine, viewers could easily navigate crowds and likely reach close to the front center of a stage at about any time during an artist’s set. The open space and lounging audience added a laid-back feel to it all. No one was obligated to stick around and hear an artist finish — a restrictive environment would contradict the unique character of Imagine.

Logistically, Imagine can improve the intake of cars and the handling of traffic for both parking and entrance for campers. In the past, Imagine has received criticism about the lack of water stations for concert goers.

This year, Imagine failed to hold up the same concern they showed at last year’s festival. Long lines and warm water were both reasons to skip the refill stations. The VIP section promises a selective viewing experience, but the section scales the left quadrant of the audience at the two largest stages at Imagine. The upgrade is underwhelming and not worth the increase in price. In contrast, the camping pass is the entry to the actual all-night-long party with a silent disco ending at 7 a.m. to wrap up the eventful weekend Monday morning.

The reluctance to commit to an EDM concert is a dilemma that seems to be common among a lot of listeners who are on the fence about the genre. Imagine is a perfect mid-size festival that satisfies the serious listener and the amateur alike.

The experience is not reliant on a listener’s familiarity with certain songs or artists — EDM’s inclusivity gears Imagine to increase in size and success year after year. Imagine is the largest privately run EDM festival — for it to operate at its scale and move artists to the US for a weekend is quite a feat.

It’s career fair season. That means it is time for thousands of Tech students to put on their costumes and play pretend.

You’ve seen it before. The horde of job seekers in the suffocating air of the CRC’s fourth floor, their eyes perpetually peeled for the logos that represent the companies they hope to one day stick on their LinkedIn profiles. The gold badges and plain nametags that seem to indicate a student’s place in a sort of career-based caste system. They crowd around recruiters the same way that children may clamor for a famous athlete’s autograph. Friends and classmates become fellow job-seekers, every man and woman for themself.

This picture is vivid in my mind because I understand fully well that I have been one of these people. I too have navigated the delicate balance between making innocuous small talk with company representatives and finding ways to link the unseasonably hot weather back to a point on my resume. We don’t do these things because we enjoy them; they’re just a box that must be checked.

And what does that hold for us? Case interviews, behavioral interviews, coffee chats, networking dinners — they’re all chances for us to market ourselves, building a brand that hopefully grows so strong that no company is able to resist it.

The true tragedy of this big song and dance is not that it is stressful or time-consuming, although it is both. It is that the job search process tells companies so little about who we are as interns or full-time employees. We all put on an affect in these settings. A three-month project which went nowhere becomes “a valuable lesson in research design”; that one time you spent an afternoon working with Habitat for Humanity might become “a humbling experience that shaped my perspective on making a difference.” How are employers to know which among us are the truly passionate and accomplished and which are merely very good at playing the part?

A few weeks ago, I spoke to a recruiter about my frustrations — not in the course of interviewing for a job, of course; that would have been foolish. And I was surprised to find him agreeing that yes, the career search process does a poor job of separating good from bad. Why not have candidates selected for a second round of interviewing complete some sort of group project? Why doesn’t every field have an equivalent of consulting’s case interviews or tech firms’ coding interviews? Where in the midst of a classic “tell us about an item on your resume” interview can a hiring manager determine whether someone is reliable or capable?

Tech students are by and large accomplished, talented people. So rather than having us speak about our greatest challenges or proudest moments, companies ought to make us prove it.

When people ask me where I’m from, I tell them, “Houston” if I’m pressed for time. If I can sense that they’re willing to know more about me, then I tell them, “a lot of places.” But when they ask me where I’m really from, I tell them, “I’m from the Philippines.”

I come from a Filipino family on both sides, with Chinese ancestry on my mom’s side and Spanish ancestry on my dad’s side. My mom, born and raised in Metro Manila, is responsible for passing on the many little sayings that her grandmother would always tell her, like “You can’t cut noodles when you eat them, because long noodles signify a long life.” My dad also talks about many old wives’ tales from his hometown in the provinces and both of my parents are strong advocates of the art and practice of Feng Shui.

I am Filipino by ethnicity and by nationality: I speak Tagalog and I eat Filipino food, but I have never lived in the Philippines. I was born in Singapore. From there, we moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. We ended up in Paris, France, for a while and then found ourselves in Moscow, Russia, before moving to Houston, Texas, where I lived for eight years before moving to Atlanta to attend Georgia Tech.

I was raised in a hybrid “typical Asian” family and a Westernized family dynamic. I grew up with both parents and my older brother, and my parents followed typical collectivistic parenting until we moved to the United States. Upon reaching adolescence, I became independent and thought that I could do what I wanted as long as I felt that it was right, even if it wasn’t right. This got me into a lot of trouble with my parents, but they were much less strict in parenting me than my brother.

I am a “third-culture” individual and a first-generation immigrant to America. I am not an Asian-American.

There’s a difference. Sure, I speak like an American and have the stubborn independence of an American, but those attributes don’t even begin to erase the years of learning from other cultures. I remember feeling the constant disconnect between what I was learning from my peers, my environment, culturally and socially, and what my parents were teaching me. I remember struggling to make new friends and having to move to a different country just as I was getting settled.

I grew up going to international schools where I was surrounded by students of diplomats and expatriates and other third-culture kids. I remember feeling envious of my new American friends who grew up surrounded by extended family. I didn’t grow up with aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents at birthdays, graduations or holidays, except when I spent summers in the Philippines, which happened every year or two. And even then, I felt like an outsider coming “home” to the Philippines. My cousins would always switch to English when speaking with my brother and me, and I sometimes felt like a tourist in my own country.

My sense of unbelonging was heightened when we moved to America. In other countries, we had the security blanket of calling ourselves expats, through which we could declare our residence as only temporary. Once we found out that we would be living in the States for longer than four years, I immediately felt pressure to act like the others, to pretend like I knew how to be an American, and to mask my cultural differences, but these differences have shaped who I am.

Looking back on all of this, I realize now that the feeling of being an outsider is somewhat comforting to those of us who grew up as third-culture kids. I take comfort in the fact that I don’t know what to call home. I’m admittedly wishy-washy, but I adapt and assimilate very well, and that’s something I learned in my childhood. I only sound and act American because that’s how I learned to survive and thrive in other countries — to immerse myself truly and fully in the native culture, while still maintaining my Filipino heritage.