There is something particularly chilling about walking down a geriatric hospital hallway. Art doesn’t line the walls; photos don’t contrast the pure white paint. Everything is brown and grey. It’s too quiet; it’s scary. It reminds me of my fear of growing old.

Visiting my grandfather was usually a time of joy and relaxation. His house was my haven; my grandmother,  my guardian angel. But when he got pneumonia, that all changed. It was a rude awakening to the reality of mortality. I always thought those that I looked up to didn’t age as quickly as I did, but years do the same damage to all of us. When I donned the protective gown to enter his rehabilitation room, I felt sick to my stomach. I longed for the peace of his home and the warmth of the tobacco stained air.

Everything smells too clean, too aged. It’s scary. No one seems to care about individual patients, only the few families that visit their sick family members. Some patients are lucid, chatting with their friend on the phone or chuckling over a television program. Some are sleeping or lay motionless in a state much like sleep. The lights in their rooms are off. They seem to have been forgotten.

When I looked at my grandpa, he was still as cranky and humorous as ever. He’d lost some weight, but he was still his old self deep down. Behind his scratchy voice and weak arms, he was still the man I loved. He had not been forgotten. He was loved, he was needed and he was being bothered by family every day of the week during his stay in the center. But could we say the same about all the patients in the building? Are they seen as living, breathing individuals on the tail end of a vibrant life full of stories and experiences? Or are they seen as burdens?

It perplexes me how older generations are allowed to just wither away from our physical realm and our memories. I find my grandmother’s stories about her time on an Illinois farm fascinating, but some people may find that boring. Some people may not value the wisdom, the joy, the memories and the advice that elderly people may have for them. I love my grandparents, but some people don’t. There are people who get sick and lay in hospital beds like the one my grandfather lies in, but they are alone.

Nothing saddens me more than the idea that people — so complex and full of life with a full past of love, loss and knowledge — are left alone to fight for life. Without the support of family or friends, how is one expected to continue living?

The actual healthcare for geriatric patients astounds me even more. This may be anecdotal evidence, but from what I’ve seen, even doctors and therapists put older patients on the back-burner. The public doesn’t demand it, though. If the majority of people wanted more emphasis on geriatric care, there would be more emphasis on research and testing. Maybe that’s why there isn’t an Alzheimer’s ice bucket challenge, or a 5K walk for dementia patients.

It was so striking to see the quality of care given to older patients just because of their age. The value of human life seems to shrink with time. Children are important, of course, but those who have contributed to society for years, who have cultivated families and who have struggled through adversities to lift younger generations to where they are now are also important. Everyone wants to live a long life, but when we get to that stage, not many others seem to want that too.

For the price that patients pay for long-term care, they should be getting more. For the work they have done to promote a good and healthy society, they should be feeling more support, not just by their families, but by our society at large. And yes, there are some bad people who you may believe do not deserve this support and care, but I’m talking about the good people in our world. People like my grandparents. People who change and changed lives. Their impact is immeasurable, so why are the lengths we go to for them so short?

In recent years it has become common in casual political conversations to instruct someone who does not fully empathize with the suffering of disadvantaged peoples to “check [their] privilege.” The idea is that certain people in society are granted rights which others are not for arbitrary reasons, and that the people who do exercise these rights are more privileged than others.

The underlying sentiment of this idea is valid; minorities and other disadvantaged groups are often treated differently in ways which deprive them of rights that others take for granted. The trouble is that collectively calling these rights “privilege” implies that those who exercise them should not.

The problem which needs to be solved to address inequality is generally not that groups have rights that they should not, but rather that disadvantaged people are not given the rights to which they are entitled.

If a white person were to argue that people should just follow police officer’s instructions if they do not wish to be subjected to police brutality, one might respond that he should check his privilege. After all, he is failing to acknowledge that his relationship with police is different from what it might be for an African American because he is granted rights that African Americans are often not.

The social issue which needs to be corrected here, however, is not that white people enjoy the unjustified privilege of not living in fear of police brutality. The problem is that African Americans are not granted the right to live free of that fear. Like with most social issues, police brutality is not a zero-sum game; making the relationship between police and African Americans better does not mean making that between police and white people worse.

If one instructed police to subject more white people to police brutality, he would solve the inequality, but he would do nothing to improve the experience of the disadvantaged class.

Like with the issue of police brutality, the solution to most social problems which are labelled as issues of privilege is not to deprive the privileged class of rights, but rather to ensure that those rights are extended to all people and are not limited to certain groups.

This is not to say that we need to address all groups equally when solving social issues; we should of course be looking to achieve equity. All I am arguing is that we need to reconsider the way that we frame social issues rhetorically.

It may sound at this point like I am arguing about semantics. These are just words, so why does it really matter what we call it?

The truth is, how we frame these problems has an effect on how we think about them. Progressives can sometimes get too caught up thinking about privilege and start looking to tear advantaged classes down rather than lifting disadvantaged ones up.

Even more significantly, the term is alienating to those who supposedly possess privilege. In order to succeed in addressing problems of privilege, we need to engage with privileged classes and get them involved in the solution. When these people are accused of having privilege, however, they begin to believe that the goal of the progressive movement is to take away their rights rather than to simply extend them to others.

To make matters worse, solutions to problems of inequality typically focus on creating programs which benefit disadvantaged groups without impacting privileged classes. This further creates the impression that something is being taken away from those with privilege.

Conservative populists want their supporters to believe that social issues are a zero-sum game. When white voters are scared that they will lose their rights, it benefits Donald Trump. When progressives talk about privilege, it plays right into the hands of those that benefit from fear.

This is why it is time for a rebranding. No more telling people to check their privilege or blaming their ignorance on their privileged status. I honestly do not have any ideas for what to replace the term with, but in this age of memes I’m confident that somebody will come up with something eventually. In the meantime, we can all do our part in repairing our divided political landscape by making an effort to stop telling people to check their privilege all the time.

On Wednesday, Institute Diversity held its 10th Annual Diversity Symposium at Georgia Tech. Members of the Tech community gathered in the Global Learning Center for keynote presentations and discussion panels on the topics of diversity and inclusivity. The event concluded with an awards ceremony celebrating community members who have demonstrated a commitment to inclusive excellence.

In his opening remarks, President G.P. “Bud” Peterson shared an update on the Institute’s “A Path Forward — Together” initiative. The initiative consists of three interrelated clusters: academics, student and community life and health and well-being.

Throughout the session, a particular emphasis was placed on the issue of mental health and how it affects the Tech community. Many conversations were framed around the death of student Scout Schultz on campus nearly one year ago.

President Peterson spoke about the steps being taken to improve student access to mental health resources. One such step is the establishment of the Mental Health Intake Center, which is expected to open at Tech on January 19. The center will be located in the heart of campus in the Flag building. Its goal is to alleviate the wait times students face when seeking mental health services.

Archie Ervin, vice president of Institute Diversity, also spoke about the progress the Institute has made in promoting a safer and more inclusive community. He acknowledged that there are many areas of community and campus culture where improvements are still necessary.

Ervin highlighted the significance of the student discussion panel, “Student Perspectives on an Inclusive Campus Community.” The panel was moderated by Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Colin Potts.

“There isn’t one person on campus who has all the answers, or who even knows all the questions. So hearing the diverse voices of today’s session will allow us to talk about the important issues and challenges,” Ervin said.

The panel consisted of six undergraduate and graduate students from various backgrounds and academic disciplines. They discussed the importance of meaningful representation on campus.

“As someone who is black, and Muslim, and a woman, and a first-generation American, I have different experiences with all of those,” said panelist Sinet Adous, second-year INTA. “Because of those different experiences, I should have different outlets to feel like I’m safe. When I go to the Muslim Students Association, that’s where I feel safe as a Muslim. That’s not necessarily categorizing myself, but for issues that I face as ‘x, y and z,’ I should have a certain place to go.”

Several panel members also pointed out that the resources available on campus sometimes fall short of student needs.

Collin Spencer, third-year BIOL, recalled the day Schultz was shot. Earlier in the day, Spencer had been called a homophobic slur while walking with his boyfriend on campus. After learning about the death of Schultz, he described feeling like he had nowhere to turn.

“At the time, the LGBT Center was a literal closet in the Student Center,” said Spencer. “So what do you do? You internalize it. It’s directly connected to mental health problems and mental illness. You do what you’ve always done because there’s nothing else there for you.”

He continued: “The problem is when we don’t admit we have a mental health problem. I think that is something that is rampant here at Georgia Tech. For some reason we’re fine with publicly releasing documents about egregious ethics violations, however we are unwilling to admit that we have a mental health problem. And while this may be addressed through practicalities such as action teams, or the Path Forward, without that official statement indicating we have an issue, how do you even begin to gather resources to fully address it? Not as a couple of teams of people, but as an institute as a whole.”

Potts asked the panel about how the absence of inclusivity interacts with issues of mental health. This prompted a discussion about how terminology affects how these problems are approached.

“Inclusivity is not the right word when it comes to finding and sharing practical policies,” said Spencer. “I think the term that we’re going to use now and what I much prefer is ‘vulnerable populations,’ especially when it comes to mental health,” Spencer said.

“It allows us to focus on those populations. If you just apply general policies to an entire group of students, you’re missing out on a huge percentage of minorities that face issues that the majority population does not have.”

Other panelists spoke about how effective policies must specifically target individual identities.

“There is this idea that a minority group needs to be homogenous,” said Aroua Gharbi, CSE graduate student. “In my opinion, you need to look at these subgroups [of a minority group] to figure out where they are having issues and why.”

In addition to the morning panel discussions, journalist Charlayne Hunter-Gault gave a keynote address. In it, she described her experiences as the first black woman to attend the University of Georgia. She also addressed how the terminology of these social issues has evolved over time.

“I’m hoping that ‘diversity and inclusion’ includes lessons of freedom, justice and equality,” she said, recalling the language of the civil rights movement. “There was a time — particularly in the South —  when we didn’t have freedom, we didn’t have justice, and we didn’t have equality… We still have some of those same problems, so ‘diversity and inclusion’ must include the terms ‘freedom, justice and equality.’”

The symposium highlighted the ways in which leaders at many levels strive to create an inclusive Tech community. It also brought attention to areas that need improvement to better serve community needs in the future. For more information about Institute Diversity, visit diversity.gatech.edu.

All summer, Amazon Studios has teased its television adaptation of Tom Clancy’s best-selling “Jack Ryan” series, and last weekend, the first season became available. Jack Ryan (John Krasinski, “The Office”) is an unassuming, brainy CIA analyst who watches “Jeopardy!,” bikes around D.C. and gets thrown off the deep end into the center of a dangerous, intense hunt for “the new bin Laden.”

The first episode sparingly reveals the corner pieces of this giant jigsaw puzzle. There are two young Lebanese boys whose town gets bombed in 1983. There’s Jack Ryan, who nearly gets run over while biking to work by an angry man in a fancy car.

There’s James Greer, who is the angry man in the fancy car and also Ryan’s new boss. Then there’s a parallel storyline in Syria, where a family lives in a large, armored castle-like home and receives frequent visits from important, threatening people.

The cinematography, which is superb, works with the plot to generate a compelling, mysterious mood. A multitude of high angles situated in the top corners of a room creates a fly-on-the-wall dynamic, as if viewers are spying on the conversations.

Most scenes set in Washington, D.C., are filtered with or dominated by mild blues and greys, creating a cool, methodical feeling. Moreover, the short, unspoken scenes broken up throughout the episode that center on Ryan — rowing at dawn in a t-shirt here, sweating at four in the morning because of nightmares there — give him an elusive quality that adds to the mystery.

As the leading man of this intense action series, John Krasinski is perfect for the hybrid role of an impressive combatant with a calm, almost meek countenance. The unimposing, just-a-lowly-analyst side of Jack Ryan is emphasized throughout the episode, often with humor.

When asked what he is a doctor of, he replies unimpressively, “Economics.” After Greer, Ryan’s boss, describes his past high-stakes work in Pakistan, Ryan is asked what his story is, and he says simply, “I’m an analyst.”

Of course, his unintimidating appearance is meant to undercut and shroud his actually remarkable, winding backstory, of which the first episode shows mere glimpses. Through a couple of flashbacks, viewers learn that Ryan served in a war and now suffers from post traumatic stress disorder. Through a couple of cryptic conversations, viewers learn that Ryan used to work on Wall Street but left for unknown reasons.

The real value in the episode, however, is in the subtle themes that do not hinge on the action-packed plot. There is a repeated juxtaposition and struggle between innocence and danger. The best example of this is perhaps the opening scene, when two young brothers are playing and laughing together moments before their home gets blown to pieces. Another scene opens with a Syrian woman, Hanin, running presumably from something with an anxious look on her face, but moments later, it’s shown that she’s simply playing a game of soccer with her children.

Later, a few Syrian children are tracing each other in chalk on the ground, and when they’re ordered to go clean up for dinner, the outlines are left vacant, looking eerily like the morbid outlines that police draw around corpses at crime scenes. These transitions from the light, carefree innocence of childhood to the suddenly somber “real world” speak volumes about the struggles that many children of war or poverty currently experience around the world.

Another idea that the pilot only briefly addresses is the nature of true belief. The potential new terrorist, Suleiman, apparently appeals to both Shia and Sunni Muslims, which has been a strong divide in Islam for centuries. About the belief of Suleiman’s followers, Ryan says, “It’s not about what they’re saying. It’s about how they’re saying it. This is real reverence,” which begs an intriguing philosophical question: how can someone tap into “real reverence”?

Generally, “Jack Ryan” is worth a watch. With its beautiful visuals, endearing leading man, and intricate plot, it fulfills the recipe for great entertainment. And even if you can’t necessarily stomach the intense and sometimes gory action scenes, it also has value for the questions it raises about terrorism—how it starts, how it grows, how it might end—and thus about all of humanity.

The Jackets’ offense performed as one could expect against an FCS opponent on paper, but the real takeaways from Saturday’s matchup were more based on positional performances. At QB, TaQuon Marshall was ineffective through the air in the first half with a sub-40 percent passing rate and an interception — even though the routes were primarily targeted in the short flats and corner. After a halftime tuneup, Marshall finished the game five of six, topping off the final scoring drive with three back-to-back-to-back throws of 25, 13 and 24 yards despite pressure from the interior defense. Marshall blamed his miserable first half on his confidence, but if second half Marshall makes an appearance Saturday, Tech might finally have the Cam Newton-lite behind center that they have been waiting to see since his five touchdown debut against the Tennessee Volunteers.

On the defensive side of the ball, there was an immediate and noticeable improvement from last year’s overly conservative Roof scheme. The Jackets opened up with consecutive forced three-and-outs, giving up only three first downs across Alcorn State’s seven first-quarter possessions with an interception to boot. With both rushing and passing plays held to under 3 yards per play, Tech easily shutout the Braves. Redshirt freshman safety Kaleb Oliver’s mid-game rotation provided an immediate spark to a defensive unit looking to find replacements after a relatively large graduating class in 2017. Woody’s defense stuck with basic Cover 3 out of the base 3-4 for the majority of the game with a few stunt rush packages from the OLBs on both sides, but it is safe to say that most of the creative playmaking was kept up the sleeves for opponents who require a little bit more strategy and trickery to defeat.

Fans may fear that this is a trap game, with the team potentially looking ahead to Pitt. But if the Jackets can capitalize on the momentum from their first shutout victory since 2013, there should be no major issues dismantling a young team and reminding the nation why Charlie Strong caught the axe from Texas just 18 months back.

What happens when a ranked team loses its best quarterback in school history, top running back, top wide receiver, top center, top right guard, top three defensive tackles, two starting linebackers, a starting safety, a kicker and a punter in a single offseason? Fans watching Tech’s game against USF will find out.

In USF’s 34-14 opener over Elon, 2017 backup and presumed starter Brett Kean had been sidelined by a 2-game academic ineligibility suspension, so ASU-graduate-transfer Blake Barnett was trotted out as a placeholder. Fortunately for the Jackets, Barnett did not show off the skills that once made him a contender for the starting quarterback at the University of Alabama. Despite a 40-yard touchdown connection, the majority of his passes were dump-offs for short yardage, and Barnett ultimately failed to impress on the field despite the victory. Former Florida transfer RB Jordan Cronkrite — who rode the bench for USF in 2017 — was out with an injury, but will return on Saturday. It is doubtful that anyone with two sub-160 yard seasons posted almost two years ago will have any significant impact on what appeared to be a weak ground game.

Defensively, USF did snag two interceptions to jump start their quest to reclaim their status as a top-five interception program in back-to-back seasons. But the brand new LB corps primarily comprised of freshmen looked sloppy and out of place on Elon’s opening drive, and their inexperience in positional awareness and tackling form showed in USF’s season opener.

For now, the bottom line seems to be that USF was still riding the high from an exceptional 2017 senior class into their 2018 home opener against an Elon program that made the FCS playoffs but is not ready for an FBS opponent. There is still talent in the program, no doubt about that, but the lack of cohesion between positional units and a serious vulnerability to the run should lead to a healthy margin of victory for Tech on the shoulders of Benson, Searcy, and Marshall. 439 yards rushing last week for the Jackets probably will not be repeated against an FBS team, but against one reeling so gravely, perhaps it is possible. The Bulls’ chances are very slim.

When looking at a snapshot of Paul Johnson’s career to date at Tech, the “good” elements are definitely the most concentrated in 2014’s miraculous 11-3 Orange Bowl season, which was immediately followed up by the majority of the “bad” ones throughout an atrocious 3-9 2015 season where the only victories were against an FCS squad, a fellow 3-9 bottom dweller, and the FSU Kick Six. The past two years have been a blend of some “ugly” moments with an abundance of blown leads and missed opportunities. After being treated to both instantaneous lapses of judgement and drawn out second-half meltdowns (See: UVA, Miami, Duke), Tech faithful can only hope that some of the head-scratching decisions that caused an extremely talented organization to stumble will be used as teachable moments moving forward into 2018. If there’s anything consistent about the ACC Coastal division, it’s that outside of Miami on top and UVA on the bottom, it’s any man’s race to the postseason. I’ve highlighted three key ACC matchups that I believe are the key victories needed to break the trend of 4-4 inner-conference mediocrity and elevate Yellow Jacket football to its rightful place in an NY6 bowl once more.

Who are we playing? Pitt. However, this is not the same Pitt that rolled over and allowed Tech to rack up 400+ rushing yards with 6 players over 6.0 YPC (min. 3 carries) to open up ACC play last year. After a dumpster fire 2-5 start to open up 2017, Pitt’s surfeit of young starters slowly gelled together and managed to rack up wins against Duke, UVA, and a 13th-ranked Miami to close out the season.

What does this game offer? A chance to come back home 3-0 after what should be a pair of wins against Alcorn State/USF to open the season. Having some momentum going into the Clemson game would be nice; any improvement on a miniscule win likelihood percentage is significant. This is also a true must-win if we want to have any shot at competing for a spot in the ACC championship game, as whoever emerges victorious from the Coastal division will have a maximum of 2 conference losses.

When do we play them? Week 3.

Where? Away.

Why are we going to win? Despite a year of growth, this is still the same team the Jackets trounced pretty handily last season in what was easily my personal favorite game of the year. Tech’s interior offensive line unit—along with Marshall, B-Back KirVonte Benson, and A-Back Qua Searcy—will all be staring down familiar faces that were handled with relative ease last year. Pitt lost both their top QBs from last year’s depth chart along with their entire special teams unit, so outside of a complete collapse offensively from Tech or vast improvements across the board from Pitt, this should be a winnable game for the Yellow Jackets.

How are we going to uniquely approach this opponent? Their front seven had three freshman and three sophomore starters, and since defending the triple-option gets easier the more familiar one is with how the system operates, it’s unlikely that Pitt’s defensive line will be as hesitant to pounce on the dive this time around which takes away some key yardage. The fact that the entire front unit is returning means that TaQuon Marshall will need to take advantage of Pitt’s two graduating DBs and use an early midrange aerial assault in the flats to keep their defensive ends honest and open up the outside ground game.

Prediction: 28-14 Tech.

Who are we playing? Duke

What does this game offer? Contingent upon wins at Bowling Green and Louisville, a win against Duke would not only give Tech its second 3 game win streak going into away games at a ranked VT and strong UNC, it would be a statement victory to put Tech at 6-1 overall. While the record may be built on the backs of our weaker early-season opponents, 6-1 easily puts us in contention to challenge Miami for control of the ACC Coastal.

When do we play them? Week 7.

Where? Home, but more importantly, it’s the first game that could (realistically) go either way for Tech in Bobby Dodd. Crowd presence will be a huge factor here.

Why are we going to win? Last year’s 23-point blowout was a 20-20 tie at halftime, which many have pointed to as an indicator that Tech had what it took to hang with them but failed to execute. The reality of the situation is: Duke is returning one of the best QBs in the ACC this year in Daniel Jones with his entire 2017 receiving corps to boot. The Blue Devils have explosive potential that they highlighted in their 60-7 manhandling of NC Central last season, and while Duke has a tendency to play down to the level of its ACC opponents (losses vs. FSU, @ UVA) that it should probably beat, banking on another team to be mentally weak is a poor recipe for success. By Week 7 our secondary should be solidified in the new Nate Woody system. The key to success comes in executing a preventative man-press coverage that limits Duke’s “big play potential” while playing a conservative and mistake-free offense.

How are we going to uniquely approach this opponent? Aggressive pass rush. Duke’s offensive line lost both starting tackles and their center, so if Tech can control the run and force the blue Devils into an early passing situation, putting Jones on a short timer could cause some turnovers that become offensive opportunities.

Prediction: 35-24 Duke.

Who are we playing? Miami

What does this game offer? A chance for the Jackets to prove themselves as future contenders in ACC play against a team they should’ve beat last year; potentially locking bowl eligibility if there are other unforeseen losses earlier on.

When do we play them? Week 10.

Where? Home.

Why are we going to win? Realistically…they aren’t. Miami retained the majority of its talent from an impressive season that saw them unfortunately collapse at the year’s end. Mark Richt is a good man and a better coach that’s looking to establish himself as a new powerhouse in the ACC, especially now with Jimbo Fisher gone. If Tech is 7-2 or 6-3 coming into the matchup, look for Richt to run up the score for the playoff committee. That being said, IF Tech was to win this game, it would immediately vault the Jackets into the upper echelon of the Coastal division, which makes it one of the most important games of the season.

How are we going to uniquely approach this opponent? Control the clock and try to turn this into a defensive matchup. Malik Rosier isn’t anything special and neither is the line protecting him, so if Miami’s shutdown run defense is going to slow up our offense, we need to do the same to them if we want to have any chance of toppling the ‘Canes.

Prediction: 21-10 Miami.

Here are my shamelessly optimistic game predictions.

Alcorn State @ Georgia Tech

Georgia Tech @ USF

Georgia Tech @ Pitt

Clemson @ Georgia Tech

Bowling Green @ Georgia Tech

Georgia Tech @ Louisville

Duke @ Georgia Tech

Georgia Tech @ Virginia Tech

Georgia Tech @ UNC

Miami @ Georgia Tech

UVA @ Georgia Tech

Georgia Tech @ UGA

8-4 Record, Music City Bowl vs. a 9-3 Nebraska on Dec. 28, 35-24 Tech

On Thursday Aug. 30, Tech president G.P. “Bud” Peterson gave his 10th Institute Address. The address began as most of Peterson’s conversations have in the past few weeks, with discussion around the changes being made in response to the multiple firings that have come as a result of ethics investigations on campus.

Peterson began by introducing four new hires that have come as a result of the shake-up in the upper levels of administration. Of those four, he introduced three in interim roles: interim Executive Vice President of Administration and Finance, Jim Fortner, the interim Vice President for Ethics, Compliance and Legal Affairs, Aisha Oliver-Staley, and the interim Senior Vice President and Director of GTRI, Lora Weiss.

After introductions ended, Peterson continued in his now standard apologetic approach.

“I personally have been embarrassed,” Peterson said, “I suspect that you as members of the faculty, the staff and the students have also been embarrassed.”

Peterson went into depth about what has been done, what is being done and what will be done regarding addressing ethics violations and culture on campus.

“We’ve made some personnel decisions,” Peterson said, “and some organizational changes and we’ve put in additional safeguards.” Most of these personnel decisions regard filling the roles of those who were fired or quit during the ethics investigations. While most searches are ongoing, all interim roles have been filled.

The organizational changes involve a shift in reporting structures that offer streamlined ethics reporting in the future. Specifically, more offices report directly to President Peterson regarding ethics issues, and the division that approves contracts has been separated from the division that approves funding for those contracts.

“Most importantly, what we have to do is restore the public trust,” Peterson said. To restore that trust and increase ethics awareness, the administration is working on a series of events and updates later in the year in an Ethics Week that will take place the week of Nov. 12.

After addressing ethics on campus, Peterson moved forward to discuss the Institute’s three big current focus areas: people, programs and platforms.

Peterson began discussing people by describing the students of Tech. In the past ten years, the number of applicants has more than tripled, leading to a decrease in the admit rate from 61 to 23 percent. Additionally, the freshman-to-sophomore retention rate has continued to increase, with a 97 percent retention rate reported.

Peterson also noted that an increased number of faculty hires has led to a decreased student-to-faculty ratio, a trend that Tech is aiming to continue.

“[Student-to-faculty ratio] is a very important number for us,” Peterson said, “because it affects and impacts the quality of the educational programming [at Tech].”

Moving into programs, Peterson discussed the many scholarship and program opportunities Tech is offering in-state students, including programs such as the G. Wayne Clough Georgia Tech Promise, the REACH program and the APS Scholars program. Specifically, Peterson and the Institute are working with the state to make s ure that any student who wants to enroll at Tech is not held back by a lack of money.

Finally, Peterson discussed the many soon-to-be-completed construction projects. Closest on the horizon is the Price Gilbert Library renovation. Peterson said that Crosland Tower will open by the end of 2018, and construction on Price Gilbert begin by Jan. 2019. Also on the list of new projects being built are the CODA building in Tech Square, the Kendeda Living Building and the Dalney Street parking deck.

Before taking questions, Peterson brought up the strategic plan of Tech and showed a video discussing many of the efforts that have emerged as a result of the three Path Forward action teams formed in late 2017. The video discussed efforts to create satellite counseling services, mini-mesters and more inclusive facilities.

Peterson concluded by discussing his wishes for the culture on campus, and how difficult it will be to change it.

“We’ve got a chance to change the culture here at Tech and improve it,” Peterson said, “to change it and improve it to one that’s more focused on ethics and compliance, that’s more intent on creating a welcoming and inclusive environment for all of the people at Georgia Tech, and one more concerned about the health and well-being of the community.”

Questions directed to Peterson ranged from staff raises to increasing the number of international students to the specific recommendations from action teams. Peterson discussed that a lot of the issues were policy issues, and allayed fears that recommendations from the action teams would not be completed.

“I don’t know that we’ve decided that there are any that are not feasible,” Peterson said of the recommendations the action teams had provided. Peterson announced the three action teams would be coming out with updates in the coming weeks with a series of open forums happening on Sept. 4, 6 and 11.

If you expected a blowout, you weren’t disappointed. Tech (1-0) rolled over Alcorn State (0-1), racking up 41 points while shutting out the Braves. Taquon Marshall was typically dominant, rushing for 2 touchdowns and 181 total yards, complemented by Kirvonte Benson’s rushing prowess, who picked up 2 touchdowns and 75 rushing yards in only three quarters of play, and Jordan Mason, who posted 85 rushing yards and 1 touchdown.

Marshall has mixed passing game

One of the bigger storylines entering the season was how Marshall, a breakout star for Paul Johnson’s triple-option offense, could improve on his already superb game. In an interview earlier this season, Johnson said that he’d like to see Marshall improve on his passing game, ideally with a completion rate of 50 percent or higher. Alcorn State, which held opponents to a 51 percent completion rating last season, did their part to limit Marshall’s opportunities, but Marshall was frequently off-target in the first half. Marshall’s first pass attempt of the year was a good five feet wide from his target, Qua Searcy, and it set the scene for the rest of the game, as Marshall struggled to hit his man, and narrowly missed being intercepted multiple times.

Marshall did improve on his passing in garbage time during the third quarter, leading a 97-yard drive capped off by a 24-yard touchdown pass to Brad Stewart, which inflated his numbers – Marshall was just 4-12 in the first half with 25 passing yards in the first half, but went 5-6 with 79 on the garbage-time drive. Johnson substituted Tobias Oliver in at QB following the drive, which ended Marshall’s day on a high note – but the gaudy first-half passing remained.

Postgame, Marshall blamed his first-half struggles on his confidence. “After missing a couple balls, I got really frustrated with myself. Second half, during the first couple short routes…[I] built my confidence back up and then I was just trying to play at that point.” It’s too early to read into half-game long results against FCS teams, but when Marshall was in a rhythm, he was on. Marshall finished the game 9-18-1 with 104 yards.

Defense Faces First Test

Alcorn State would never be considered an offensive juggernaut compared to an FBS opponent; the Braves averaged just 31 points per game last season while playing in the less-than-competitive SWAC. For fans looking for a litmus test to see if new defensive coordinator Nate Woody’s 3-4 scheme is up to par, this was not it.

But at the very least, Tech’s defense did not crumble. They made their plays. And they completely dominated a lesser team’s offense – as any good teams’ defense should. Woody read the offense well, and limited Alcorn State QBs Felix Harper and Noah Johnson to a combined 69 passing yards and 15-23-1 line. Redshirt junior David Curry added a fumble return for a touchdown early in the third quarter.

There were missed opportunities – a dropped interception by Zamari Walton might have easily resulted into another touchdown for Tech, and the defensive linemen had their fair share of broken tackles. But for a new defensive scheme in their first game, a combination of inexperience and rust is to be expected. For now, Tech’s defense looks solid (a welcome improvement from last season), even if it has yet to be seriously tested. And hey, it looks damn good for Nate Woody’s resume that his defense helped Tech record its first shutout since 2013.

Camp’s Catch Controversy

Junior W.R. Jalen Camp posted a catch for the highlight reel in the second quarter, hauling in a long Marshall pass that almost went out of bounds. Camp went full-extension and snagged the ball just before it went out of bounds with one hand before bringing it down cleanly.

However, the catch was called off by officials initially, and then upon review, the call on the field was upheld. Tech players voiced that Camp’s catch should have counted postgame – Freshman B-Back Jordan Mason swore that “[Camp] was in,” and Marshall said that “the toe was down… it was definitely a catch”. Coach Johnson refused to comment on the officiating postgame – when asked for comment, he replied with a smile, “You’re not going to get me on that one. Next!”

On Aug. 24, the New York-based rock band The Lemon Twigs released their third studio album since brothers Brian and Michael D’Addario formed the band, titled
“Go to School.”

The album is a rock opera which follows the story of an adolescent chimpanzee named Shane as he is raised as a child by human parents. “Go to School” is done very much in the style and tradition of The Who’s classic “Tommy,” the 1969 album which originally popularized the concept of the rock opera. 

Much like “Tommy,” “Go to School” contains a variety of sounds and tempos, with broad swings in tone and energy. Both albums also feature operatic harmonizing between multiple vocalists and relatively long run times.

There is no doubt that this album is an ambitious project. It is an elaborate, sophisticated and at times tangled mass of different musical styles, varying themes and complex emotions. 

Like all rock operas, this album seeks to achieve the best of high and low culture by combining the artistic value of opera with the entertainment and broad appeal of rock music.

The only problem is that the result of this attempted fusion is often an album which combines the esoteric inaccessibility of opera music with the unrefined aesthetic of rock. The Lemon Twigs’ contribution to the genre unfortunately falls victim to this mistake. 

The trouble with “Go to School” is that its themes are difficult to extract from the music, and its music on its own is not all that great to listen to. 

After listening to the album several times, fans may eventually begin to appreciate the thematic complexity of the album, but it will take them significant endurance to get there. It’s not that the album sounds bad; in fact many of the songs have brief segments of sonic beauty of which most bands can only dream. As soon as one of these songs gets going, however, the D’Addario brothers abruptly shift tone and fly off into what sounds like a whole new song. 

The effect is jarring and makes listening to the album downright taxing. “The Fire,” for instance, features periods of abundant melodic beauty and episodes of percussive intensity which, if concentrated into their own respective songs, would make for two rather pleasant tracks. When, however, these two sounds are mashed up and punctuated with abrupt slow-downs for a staccato chorus, as on “The Fire” and various other tracks on “Go to School,” the effect is unpleasant, disorienting and cacophonous.

All of this is not to say that “Go to School” is significantly worse than other rock operas; it merely suffers from the same problems that all the others do. “Tommy” may be considered a timeless classic, but it can at times be just as difficult to listen to as this album. 

The difference between the two is that where the Who’s album has flashes of brilliance, “Go to School” has mostly mediocrity. 

The most enjoyable song to listen to on the album is probably “This is My Tree,” a Rolling Stones style track that combines elements of jazz and blues rock and features rather amusing Mick Jagger-esque vocals. While the song is quite fun to listen to, it is little more than a pop song of slightly above average quality. It is certainly never going to be compared to The Who’s “Pinball Wizard” or “Go to the Mirror!”

The most frustrating part about this album is that the listener is acutely aware that the D’Addario brothers are perfectly capable of making music which is enjoyable to listen to. The duo’s first full album, “Do Hollywood” is both musically and artistically complex and genuinely fun for the listener. 

“Go to School” is certainly no less ambitious; there is a profound artistic depth to the writing, and no one would argue with the courage the group shows in attempting to revive the long-dead concept of the rock opera. 

The problem is that the music is simply not as good as that on “Do Hollywood.” The Lemon Twigs could have done much better by simply trying to do a little bit less.

The group indeed is capable of so much more, and fans can only hope that they will somehow manage to find their way back to some of their past success in the future. 

On Tuesday Aug. 28 a few thousand Atlantans descended on Chastain Park for a large picnic.

At least that is what the Chastain Park Amphitheatre felt like for the hour and a half between when concert goers first began to arrive around 7:45 p.m. and when Leon Bridges first took the stage at 9:15 p.m.

Refreshingly, attendees are allowed to bring coolers full of as much food, water and other beverages as they want to most shows at the venue, making for a unique concert environment.

This irregularity was not lost on Bridges’ opening act, the Jamaican-American Jazz fusion performer Micah Davis. 

Davis, who employs the stage name Masego, found the candles which many concert goers brought for their picnics particularly amusing, making several jokes about the unique feature of the venue and even incorporating lines about candles into many of his songs. He also remarked several times that he felt as though he was at a family reunion rather than a concert.

As for his music, Masego is the perfect opening act to pair with Leon Bridges. Much like Bridges, it is difficult to pin the man to a single genre. He straddles the lines between jazz, R&B and soul, and he refers to his sound as “TrapHouse Jazz.” His music is unique and entertaining, and he never takes himself too seriously, with many of his songs incorporating humor and a heavy dose of irony. 

Masego did an admirable job of elevating the atmosphere of the amphitheatre from that of a quiet Tuesday evening picnic to that of a bona fide concert, preparing the attendees for the main performance to come. 

As good as Masego’s opening performance was, by 9:00 p.m. attendees were itching for Leon Bridges, and the opener dutifully relinquished the stage.

Bridges stormed onto the stage with a series of songs from his most recent album “Good Thing,” including quality performances of “Bad Bad News” and “Forgive You.” While these songs were musically excellent, the crowd was clearly less familiar with the newer album and with the exception of a few of the most popular songs from the album (which Bridges reserved for later in the setlist), the newer music drew less of a reaction from the attendees. 

The energy in the amphitheatre intensified greatly at the third or fourth song when Bridges performed an intense, guitar driven version of “Better Man,” an early 1960s R&B style track from his first album, “Coming Home.” The prominent electric guitar in the concert version of the song, which is normally a brass-driven track, gave the performance a much rawer feeling than the intense but polished studio version. 

The audience clearly responded well to hearing familiar tracks, and a much greater share of attendees rose from their picnics to dance and swing to the music.

Bridges kept things going with another hit from his first album, this time the titular “Coming Home.” Bridges’ performance of the song was broadly similar to the studio version, but his dancing and impressive stage presence made the track a crowd favorite.

The energy in the amphitheatre undulated continuously throughout the night, with Bridges alternating between fast and slow songs to keep the audience engaged without exhausting it. Of note were his performances of “Lisa Sawyer” and “Brown Skin Girl” in close succession.

The former, a slow and sincere soul ballad relating the life of Bridges’ beloved mother, lulled the crowd into a swaying trance, while the latter, a fun and upbeat R&B track, had it back swinging and dancing in an instant.

Bridges also experimented with a bit of new material, performing a promising new song which fell between the traditional sound of his first album and the modern R&B style of his second. 

Towards the end of the show, Bridges concentrated on some of his most popular material. By far the biggest crowd pleaser from “Good Thing” was “Beyond,” a slow but intense R&B love song which was among the last tracks Bridges played prior to the encore. 

The song is about the nervous excitement which comes at the beginning of a new relationship, and while it is not musically very energetic, the sincerity of Bridges’ performance of it and his smooth movements on the stage meant that it was invigorating for
the audience. 

When Bridges and his band finished the final track of the main set and left the stage, the audience naturally howled for more, initiating the strange traditional dance that is the encore, and drawing Bridges back out for a couple more. 

The first song of the encore came as a surprise to no one. Bridges had not yet played the biggest hit of his young career, so he came back carrying an acoustic guitar accompanied only by his female backup singer (rather than his full band) to perform the “Coming Home” hit “River.”

The song, a slow but building epic which covers as wide a range of emotions as it does pitches, was an instant hit for the audience. The majority of the crowd stood and swayed to Bridges’ deep howls and his backup singer’s melodic chanting, while many brought out their cell phones to salute the performance with light. 

“River” was intense and overwhelmingly beautiful and was easily the highlight of the show. Still, it would have felt wrong to end the concert there. 

The slow-burning intensity of “River” left the energy in the amphitheatre ready to ignite, and Bridges gave it the crescendo it deserved, bringing out the rest of his backing band to conclude the show with the explosion of energy that is “Mississippi Kisses.” 

The track brought the members of the audience that still remained sitting to their feet, making the whole amphitheatre shake and swing like an overfull jazz club. Bridges’ nearly ten minute performance of “Mississippi Kisses” brought an energy matched by few other entertainers in the modern music scene and gave the show the ending it deserved. 

Bridge’s performance was excellent in practically every regard, from his stage presence to the energy of his music to the structure of the setlist. The only weakness with the concert was its slow start, with the audience not really getting into the music until about a third of the way through, although that may have had less to do with the performance than with the fact that the attendees were still finishing their dinner. 

On Tuesday night, Bridges proved that he is one of the best performers playing today, and the next time a tour brings him through Atlanta, his show will definitely be worth checking out.