Vehicle Mat - Weather Tech Mats

Vehicle mat  - weather tech mats

Vehicle mats, also known as "automobile floor mats", are designed to protect a vehicle's floor from dirt, wear, and salt corrosion.

One major use of a vehicle mat is to keep the car looking clean. Most mats can be easily removed for cleaning and then replaced. Some require fixation points to ensure they remain fixed in position.

Vehicle mat  - weather tech mats
Overview

Vehicle mats are an interior car parts accessory that dealerships generally include with the purchase of a vehicle. However, with the surge in leasing organisations and sales through such channels, some cars are offered without them.

Vehicle floor mats come in a variety of shapes and materials. They may feature spikes, grooves, or caps to capture dirt and water, and be made from the synthetic rubber (often referred to as "vinyl" or "thermoplastic") or textile materials.

Floor mats should be distinguished from floor liners. Floor liners feature molded bottoms and edges that run along the walls of vehicles' foot wells, while floor mats are flat on the bottom and are fitted between foot well walls.

Vehicle mat  - weather tech mats
Materials

Vehicle mats generally come in two options: either rubber or carpet fabric. These differ in a number of ways, and each material provides advantages and disadvantages when compared to the other. For instance, carpet mats are generally tufted and have a rubberised anti-slip backing, while rubber mats are heavier duty and more durable.

Also, some car mats are the plain colour of rubber, while many others contain branded company logos, cartoon characters, or advertisements. They can also come in a wide range of colours.

The terms "universal" and "custom fit" differentiate between floor mats that will fit a multitude of different cars versus those that are specifically designed to fit only one chassis.

Some styles of mats may feature small, flexible spikes on their underside to grip carpeting underneath better, and many makeshift vehicle mats are becoming more popular, often taking the form of PVC alternatives, but rubber vehicle mats are still seen as the safest option.

Vehicle mat  - weather tech mats
Regulations

Car mats produced by original equipment manufacturers must follow stringent regulations in the US, especially due to recent recalls of Toyota car mats that posed safety hazards. Factors that are regulated include odour release, durability, performance in various heat levels, etc.

Safety systems are also increasingly common in rubber mats; for example an anti-slip bottom side and a heel pad for added safety and wear.

Vehicle mat  - weather tech mats
Market changes

Original equipment manufacturers are now starting to develop non-OEM channels to offer reduced cost vehicle mats and to expand their markets.

Vehicle mat  - weather tech mats
Recalls

On September 26, 2007, Toyota recalled 55,000 sets of heavy-duty rubber floor mats for the Toyota Camry and Lexus ES 350 sedans. The recalled mats were of the optional "all-weather" type. The NHTSA stated that the recall was due to the risk that unsecured mats could move forward and trap the gas pedal.

On August 28, 2009, a two-car collision killed four people riding in a Lexus dealer-provided loaner ES 350 in San Diego, California; the accident was caused by the Lexus' incorrectly having been fitted with all-weather rubber floor mats meant for the RX 400h SUV, and the fact that these mats were not secured by either of the two retaining clips. Additionally, the brake hardware showed signs of heavy braking consistent with a stuck accelerator pedal. The investigators' report stated that the accelerator pedal's hinge did not allow relieving of obstructions, and the dashboard lacked directions for the three-second emergency press of the push button keyless ignition. NHTSA investigators also recovered the accident vehicle's accelerator pedal, which was still "bonded" to the SUV floor mat.

Learn more »

File:Nike - Nike Air Tech Challenge

File:Nike - nike air tech challenge
Learn more »

SwissTech Convention Center - Swiss Tech

SwissTech Convention Center  - swiss tech

The SwissTech Convention Center is a conference centre sited on the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland.

SwissTech Convention Center  - swiss tech
Building

Designed by the architectural firm Richter Dahl Rocha & Associés of Lausanne, the building was financed by two Credit Suisse real estate funds. Financial support from the Swiss electricity supply company Romande Energie allowed the west facade of the building to be covered with panels made of organic dye-sensitized solar cell, also called "Grätzel cells" after Michael Grätzel, a physical chemistry professor at EPFL and the inventor of this technology.

SwissTech Convention Center  - swiss tech
Events

  • Magistrale (EPFL graduation ceremonies)
  • Planète Santé
  • Forum EPFL
  • PolyLAN
  • The Brain Forum
  • The Moon Race
  • European Space Agency - EUCLID
  • SportAccord Convention 2016
  • Applied Machine Learning Days 2017

SwissTech Convention Center  - swiss tech
Gallery

Learn more »

Texas Tech Red Raiders Golf - Golf Tech

Texas Tech Red Raiders golf  - golf tech

The Texas Tech Red Raiders men's and women's golf teams represents Texas Tech University, often referred to as Texas Tech. The teams compete as members of the Big 12 Conference in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

Texas Tech Red Raiders golf  - golf tech
Head coaches

Men

  • Gene Mitchell (1967â€"70 and 1981â€"83)
  • Danny Mason (1971â€"78)
  • Richard Whittenburg (1979â€"80)
  • Greg Reynolds (1984â€"85)
  • Tommy Wilson (1986â€"98)
  • Jeff Mitchell (1999-2000)
  • Greg Sands (2001â€"present)

Women

  • Jay McClure (1977â€"90)
  • Jeff Mitchell (1990-2000)
  • Stacy Totman (2000â€"09)
  • JoJo Robertson (2010â€"present)

Texas Tech Red Raiders golf  - golf tech
Championships

Men

  • Border Intercollegiate Athletic Association (Border Conference): 1936, 1937, 1939, 1955
  • Southwest Conference (SWC): 1959, 1971, 1996

Texas Tech Red Raiders golf  - golf tech
The Rawls Course

The Rawls Course, home of the Red Raiders golf teams, is located on the Texas Tech campus. Alumnus Jerry S. Rawls donated $8.6 million toward the total cost of approximately $15 million course. Completed in September 2003, the course features an 18-hole course, 60-acre (240,000 m2) driving range, pitching and chipping areas and an indoor facility containing three hitting bays. The Rawls Course was designed by Tom Doak of Renaissance Golf Design, Inc., Traverse City, Michigan. Starting from just a cotton field, the course was created to imitate the land east and south of Lubbock, where the Great Plains suddenly begin falling into the valleys and canyons that lead to the Caprock region. Lubbock's strong prevailing winds figured prominently in the course's final design. Both Golf Week and Turfnet magazines ranked The Rawls Course as the third best collegiate course in the United States. Golf Magazine ranked it as the second most affordable U.S. course and placed it twenty-third on their list of top 50 golf courses in the nation for $50 or less.

Texas Tech Red Raiders golf  - golf tech
References

Texas Tech Red Raiders golf  - golf tech
External links

  • Official Texas Tech Men's Golf website
  • Official Texas Tech Women's Golf website


Learn more »

Fingerboard (skateboard) - Tech Deck Tricks

Fingerboard (skateboard)  - tech deck tricks

A fingerboard is a working replica (about 1:8 scaled) of a skateboard that a person "rides" by replicating skateboarding maneuvers with their hand. It can also be referred to as a fingerboard . The device itself is a scaled-down skateboard complete with moving wheels, graphics and trucks. A fingerboard is commonly around 10 centimeters long, and can have a variety of widths going from 29 to 33mm (or more). Skateboarding tricks may be performed using fingers instead of feet. Tricks done on a fingerboard are inspired by tricks done on real skateboards. Cam Fox Bryant is widely credited as making the first fingerboard, and his skit in Powell-Peralta's "Future Primitive" video brought fingerboarding to the skateboarders of the world in the mid- 1980s. Around the same time, he wrote an article on how to make fingerboards in TransWorld SKATEboarding magazine.

Although fingerboarding was a novelty within the skateboarding industry for years, as skateboarding reached enormous and widespread popularity in the late 1990s, the folks at toymaker Spin Master realized the potential for the toys, and specifically for products bearing the logos and branding of real skateboarding brands. Their Tech Deck brand caught on during this period and has grown into a widely recognized brand itself in the toy business. Toy fingerboards like the ones Tech Deck manufactures are now available as inexpensive novelty toys as well as high-end collectibles, complete with accessories one would find in use with standard-size skateboards. Fingerboards are also used by skateboarders as 3-D model visual aids to understand potential tricks and maneuvers; many users make videos to document their efforts.

Similar to fingerboarding, although less popular, handboarding is a scaled-down version of a skateboard that a user controls with their hands.

Fingerboard (skateboard)  - tech deck tricks
History

Fingerboards were first created as homemade toys in the late 1950s and later became a novelty attached to keychains in skate shops (but were also mentioned as a model for a skateboard.) In the 1985 Powell-Peralta skateboarding video "Future Primitive," Lance Mountain rode a homemade fingerboard in a double-bin sink. It is widely accepted that this is where the idea for the Animal Chin ramp came from. Some consider this the earliest fingerboard footage available for public viewing. That homemade fingerboard was built from wood, tubes, and toy train axles.

Fingerboards have been a peripheral part of the skateboarding industry since the late 1980s and were originally marketed as keychains. Although barely "rideable," they were improved upon by the Tech Deck brand which mass-produced a "rideable" miniature skateboard. The first entertainment licensed fingerboards were introduced by Bratz Toys, released through a Hong Kong-based toy company named Prime Time Toys, and designed by Pangea, the company that helped develop the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles toy line for Playmates Toys. The designs were harnessed from entertainment properties such as "Speed Racer," "Woody Woodpecker," "NASCAR," "Heavy Metal," and "Crash Bandicoot." The licensed boards drove the Tech Deck brand into licensing strong urban brands, rather than simply creating their own designs. In the late 1990s, as fingerboards became more prominent outside the skateboarding community, X-Concepts' Tech Decks licensed "actual pro graphics from major skateboard brands" riding "the 1999 fingerboard wave right into Wal-Mart and other major outlets." In 1999 there was a Tech Deck fashion of collecting one of each design similar to the Beanie Baby fad months prior. Thus, Tech Deck, and its distributors at Spin Master Toys, suddenly found themselves a large market to milk. Entertainment-based fingerboard brands couldn't compete against the urban juggernaut, and eventually disappeared. Other "major players in the skateboard industry" soon followed in hopes of reaping profits as young toy-playing children would choose to take up fingerboarding. More modern fingerboards feature "interchangeable wheels and trucks, a fairly accurate scale size, and pad-printed graphics reproduced from the most popular skateboard companies in the business." They thus developed the fingerboard into a collectible toy and the practice into a "form of mental skating".

Fingerboarding is popular in Europe, Singapore, Asia and the United States, and there is growing popularity in Eastern Europe. Besides skateshops and the internet, Fingaspeak, a fingerboard store opened in Steyr, Austria although rumored to be the world's first fingerboard store, it joins a very small list of fingerboard stores that are available. Although the sport of fingerboarding originated in the United States over 25 years ago it has really caught on fire in the European scene. The United States is following and it is estimated that although the popularity seems to be in favor of the Europeans, the American Fingerboard scene has equal sales. This may be due to the flooding of the market and the availability of resources in the United States. Fingerboarding has evolved from a hobby to a lifestyle for some people. Fingerboarders have regular "contests, fairs, workshops and other events". Example of these events are: FastFingers, and FlatFace Rendezvous. Fingerboard-product sal es were estimated at $120-million for 1999.

Fingerboarding is a good match for videography as the action can be controlled and framing the activity offers opportunities for creativity. With the rise of the online video business from early 2006, fueled, in part, because the feature that allows e-mailing clips to friends, several thousand finger board and handboard videos can now be found on popular video-sharing sites such as YouTube. Thus even if the weather does not permit a skateboarder to practice outside they could try a potential trick with their scaled-down fingerboard and related items and share the video with whomever they wished.

Fingerboard (skateboard)  - tech deck tricks
Usage

Fingerboards are used by a range of people from those utilizing them as toys to skateboarding and related sports professionals envisioning not only their own skating maneuvers but for others as well and can include the use for planning out competition courses as skating boarding develops into an international sport. Similar to train enthusiasts building railway models, fingerboard hobbyists often construct and purchase reduced scale model figures that would be considered natural features to an urban skateboarder such as handrails, benches, and stairs they would be likely to encounter while riding. In addition users might build and buy items seen in a skatepark including half-pipes, quarter pipes, trick boxes, vert ramps, pyramids, banked ramps, full pipes, and any number of other trick-oriented objects. These objects can be used simply for enjoyment and also to assist the visualization of skateboarding tricks or the "flow" from one trick to the next (or to create "lines"). Fingerb oarding events feature some of the latest elaborate models and accessories; many of the manufacturers features photos and videos on their websites.

Fingerboard (skateboard)  - tech deck tricks
Components

The parts of a fingerboard are: deck, tape (grip, rip, rip tape...), trucks, bushings, and wheels. The trucks and decks can easily be modified (modding) to reduce weight, improve smoothness or look better. Modding tutorials can be found online. Decks are the major component of a board and where, on a standard skateboard, one would stand. There is a wide variety of decks with material ranging from wood to plastic, to paper. Most commonly, decks are made out of wood, as this gives it more "pop" and a more authentic feel. The average deck will have two kicks - a flared end used for leveraging the board - while some old-school models have only one end flared. During the early stages of the fingerboarding scene, decks traditionally had lower kicks like that of a Berlinwood Old Mold or a Tech Deck however, the "default" shape nowadays has medium kicks and low concave. Some decks have higher kicks, like Aphlikshun's K Deck, and if the kicks are very steep, they are referred to as "wall kicks". Some companies offer complete custom fingerboards, such as, which type of shape, graphic, or ply they want. Examples: Yellowood, Diamond Decks Fingerboard, Berlinwood, Flatface, Lowpro.

Griptape is the friction tape adhered to the topside of the deck to enable users to more easily maintain control of the deck. There are many types of griptape. Some use standard skateboard griptape although the griptape may wear out faster on fingerboards as they endure more moisture from sweat and oils from user's hands. There are also softer alternatives and grippy tape which is less harsh on a user's fingers allowing them to fingerboard for longer periods of time. Examples of this tape are Riptape, FBS Extra Smooth, No Comply Foamy Greatness, and Yellowood's Slim Tape. Trucks are the structures attached to the bottom of the deck that house the wheels and bushings. Some trucks are all one molded piece while others are scaled-down versions of regular skateboard trucks. Example: BRR Trucks, Y-Trucks. As fingerboarding has evolved "collector" and "pro" versions have emerged with some brands shaped using special instruments to make them lighter and look better. Bushings are pliable material that provide the cushion mechanism for turning a standard skateboard but on a fingerboard help stabilize the trucks thus keeping the wheels in the same position to enable stronger tricks and visual appeal. Collector and "pro" brand bushings are made from many different types of squishy material, usually rubberized plastic or rubber. The wheels can determine how smooth the ride is thus what kind of "flow" a user's ride can be. The professional brands are traditionally made out of a variety of different materials, and have small ball-bearings inside the bearings to enhance the smoothness. A couple examples of these wheels, Flatface Wheels, Ywheels, Oak Wheels, and Winkler Wheels.

Tech Deck makes hard plastic also wooden skateboards and borrows designs from many well-known skateboard manufacturers, such as Blind, Flip, and Element. They use grip tape, and professional graphics. The stock trucks on Tech Decks are made of die-cast metal and have two separate axles for the wheels to roll on. The wheels are made out of plastic along with the bushings. Some fingerboarders prefer the feel and performance of decks made from wood. Wooden decks can be made from 3-7 plies of a given veneer; maple, walnut, and mahogany being the most popular. All of the hole-drilling and shaping is done by hand or with the aid of a machine, thus the price is higher. A wooden deck from a popular company can have a low to high price range usually depending on the quality of the deck one is to purchase, prices range from 10 - $52 USD. Wooden fingerboard makers are now offering custom designs; the buyer can choose from their line of graphics or send in their own. The wooden boards come in a variety of widths from 26 - 32mm and concave can vary greatly from maker to maker. Some companies offer even more customization options such as the choosing of the plies used to go into the deck, as well as the width/length of the deck. Along with wooden decks, advanced fingerboarder's also tend to prefer bearing wheels to plastic. Bearing wheels can be made from a range of materials such as teflon, urethane, silicon, fiberglass, and even clay. The wheels are usually put into a lathe to ensure the best shape. Once the wheels have been readied, bearings are put into place to increase the smoothness of the wheels rolling on the axle. Tuning screws for the wheels cause the wheels to roll more smoothly. Rather than using the stock axles and kingpins that come on Tech Deck trucks, some more advanced fingerboards use tuning screws, softer 'foam griptape' and custom kingpins to ensure that wheels and hangars are more properly secured. Example: Blackriver Trucks and YTrucks. Board rails can be added to the deck bottom similar to those used on a standard skateboard. Fingerboards made with plastic are sometimes modified by heating the plastic to shape it such as making the kicks higher or adding concavity. They are the best thing to use. When in like 1990s people started buying Tech Deck all the time. You can also buy new wheels today!

Fingerboard (skateboard)  - tech deck tricks
Fingersnowboarding and handboards

Similar to fingerboarding, fingersnowboarding is snowboarding on a small-scale snowboard controlled with one's fingers. In December 1999 the first-ever World Snowboard Fingerboard Championships was held with a cash prize of C$1,000.00. Sponsored by companies such as Gravity Fingerboards, Transworld Snowboarding and Snowboard Life magazines and others the competition featured twenty competitors utilizing a custom "fingerboard snowboard park." Tom Sims, a world champion of snowboarding, ended his run by landing his fingersnowboard into a flaming shotglass of Sambuka; he was treated for minor burns and donated his winning prize to Surfrider Foundation's Snowrider Project and to Board AID. (A photo of the course can be seen [1].

Handboards, similar to fingerboards, are a scaled-down version of a skateboard roughly half to a third of the size of a standard skateboard (11 inches) and utilizes a person's hands rather than just their fingers to control the board and perform tricks and maneuvers. Handboards, because of their larger size, more closely match details of a standard skateboard. For instance a skateboard truck, the wheel structure, would more likely to match part for part an actual skateboard truck rather than be a cast one-piece construction or otherwise simplified. If a user preferred a particular type of wood or decorative style that could also more easily resemble a full-scale skateboard.

Learn more »

EOTech - Eo Tech

EOTech  - eo tech

EOTech designs, manufactures, and markets electro-optic products and systems. The company is headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They produce holographic weapon sights for small arms that have been adopted by various military and law enforcement agencies as close quarters battle firearm sights.

They also have roots in the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan (ERIM), a non-profit R&D institute. Of the many inventions by ERIM researchers, some were in the fields of synthetic aperture radar, laser holography, and aircraft head-up displays.

EOTech  - eo tech
Products

As of 2012, EOTech primarily manufactures holographic weapon sights. EOTech was the first company to create these types of sights, having solved the problem of wavelength instability exhibited by laser diodes. They developed achromatic holographic optics that compensate for any change in the emission wavelength of the laser diode with temperature. The sights are designed to be mounted on small arms via a MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny or Weaver rail, and powered by either AA, N or CR123 size batteries for up to 1,100 hours of runtime. Sights display either a 65 MoA ring with a 1 MoA dot in the center, a single 1 MoA dot, a vertical series of dots for bullet drop compensation in certain calibers, or, in the case of their less-lethal sights, a flared vase-like sight to assist in the aiming of bean-bag or rubber ball rounds commonly used in riot control. Bushnell marketed the non-military versions under the brand name "Holosight". The EOTech 553 is in U.S. military service under the designat ion SU-231/PEQ and M553 in the commercial market. More recently, the U.S. Military is also purchasing and issuing the newer EOTech EXPS3 model, designated the SU-231A/PEQ. A specialty sight for the grenade launcher has also been accepted by the U.S. military with the designation SU-253/PEQ. Their first holographic sight was introduced in January 1996.

An archery sight was discontinued in November 2004, in line with the company's desire to concentrate on military and law-enforcement products.

In 2015 the US Government sued EOTech for civil fraud, accusing it of covering up defects in the sights that it knew about as early as 2006. The first defect was "thermal drift", which causes the aiming point to shift in high or low temperatures by as much as 12" at 300 yards. The second was "moisture incursion" or "reticle fade", which causes the viewing glass to fog up and the aiming point to lose brightness. EOTech settled for $25.6 million, and fixed the "moisture incursion" defect. However, as of April 2016 it reported that it could not cure the thermal drift defect. Thousands of EOTech sights are used by federal law enforcement and military, including special forces.

EOTech  - eo tech
Technology

Unlike reflector sights, the holographic weapon sight does not use a reflected reticle system. Instead a representative reticle is recorded in three-dimensional space onto holographic film that is part of the optical viewing window. Like the reflector sight, the holographic sight's reticle uses collimated light and therefore has an aim-point that can move with eye position. This is compensated for by having a holographic image that is set at a finite distance, in this case around 100 yards. The sight's parallax due to eye movement is the size of the optical window at close range and diminishes to zero at the set distance.

To compensate for any change in the laser wavelength, the EOTech sight employs a holography grating that disperses the laser light by an equal amount but in the opposite direction as the hologram forming the aiming reticle. The result is a reticle that is stable with the change in temperature.

One requirement of holographic projection is a laser. Lasers use more power and more complex driving electronics than an LED of an equivalent brightness, reducing the amount of time a holographic sight can run on a single set of batteries.

Learn more »

Gift Economy - Tech Gifts For Men

Gift economy  - tech gifts for men

A gift economy, gift culture, or gift exchange is a mode of exchange where valuables are not traded or sold, but rather given without an explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards. This contrasts with a barter economy or a market economy, where goods and services are primarily exchanged for value received. Social norms and custom govern gift exchange. Gifts are not given in an explicit exchange of goods or services for money or some other commodity.

The nature of gift economies forms the subject of a foundational debate in anthropology. Anthropological research into gift economies began with Bronisław Malinowski's description of the Kula ring in the Trobriand Islands during World War I. The Kula trade appeared to be gift-like since Trobrianders would travel great distances over dangerous seas to give what were considered valuable objects without any guarantee of a return. Malinowski's debate with the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss quickly established the complexity of "gift exchange" and introduced a series of technical terms such as reciprocity, inalienable possessions, and prestation to distinguish between the different forms of exchange.

According to anthropologists Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry, it is the unsettled relationship between market and non-market exchange that attracts the most attention. Gift economies are said, by some, to build communities, and that the market serves as an acid on those relationships.

Gift exchange is distinguished from other forms of exchange by a number of principles, such as the form of property rights governing the articles exchanged; whether gifting forms a distinct "sphere of exchange" that can be characterized as an "economic system"; and the character of the social relationship that the gift exchange establishes. Gift ideology in highly commercialized societies differs from the "prestations" typical of non-market societies. Gift economies must also be differentiated from several closely related phenomena, such as common property regimes and the exchange of non-commodified labour.

Gift economy  - tech gifts for men
Principles of gift exchange

According to anthropologist Jonathan Parry, discussion on the nature of gifts, and of a separate sphere of gift exchange that would constitute an economic system, has been plagued by the ethnocentric use of modern, western, market society-based conception of the gift applied as if it were a cross-cultural, pan-historical universal. However, he claims that anthropologists, through analysis of a variety of cultural and historical forms of exchange, have established that no universal practice exists. His classic summation of the gift exchange debate highlighted that ideologies of the "pure gift" "are most likely to arise in highly differentiated societies with an advanced division of labour and a significant commercial sector" and need to be distinguished from non-market "prestations". According to Weiner, to speak of a "gift economy" in a non-market society is to ignore the distinctive features of their exchange relationships, as the early classic debate between Bronislaw Malinowski and Marcel Mauss demonstrated. Gift exchange is frequently "embedded" in political, kin, or religious institutions, and therefore does not constitute an "economic" system per se.

Property and alienability

Gift-giving is a form of transfer of property rights over particular objects. The nature of those property rights varies from society to society, from culture to culture, and are not universal. The nature of gift-giving is thus altered by the type of property regime in place.

Property is not a thing, but a relationship amongst people about things. According to Chris Hann, property is a social relationship that governs the conduct of people with respect to the use and disposition of things. Anthropologists analyze these relationships in terms of a variety of actors' (individual or corporate) "bundle of rights" over objects. An example is the current debates around intellectual property rights. Hann and Strangelove both give the example of a purchased book (an object that he owns), over which the author retains a "copyright". Although the book is a commodity, bought and sold, it has not been completely "alienated" from its creator who maintains a hold over it; the owner of the book is limited in what he can do with the book by the rights of the creator. Weiner has argued that the ability to give while retaining a right to the gift/commodity is a critical feature of the gifting cultures described by Malinowski and Mauss, and explains, for example, why som e gifts such as Kula valuables return to their original owners after an incredible journey around the Trobriand islands. The gifts given in Kula exchange still remain, in some respects, the property of the giver.

In the example used above, "copyright" is one of those bundled rights that regulate the use and disposition of a book. Gift-giving in many societies is complicated because "private property" owned by an individual may be quite limited in scope (see § The commons below). Productive resources, such as land, may be held by members of a corporate group (such as a lineage), but only some members of that group may have "use rights". When many people hold rights over the same objects gifting has very different implications than the gifting of private property; only some of the rights in that object may be transferred, leaving that object still tied to its corporate owners. Anthropologist Annette Weiner refers to these types of objects as "inalienable possessions" and to the process as "keeping while giving".

Gift vs prestation

Malinowski's study of the Kula ring became the subject of debate with the French anthropologist, Marcel Mauss, author of "The Gift" ("Essai sur le don", 1925). In Parry's view, Malinowski placed the emphasis on the exchange of goods between individuals, and their non-altruistic motives for giving the gift: they expected a return of equal or greater value. Malinowski stated that reciprocity is an implicit part of gifting; he contended there is no such thing as the "free gift" given without expectation.

Mauss, in contrast, emphasized that the gifts were not between individuals, but between representatives of larger collectivities. These gifts were, he argued, a "total prestation". A prestation is a service provided out of a sense of obligation, like "community service". They were not simple, alienable commodities to be bought and sold, but, like the "Crown jewels", embodied the reputation, history and sense of identity of a "corporate kin group", such as a line of kings. Given the stakes, Mauss asked "why anyone would give them away?" His answer was an enigmatic concept, "the spirit of the gift". Parry believes that a good part of the confusion (and resulting debate) was due to a bad translation. Mauss appeared to be arguing that a return gift is given to keep the very relationship between givers alive; a failure to return a gift ends the relationship and the promise of any future gifts.

Both Malinowski and Mauss agreed that in non-market societies, where there was no clear institutionalized economic exchange system, gift/prestation exchange served economic, kinship, religious and political functions that could not be clearly distinguished from each other, and which mutually influenced the nature of the practice.

Inalienable possessions

Mauss' concept of "total prestations" was further developed by Annette Weiner, who revisited Malinowski's fieldsite in the Trobriand Islands. Her critique was twofold: first, Trobriand Island society is matrilineal, and women hold a great deal of economic and political power. Their exchanges were ignored by Malinowski. Secondly, she developed Mauss' argument about reciprocity and the "spirit of the gift" in terms of "inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping while giving." Weiner contrasts "moveable goods" which can be exchanged with "immoveable goods" that serve to draw the gifts back (in the Trobriand case, male Kula gifts with women's landed property). She argues that the specific goods given, like Crown Jewels, are so identified with particular groups, that even when given, they are not truly alienated. Not all societies, however, have these kinds of goods, which depend upon the existence of particular kinds of kinship groups. French anthropologist Maurice Godelier pushe d the analysis further in "The Enigma of the Gift" (1999). Albert Schrauwers has argued that the kinds of societies used as examples by Weiner and Godelier (including the Kula ring in the Trobriands, the Potlatch of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, and the Toraja of South Sulawesi, Indonesia) are all characterized by ranked aristocratic kin groups that fit with Claude Lévi-Strauss' model of "House Societies" (where "House" refers to both noble lineage and their landed estate). Total prestations are given, he argues, to preserve landed estates identified with particular kin groups and maintain their place in a ranked society.

Reciprocity and the "spirit of the gift"

According to Chris Gregory reciprocity is a dyadic exchange relationship that we characterize, imprecisely, as gift-giving. Gregory believes that one gives gifts to friends and potential enemies in order to establish a relationship, by placing them in debt. He also claimed that in order for such a relationship to persist, there must be a time lag between the gift and counter-gift; one or the other partner must always be in debt, or there is no relationship. Marshall Sahlins has stated that birthday gifts are an example of this. Sahlins notes that birthday presents are separated in time so that one partner feels the obligation to make a return gift; and to forget the return gift may be enough to end the relationship. Gregory has stated that without a relationship of debt, there is no reciprocity, and that this is what distinguishes a gift economy from a "true gift" given with no expectation of return (something Sahlins calls "generalized reciprocity": see below).

Marshall Sahlins, an American cultural anthropologist, identified three main types of reciprocity in his book Stone Age Economics (1972). Gift or generalized reciprocity is the exchange of goods and services without keeping track of their exact value, but often with the expectation that their value will balance out over time. Balanced or Symmetrical reciprocity occurs when someone gives to someone else, expecting a fair and tangible return at a specified amount, time, and place. Market or Negative reciprocity is the exchange of goods and services where each party intends to profit from the exchange, often at the expense of the other. Gift economies, or generalized reciprocity, occurred within closely knit kin groups, and the more distant the exchange partner, the more balanced or negative the exchange became.

Within the virtual world the proliferation of public domain content, Creative Common Licences, and Open Source projects have also contributed to what it might be considered an economics game changer variable.

Charity, debt, and the "poison of the gift"

Jonathan Parry has argued that ideologies of the "pure gift" "are most likely to arise only in highly differentiated societies with an advanced division of labour and a significant commercial sector" and need to be distinguished from the non-market "prestations" discussed above. Parry also underscored, using the example of charitable giving of alms in India (Dāna), that the "pure gift" of alms given with no expectation of return could be "poisonous". That is, the gift of alms embodying the sins of the giver, when given to ritually pure priests, saddled these priests with impurities that they could not cleanse themselves of. "Pure gifts", given without a return, can place recipients in debt, and hence in dependent status: the poison of the gift. David Graeber points out that no reciprocity is expected between unequals: if you make a gift of a dollar to a beggar, he will not give it back the next time you meet. More than likely, he will ask for more, to the detriment of his status. Many who are forced by circumstances to accept charity feel stigmatized. In the Moka exchange system of Papua New Guinea, where gift givers become political "big men", those who are in their debt and unable to repay with "interest" are referred to as "rubbish men".

The French writer Georges Bataille, in La part Maudite, uses Mauss's argument in order to construct a theory of economy: the structure of gift is the presupposition for all possible economy. Bataille is particularly interested in the potlatch as described by Mauss, and claims that its agonistic character obliges the receiver of the gift to confirm their own subjection. Gift-giving thus embodies the Hegelian dipole of master and slave within the act.

Spheres of exchange and "economic systems"

The relationship of new market exchange systems to indigenous non-market exchange remained a perplexing question for anthropologists. Paul Bohannan argued that the Tiv of Nigeria had three spheres of exchange, and that only certain kinds of goods could be exchanged in each sphere; each sphere had its own different form of special purpose money. However, the market and universal money allowed goods to be traded between spheres and thus served as an acid on established social relationships. Jonathan Parry and Maurice Bloch, argued in "Money and the Morality of Exchange" (1989), that the "transactional order" through which long-term social reproduction of the family takes place has to be preserved as separate from short-term market relations. It is the long-term social reproduction of the family that is sacralized by religious rituals such baptisms, weddings and funerals, and characterized by gifting.

In such situations where gift-giving and market exchange were intersecting for the first time, some anthropologists contrasted them as polar opposites. This opposition was classically expressed by Chris Gregory in his book "Gifts and Commodities" (1982). Gregory argued that

Commodity exchange is an exchange of alienable objects between people who are in a state of reciprocal independence that establishes a quantitative relationship between the objects exchanged ... Gift exchange is an exchange of inalienable objects between people who are in a state of reciprocal dependence that establishes a qualitative relationship between the transactors (emphasis added).

Gregory contrasts gift and commodity exchange according to five criteria:

Other anthropologists, however, refused to see these different "exchange spheres" as such polar opposites. Marilyn Strathern, writing on a similar area in Papua New Guinea, dismissed the utility of the contrasting setup in "The Gender of the Gift" (1988).

Rather than emphasize how particular kinds of objects are either gifts or commodities to be traded in restricted spheres of exchange, Arjun Appadurai and others began to look at how objects flowed between these spheres of exchange (i.e. how objects can be converted into gifts and then back into commodities). They refocussed attention away from the character of the human relationships formed through exchange, and placed it on "the social life of things" instead. They examined the strategies by which an object could be "singularized" (made unique, special, one-of-a-kind) and so withdrawn from the market. A marriage ceremony that transforms a purchased ring into an irreplaceable family heirloom is one example; the heirloom, in turn, makes a perfect gift. Singularization is the reverse of the seemingly irresistible process of commodification. They thus show how all economies are a constant flow of material objects that enter and leave specific exchange spheres. A similar approa ch is taken by Nicholas Thomas, who examines the same range of cultures and the anthropologists who write on them, and redirects attention to the "entangled objects" and their roles as both gifts and commodities.

Proscriptions

Many societies have strong prohibitions against turning gifts into trade or capital goods. Anthropologist Wendy James writes that among the Uduk people of northeast Africa there is a strong custom that any gift that crosses subclan boundaries must be consumed rather than invested. For example, an animal given as a gift must be eaten, not bred. However, as in the example of the Trobriand armbands and necklaces, this "perishing" may not consist of consumption as such, but of the gift moving on. In other societies, it is a matter of giving some other gift, either directly in return or to another party. To keep the gift and not give another in exchange is reprehensible. "In folk tales," Lewis Hyde remarks, "the person who tries to hold onto a gift usually dies."

Daniel Everett, a linguist who studied a small tribe of hunter-gatherers in Brazil, reported that, while they are aware of food preservation using drying, salting, and so forth, they reserve the use of these techniques for items for barter outside of the tribe. Within the group, when someone has a successful hunt they immediately share the abundance by inviting others to enjoy a feast. Asked about this practice, one hunter laughed and replied, "I store meat in the belly of my brother."

Carol Stack's All Our Kin describes both the positive and negative sides of a network of obligation and gratitude effectively constituting a gift economy. Her narrative of The Flats, a poor Chicago neighborhood, tells in passing the story of two sisters who each came into a small inheritance. One sister hoarded the inheritance and prospered materially for some time, but was alienated from the community. Her marriage ultimately broke up, and she integrated herself back into the community largely by giving gifts. The other sister fulfilled the community's expectations, but within six weeks had nothing material to show for the inheritance but a coat and a pair of shoes.

Gift economy  - tech gifts for men
Case studies: Prestations

Marcel Mauss was careful to distinguish "gift economies" (reciprocity) in market-based societies from the "total prestations" given in non-market societies. A prestation is a service provided out of a sense of obligation, like "community service". These "prestations" bring together domains that we would differentiate as political, religious, legal, moral and economic, such that the exchange can be seen to be embedded in non-economic social institutions. These prestations are frequently competitive, as in the potlatch, Kula exchange, and Moka exchange.

Moka exchange in Papua New Guinea: competitive exchange

The Moka is a highly ritualized system of exchange in the Mount Hagen area, Papua New Guinea, that has become emblematic of the anthropological concepts of "gift economy" and of "big man" political system. Moka are reciprocal gifts of pigs through which social status is achieved. Moka refers specifically to the increment in the size of the gift. Social status in the "big man" political system is the result of giving larger gifts than one has received. These gifts are of a limited range of goods, primarily pigs and scarce pearl shells from the coast. To return the same amount as one has received in a moka is simply the repayment of a debt, strict reciprocity. Moka is the extra. To some, this represents interest on an investment. However, one is not bound to provide moka, only to repay the debt. One adds moka to the gift to increase one's prestige, and to place the receiver in debt. It is this constant renewal of the debt relationship which keeps the relationship alive; a deb t fully paid off ends further interaction. Giving more than one receives establishes a reputation as a Big man, whereas the simple repayment of debt, or failure to fully repay, pushes one's reputation towards the other end of the scale, "rubbish man". Gift exchange thus has a political effect; granting prestige or status to one, and a sense of debt in the other. A political system can be built out of these kinds of status relationships. Sahlins characterizes the difference between status and rank by highlighting that Big man is not a role; it is a status that is shared by many. The Big man is "not a prince of men", but a "prince among men". The "big man" system is based upon the ability to persuade, rather than command.

Toraja funerals: the politics of meat distribution

The Toraja are an ethnic group indigenous to a mountainous region of South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Torajans are renowned for their elaborate funeral rites, burial sites carved into rocky cliffs, and massive peaked-roof traditional houses known as tongkonan which are owned by noble families. Membership in a tongkonan is inherited by all descendants of its founders. Any individual Toraja may thus be a member of numerous tongkonan, as long as they contribute to its ritual events. Membership in a tongkonan carries benefits, such as the right to rent some of its rice fields.

Toraja funeral rites are important social events, usually attended by hundreds of people and lasting for several days. The funerals are like "big men" competitions where all the descendants of a tongkonan will compete through gifts of sacrificial cattle. Participants will have invested cattle with others over the years, and will now draw on those extended networks to make the largest gift. The winner of the competition becomes the new owner of the tongkonan and its rice lands. They display all the cattle horns from their winning sacrifice on a pole in front of the tongkonan.

The Toraja funeral differs from the "big man" system in that the winner of the "gift" exchange gains control of the Tongkonan's property. It creates a clear social hierarchy between the noble owners of the tongkonan and its land, and the commoners who are forced to rent their fields from him. Since the owners of the tongkonan gain rent, they are better able to compete in the funeral gift exchanges, and their social rank is more stable than the "big man" system.

Gift economy  - tech gifts for men
Charity and alms giving

Anthropologist David Graeber has argued that the great world religious traditions on charity and gift giving emerged almost simultaneously during the "Axial age" (the period between 800 and 200 BCE), which was the same period in which coinage was invented and market economies established on a continental basis. These religious traditions on charity emerge, he argues, as a reaction against the nexus formed by coinage, slavery, military violence and the market (a "military-coinage" complex). The new world religions, including Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, and Islam all sought to preserve "human economies" where money served to cement social relationships rather than purchase things (including people).

Charity and alms-giving are religiously sanctioned voluntary gifts given without expectation of return. Case studies demonstrate, however, that such gift-giving is not necessarily altruistic.

Merit making in Buddhist Thailand

Theravada Buddhism in Thailand emphasizes the importance of giving alms (merit making) without any intention of return (a pure gift), which is best accomplished according to doctrine, through gifts to monks and temples. The emphasis is on the selfless gifting which "earns merit" (and a future better life) for the giver rather than on the relief of the poor or the recipient on whom the gift is bestowed. Bowie's research among poorer Thai farmers shows, however, that this ideal form of gifting is limited to the rich who have the resources to endow temples, or sponsor the ordination of a monk. Monks come from these same families, hence the doctrine of pure gifting to monks has a class element to it. Poorer farmers place much less emphasis on merit making through gifts to monks and temples. They equally validate gifting to beggars. Poverty and famine is widespread amongst these poorer groups, and by validating gift-giving to beggars, they are in fact demanding that the rich see to the ir needs in hard times. Bowie sees this as an example of a moral economy (see below) in which the poor use gossip and reputation as a means of resisting elite exploitation and pressuring them to ease their "this world" suffering.

Charity: Dana in India

Dāna is a form of religious charity given in Hindu India. The gift is said to embody the sins of the giver (the "poison of the gift"), who it frees of evil by transmitting it to the recipient. The merit of the gift is dependent on finding a worthy recipient such as a Brahmin priest. Priests are supposed to be able to digest the sin through ritual action and transmit the gift with increment to someone of greater worth. It is imperative that this be a true gift, with no reciprocity, or the evil will return. The gift is not intended to create any relationship between donor and recipient, and there should never be a return gift. Dana thus transgresses the so-called universal "norm of reciprocity".

The Children of Peace in Canada

The Children of Peace (1812â€"1889) were a utopian Quaker sect. Today, they are primarily remembered for the Sharon Temple, a national historic site and an architectural symbol of their vision of a society based on the values of peace, equality and social justice. They built this ornate temple to raise money for the poor, and built the province of Ontario's first shelter for the homeless. They took a lead role in the organization of the province's first co-operative, the Farmers' Storehouse, and opened the province's first credit union. The group soon found that the charity they tried to distribute from their Temple fund endangered the poor. Accepting charity was a sign of indebtedness, and the debtor could be jailed without trial at the time; this was the "poison of the gift". They thus transformed their charity fund into a credit union that loaned small sums like today's micro-credit institutions. This is an example of singularization, as money was transformed into charity in th e Temple ceremony, then shifted to an alternate exchange sphere as a loan. Interest on the loan was then singularized, and transformed back into charity.

Gift economy  - tech gifts for men
Gifting as non-commodified exchange in market societies

Non-commodified spheres of exchange exist in relation to the market economy. They are created through the processes of singularization as specific objects are de-commodified for a variety of reasons and enter an alternate exchange sphere. As in the case of organ donation, this may be the result of an ideological opposition to the "traffic in humans". In other cases, it is in opposition to the market and to its perceived greed. It may, however, be used by corporations as a means of creating a sense of endebtedness and loyalty in customers. Modern marketing techniques often aim at infusing commodity exchange with features of gift exchange, thus blurring the presumably sharp distinction between gifts and commodities.

Organ transplant networks, sperm and blood banks

Market economies tend to reduce everything â€" "including human beings, their labor, and their reproductive capacity" â€" to the status of commodities. The rapid transfer of organ transplant technology to the third world has created a trade in organs, with sick bodies travelling to the global south for transplants, and healthy organs from the global south being transported to the richer global north, "creating a kind of 'Kula ring' of bodies and body parts." However, all commodities can also be singularized, or de-commodified, and transformed into gifts. In North America, it is illegal to sell organs, and citizens are enjoined to give the "gift of life" and donate their organs in an organ gift economy. However, this gift economy is a "medical realm rife with potent forms of mystified commodification". This multimillion-dollar medical industry requires clients to pay steep fees for the gifted organ, which creates clear class divisions between those who donate (frequently in the glo bal south) and will never benefit from gifted organs, and those who can pay the fees and thereby receive the gifted organ.

Unlike body organs, blood and semen have been successfully and legally commodified in the United States. Blood and semen can thus be commodified, but once consumed are "the gift of life". Although both can be either donated or sold, are perceived as the "gift of life" yet are stored in "banks", and can be collected only under strict government regulated procedures, recipients very clearly prefer altruistically donated semen and blood. Ironically, the blood and semen samples with the highest market value are those that have been altruistically donated. The recipients view semen as storing the potential characteristics of their unborn child in its DNA, and value altruism over greed. Similarly, gifted blood is the archetype of a pure gift relationship because the donor is only motivated by a desire to help others.

Copyleft vs copyright: the gift of "free" speech

Engineers, scientists and software developers have created open-source software projects such as the Linux kernel and the GNU operating system. They are prototypical examples for the gift economy's prominence in the technology sector and its active role in instating the use of permissive free software and copyleft licenses, which allow free reuse of software and knowledge. Other examples include file-sharing and open access.

Points: Loyalty programs

Many retail organizations have "gift" programs meant to encourage customer loyalty to their establishments. Bird-David and Darr refer to these as hybrid "mass-gifts" which are neither gift nor commodity. They are called mass-gifts because they are given away in large numbers "free with purchase" in a mass-consumption environment. They give as an example two bars of soap in which one is given free with purchase: which is the commodity and which the gift? The mass-gift both affirms the distinct difference between gift and commodity while confusing it at the same time. As with gifting, mass-gifts are used to create a social relationship. Some customers embrace the relationship and gift whereas others reject the gift relationship and interpret the "gift" as a 50% off sale.

Free shops

"Give-away shops", "freeshops" or "free stores" are stores where all goods are free. They are similar to charity shops, with mostly second-hand itemsâ€"only everything is available at no cost. Whether it is a book, a piece of furniture, a garment or a household item, it is all freely given away, although some operate a one-in, one-outâ€"type policy (swap shops). The free store is a form of constructive direct action that provides a shopping alternative to a monetary framework, allowing people to exchange goods and services outside of a money-based economy. The anarchist 1960s countercultural group The Diggers opened free stores which simply gave away their stock, provided free food, distributed free drugs, gave away money, organized free music concerts, and performed works of political art. The Diggers took their name from the original English Diggers led by Gerrard Winstanley and sought to create a mini-society free of money and capitalism. Although free stores have not been unco mmon in the United States since the 1960s, the freegan movement has inspired the establishment of more free stores. Today the idea is kept alive by the new generations of social centres, anarchists and environmentalists who view the idea as an intriguing way to raise awareness about consumer culture and to promote the reuse of commodities.

Burning Man

Burning Man is a week-long annual art and community event held in the Black Rock Desert in northern Nevada, in the United States. The event is described as an experiment in community, radical self-expression, and radical self-reliance. The event forbids commerce (except for ice, coffee, and tickets to the event itself) and encourages gifting. Gifting is one of the 10 guiding principles, as participants to Burning Man (both the desert festival and the year-round global community) are encouraged to rely on a gift economy. The practice of gifting at Burning Man is also documented by the 2002 documentary film "Gifting It: A Burning Embrace of Gift Economy", as well as by Making Contact's radio show "How We Survive: The Currency of Giving [encore]".

Cannabis market in the District of Columbia

Voters in the District of Columbia have legalized the growing of cannabis for personal recreational use by approving Initiative 71 in November 2014, but the 2015 "Cromnibus" Federal appropriations bills prevented the District from creating a system to allow for its commercial sale. Possession, growth, and use of the drug by adults is legal in the District, as is giving it away, but sale and barter of it is not, in effect creating a gift economy.

Gift economy  - tech gifts for men
Related concepts

Mutual aid

Many anarchists, particularly anarcho-primitivists and anarcho-communists, believe that variations on a gift economy may be the key to breaking the cycle of poverty. Therefore, they often desire to refashion all of society into a gift economy. Anarcho-communists advocate a gift economy as an ideal, with neither money, nor markets, nor central planning. This view traces back at least to Peter Kropotkin, who saw in the hunter-gatherer tribes he had visited the paradigm of "mutual aid". In place of a market, anarcho-communists, such as those who inhabited some Spanish villages in the 1930s, support a currency-less gift economy where goods and services are produced by workers and distributed in community stores where everyone (including the workers who produced them) is essentially entitled to consume whatever they want or need as payment for their production of goods and services.

As an intellectual abstraction, mutual aid was developed and advanced by mutualism or labor insurance systems and thus trade unions, and has been also used in cooperatives and other civil society movements. Typically, mutual-aid groups will be free to join and participate in, and all activities will be voluntary. They are often structured as non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic non-profit organizations, with members controlling all resources and no external financial or professional support. They are member-led and member-organized. They are egalitarian in nature, and designed to support participatory democracy, equality of member status and power, and shared leadership and cooperative decision-making. Members' external societal status is considered irrelevant inside the group: status in the group is conferred by participation.

Moral economy

English historian E.P. Thompson wrote of the moral economy of the poor in the context of widespread English food riots in the English countryside in the late eighteenth century. According to Thompson these riots were generally peaceable acts that demonstrated a common political culture rooted in feudal rights to "set the price" of essential goods in the market. These peasants held that a traditional "fair price" was more important to the community than a "free" market price and they punished large farmers who sold their surpluses at higher prices outside the village while there were still those in need within the village. A moral economy is thus an attempt to preserve an alternate exchange sphere from market penetration. The notion of a peasants with a non-capitalist cultural mentality using the market for their own ends has been linked to subsistence agriculture and the need for subsistence insurance in hard times. James C. Scott points out, however, that those who provide this s ubsistence insurance to the poor in bad years are wealthy patrons who exact a political cost for their aid; this aid is given to recruit followers. The concept of moral economy has been used to explain why peasants in a number of colonial contexts, such as the Vietnam War, have rebelled.

The commons

Some may confuse common property regimes with gift exchange systems. "Commons" refers to the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not owned privately. The resources held in common can include everything from natural resources and common land to software. The commons contains public property and private property, over which people have certain traditional rights. When commonly held property is transformed into private property this process alternatively is termed "enclosure" or more commonly, "privatization". A person who has a right in, or over, common land jointly with another or others is called a commoner.

There are a number of important aspects that can be used to describe true commons. The first is that the commons cannot be commodified â€" if they are, they cease to be commons. The second aspect is that unlike private property, the commons are inclusive rather than exclusive â€" their nature is to share ownership as widely, rather than as narrowly, as possible. The third aspect is that the assets in commons are meant to be preserved regardless of their return of capital. Just as we receive them as a shared right, so we have a duty to pass them on to future generations in at least the same condition as we received them. If we can add to their value, so much the better, but at a minimum we must not degrade them, and we certainly have no right to destroy them.

The new intellectual commons: Free content

Free content, or free information, is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content that meets the definition of a free cultural work. A free cultural work is one which has no significant legal restriction on people's freedom:

  • to use the content and benefit from using it,
  • to study the content and apply what is learned,
  • to make and distribute copies of the content,
  • to change and improve the content and distribute these derivative works.

Although different definitions are used, free content is legally similar if not identical to open content. An analogy is the use of the rival terms free software and open source which describe ideological differences rather than legal ones.

Free content encompasses all works in the public domain and also those copyrighted works whose licenses honor and uphold the freedoms mentioned above. Because copyright law in most countries by default grants copyright holders monopolistic control over their creations, copyright content must be explicitly declared free, usually by the referencing or inclusion of licensing statements from within the work.

Though a work which is in the public domain because its copyright has expired is considered free, it can become non-free again if the copyright law changes.

Information is particularly suited to gift economies, as information is a nonrival good and can be gifted at practically no cost (zero marginal cost). In fact, there is often an advantage to using the same software or data formats as others, so even from a selfish perspective, it can be advantageous to give away one's information.

Filesharing

Markus Giesler in his ethnography Consumer Gift System, described music downloading as a system of social solidarity based on gift transactions. As Internet access spread, file sharing became extremely popular among users who could contribute and receive files on line. This form of gift economy was a model for online services such as Napster, which focused on music sharing and was later sued for copyright infringement. Nonetheless, online file sharing persists in various forms such as Bit Torrent and Direct download link. A number of communications and intellectual property experts such as Henry Jenkins and Lawrence Lessig have described file-sharing as a form of gift exchange which provides numerous benefits to artists and consumers alike. They have argued that file sharing fosters community among distributors and allows for a more equitable distribution of media.

Free and open-source software

In his essay "Homesteading the Noosphere", noted computer programmer Eric S. Raymond said that free and open-source software developers have created "a 'gift culture' in which participants compete for prestige by giving time, energy, and creativity away". Prestige gained as a result of contributions to source code fosters a social network for the developer; the open source community will recognize the developer's accomplishments and intelligence. Consequently, the developer may find more opportunities to work with other developers. However, prestige is not the only motivator for the giving of lines of code. An anthropological study of the Fedora community, as part of a master's study at the University of North Texas in 2010-11, found that common reasons given by contributors were "learning for the joy of learning and collaborating with interesting and smart people". Motivation for personal gain, such as career benefits, was more rarely reported. Many of those surveyed said things like, "Mainly I contribute just to make it work for me", and "programmers develop software to 'scratch an itch'". The International Institute of Infonomics at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands reported in 2002 that in addition to the above, large corporations, and they specifically mentioned IBM, also spend large annual sums employing developers specifically for them to contribute to open source projects. The firms' and the employees' motivations in such cases are less clear.

Members of the Linux community often speak of their community as a gift economy. The IT research firm IDC valued the Linux kernel at $18 billion USD in 2007 and projected its value at $40 billion USD in 2010. The Debian distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system offers over 37,000 free open-source software packages via their AMD64 repositories alone.

Collaborative works

Collaborative works are works created by an open community. For example, Wikipedia â€" a free online encyclopedia â€" features millions of articles developed collaboratively, and almost none of its many authors and editors receive any direct material reward.

Learn more »

Bayou Teche - Teche Federal Bank

Bayou Teche  - teche federal bank

The Bayou Teche is a 125-mile-long (201 km) waterway of great cultural significance in south central Louisiana in the United States. Bayou Teche was the Mississippi River's main course when it developed a delta about 2,800 to 4,500 years ago. Through a natural process known as deltaic switching, the river's deposits of silt and sediment cause the Mississippi to change its course every thousand years or so.

Bayou Teche  - teche federal bank
History

The Teche begins in Port Barre where it draws water from Bayou Courtableau and then flows southward to meet the Lower Atchafalaya River at Patterson. During the time of the Acadian migration to what was then known as the Attakapas region, the Teche was the primary means of transportation.

During the American Civil War, fighting occurred on Bayou Teche on November 3â€"5, 1862. Four Federal gunboats with twenty-seven guns came up the Teche despite weak obstructions placed in the bayou by Confederate General Alfred Mouton. The gunboats engaged the Confederate ship Cotton near Cornay's Bridge in an exchange that lasted for an hour and a half. Though struck several times, the Cotton escaped real damage. In the next two days, two other duels occurred, and each time the Cotton prevailed. However, the Union pacified the area of Bayou Teche and the Atchafalaya River. Historian John D. Winters reports: "Federal troops collected horses, mules, and sugar in large quantities. Planters who remained began taking the oath [to the U.S. government] and were allowed to make contracts with the Negroes to finish their sugar crops." The Union, however, was unable to hold the Teche, necessitating two more invasions of the Teche country in 1863 and 1864.

After the levees were built along the Atachafalaya River in the 1930s, the Teche and the rice farms located along the bayou suffered a drastic reduction in fresh water. Between 1976 and 1982, the United States Army Corps of Engineers built a pumping station at Krotz Springs to pump water from the Atchafalaya River into Bayou Courtableau.

The etymology of the name "Teche" is uncertain. One hypothesis is that it comes from "tenche", a Chitimacha Indian word meaning "snake", related to the bayou's twists and turns resembling a snake's movement. The Chitimacha tell an ancient story of how the snake attacked their villages, and it took many warriors many years to kill it. Where the huge carcass lay and decomposed, the depression it left behind filled with water to become the bayou. Alternatively, George R. Stewart asserts that it is, "probably a French rendering of Deutsch, the name by which the German colonists of the area would have named their stream. Cf. Allemand ['German']."

The southern author Harnett Kane in The Bayous of Louisiana (1943) titles his chapter on the Teche "The Opulent Teche" and terms the Teche "the most handsomely endowed of the bayous."

The sugar plantation Lagonda was established on Bayou Teche by Lewis Strong Clarke, who was also involved in Republican politics in the late 19th century.

Bayou Teche  - teche federal bank
Towns on Bayou Teche

Towns along the Teche include:

  • St. Landry Parish, Louisiana
    • Port Barre, Louisiana
    • Leonville, Louisiana
    • Arnaudville, Louisiana
  • St. Martin Parish, Louisiana
    • Cecilia, Louisiana
    • Breaux Bridge, Louisiana
    • Parks, Louisiana
    • St. Martinville, Louisiana
  • Iberia Parish, Louisiana
    • Loreauville, Louisiana
    • New Iberia, Louisiana
    • Jeanerette, Louisiana
  • St. Mary Parish, Louisiana
    • Charenton, Louisiana
    • Baldwin, Louisiana
    • Franklin, Louisiana
    • Patterson, Louisiana
Learn more »

History Of Georgia Tech - Georgia Tech Tuition

History of Georgia Tech  - georgia tech tuition

The history of the Georgia Institute of Technology can be traced back to Reconstruction-era plans to develop the industrial base of the Southern United States. Founded on October 13, 1885 in Atlanta, Georgia as the Georgia School of Technology, the university opened in 1888 after the construction of Tech Tower and a shop building and only offered one degree in mechanical engineering. By 1901, degrees in electrical, civil, textile, and chemical engineering were also offered. In 1948, the name was changed to the Georgia Institute of Technology to reflect its evolution from an engineering school to a full technical institute and research university.

Georgia Tech is the birthplace of two other Georgia universities: Georgia State University and the former Southern Polytechnic State University. Georgia Tech's Evening School of Commerce, established in 1912 and moved to the University of Georgia in 1931, was independently established as Georgia State University in 1955. Although Georgia Tech did not officially allow women to enroll until 1952 (and did not fully integrate the curriculum until 1968), the night school enrolled female students as early as the fall of 1917. The Southern Technical Institute (now Southern Polytechnic College of Engineering and Engineering Technology of Kennesaw State University and formerly known as Southern Polytechnic State University) was created as an extension of Georgia Tech in 1948 as a technical trade school for World War II veterans and became an independent university in 1981.

The Great Depression saw a consistent squeeze on Georgia Tech's budget, but World War II-inspired research activity combined with post-World War II enrollment more than compensated for the school's difficulties. Georgia Tech desegregated peacefully and without a court order in 1961, in contrast to other southern universities. Similarly, it did not experience any protests due to the Vietnam War. The growth of the graduate and research programs combined with diminishing federal support for universities in the 1980s led President John Patrick Crecine to restructure the university in 1988 amid significant controversy. The 1990s were marked by continued expansion of the undergraduate programs and the satellite campuses in Savannah, Georgia and Metz, France. In 1996, Georgia Tech was the site of the athletes' village and a venue for a number of athletic events for the Summer Olympics. Recently, the school has gradually improved its academic rankings and has paid significant attention to modernizing the campus, increasing historically low retention rates, and establishing degree options emphasizing research and international perspectives.

History of Georgia Tech  - georgia tech tuition
Establishment

As noted by a historical marker on the large hill in Central Campus, the site occupied by the school's first buildings once held fortifications built to protect Atlanta during the Atlanta Campaign of the American Civil War. The surrender of the city took place on the southwestern boundary of the modern Georgia Tech campus in 1864. The next twenty years were a time of rapid industrial expansion; during this period, Georgia's manufacturing capital, railroad track mileage, and property values would each increase by a factor of three to four.

The establishment of a school of technology was proposed in 1882 during the Reconstruction period. Major John Fletcher Hanson and Nathaniel Edwin Harris, two former Confederate officers who became prominent citizens in the town of Macon, Georgia after the war, strongly believed that the South needed to improve its technology to compete with the industrial revolution that was occurring throughout the North. Many Southerners at this time agreed with this idea, known as the "New South Creed". Its strongest proponent was Henry W. Grady, editor of The Atlanta Constitution during the 1880s. A technology school was thought necessary because the American South of that era was mostly agrarian, and few technical developments were occurring. Georgians needed technical training to advance the state's industry.

With authorization from the Georgia General Assembly, Harris and a committee of prominent Georgians visited renowned technology schools in the Northeast in 1883; these included the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Stevens Institute of Technology, and Cooper Union. Using these examples, the committee reported that the Worcester model, which stressed a combination of "theory and practice was the embodiment of the best conception of industrial education". The "practice" component of the Worcester model included student employment and production of consumer items to generate revenue for the school.

When the committee returned, they submitted their findings to the Georgia General Assembly as House Bill 732 on July 24, 1883. The bill, written by Harris, met significant opposition from various sources and was defeated. Reasons for opposition included the general resistance to education, specifically technical education, concerns voiced by agricultural interests, and fiscal concerns relating to the limited treasury of the Georgia government; the state's 1877 constitution prohibited spending beyond its means as a reactionary measure to excessive spending by "carpetbaggers and Negro leaders".

In February 1883, Harris submitted a second version, this time with the support of contemporary political leaders Joseph M. Terrell and R. B. Russel as well as the popular support of the influential State Agricultural Society and the leaders of the University of Georgia, the latter of which would be the "parent college" of any state technical school. In 1885, House Bill 732 was submitted and passed the House 94â€"62. The bill was passed in the Senate with two amendments, and the amended bill was defeated in the House 65â€"53. After back-room work by Harris, the bill finally passed 69â€"44. On October 13, 1885, Georgia Governor Henry D. McDaniel signed the bill to create and fund the new school. The legislature then established a committee to determine the location of the new school. The school was officially established, and subsequent efforts to repeal the law were suppressed by supporter and Speaker of the House W. A. Little.

Section I. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of this State, and it is hereby enacted by authority of the same, That there shall be established in connection with the State University, and forming one of the departments thereof, a technological School for the education and training of students in the industrial and mechanical arts. Said school shall be located, equipped and conducted as hereinafter provided.

Governor McDaniel appointed a commission in January 1886 to organize and run the school. This commission elected Harris chairman, a position he would hold until his death. Other members included Samuel M. Inman, Oliver S. Porter, Judge Columbus Heard, and Edward R. Hodgson; each was known either for political or industrial experience. Their first task was to select a location for the new school. Letters were sent to communities throughout the state, and five bids were presented by the October 1, 1886 deadline: Athens, Atlanta, Macon, Penfield, and Milledgeville. The commission inspected the proposed sites from October 7 to October 18. Patrick Hues Mell, the president of the University of Georgia at that time, believed that it should be located in Athens with the University's main campus, like the Agricultural and Mechanical Schools.

The committee members voted exclusively for their respective home cities until the 21st ballot when Porter switched to Atlanta; on the 24th ballot, Atlanta finally emerged victorious. Students at the University of Georgia burned Judge Heard in effigy after the final vote was announced. Atlanta's bid included $50,000 from the city, $20,000 from private citizens (including $5,000 from Samuel M. Inman), and $2,500 in guaranteed yearly support, along with a gift of 4 acres (16,000 m2) of land from Atlanta pioneer Richard Peters instead of the initially proposed site in Atlanta's bid, which was near land that Lemuel P. Grant was developing, including Grant Park.

The school's new location was bounded on the south by North Avenue, and on the west by Cherry Street. Peters sold five adjoining acres of land to the state for $10,000. This land was situated on what was then Atlanta's northern city limits. The act that created the school had also appropriated $65,000 towards the construction of new buildings.

History of Georgia Tech  - georgia tech tuition
Early years

Includes the administration of Isaac S. Hopkins (1888â€"1896)

The Georgia School of Technology opened its doors in the fall of 1888 with only two buildings, under the leadership of professor and pastor Isaac S. Hopkins. One building (now Tech Tower, the main administrative complex) had classrooms to teach students; the other featured a workshop with a foundry, forge, boiler room, and engine room. It was designed specifically as a "contract shop" where students would work to produce goods to sell, creating revenue for the school while the students learned vocational skills in a "hands-on" manner. Such a method was seen as appropriate given the Southern United States' need for industrial development. The two buildings were equal in size and staffing (five professors and five shop supervisors) to show the importance of teaching both the mind and the hands. At the time, there was some disagreement as to whether the machine shop should have been used to turn a profit. The contract shop system ended in 1896 due to its lack of profitability, after which point the items produced were used to furnish the offices and dorms on the campus.

The first class of students at the Georgia School of Technology was small and homogeneous, and educational options were limited. 85 students signed up on the first registration day, October 7, 1888, and the enrollment for the first year climbed to a total of 129 by January 7, 1889. The first student to register was William H. Glenn. All but one or two of the students were from Georgia. Tuition was free for Georgia residents and $150 (equivalent to $4,000 in 2016) for out-of-state students. The only degree offered was a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, and no elective courses were available. All students were required to follow exactly the same program, which was so rigorous that nearly two thirds of the first class failed to complete it. The first graduating class consisted of two students in 1890, Henry L. Smith and George G. Crawford, who decided their graduation order on the flip of a coin.

John Saylor Coon was appointed the first Mechanical Engineering and Drawing Professor at the Georgia School of Technology in 1889. He was also the first chair of the Mechanical Engineering department. Coon assumed the role of superintendent of shops in 1896. During his tenure at Georgia Tech, he moved the curriculum away from vocational training. Coon emphasized a balance between the shop and the classroom. Coon taught his students more modern quantification methods to solve engineering problems instead of outdated and more costly trial and error methods. He also played a significant role in developing mechanical engineering into a professional degree program, with a focus on ethics, design and testing, analysis and problem solving, and mathematics.

Tech began its football program with several students forming a loose-knit troop of footballers called the Blacksmiths. The first season saw Tech play three games and lose all three. Discouraged by these results, the Blacksmiths sought a coach to improve their record. Leonard Wood, an army officer who had played football at Harvard and was then stationed in Atlanta and taking graduate courses at the school, volunteered to serve as the team's player-coach. In 1893, Tech played its first game against the University of Georgia (Georgia). Tech defeated Georgia 28â€"6 for the school's first-ever victory. The angry Georgia fans threw stones and other debris at the Tech players during and after the game. The poor treatment of the Blacksmiths by the Georgia faithful gave birth to the rivalry now known as Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate.

The words to Georgia Tech's famous fight song, "Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech", are said to have come from an early baseball game against rival Georgia. Some sources credit Billy Walthall, a member of the first four-year graduating class, with the lyrics. According to a 1954 article in Sports Illustrated, "Ramblin' Wreck" was written around 1893 by a Tech football player on his way to an Auburn game. In 1905, Georgia Tech adopted it in roughly the current form as its official fight song, although it had apparently been the unofficial fight song for several years. It was published for the first time in the school's first yearbook, the 1908 Blue Print, under the heading "What causes Whitlock to Blush." Words such as "hell" and "helluva" were censored in this first printing as "certain words [are] too hot to print." After Michael A. Greenblatt, the first bandmaster of the Georgia Tech Marching Band, heard the band playing the song to the tune of Charles Ives's "A Son of a Gambolier", he wrote a modern musical version. In 1911, Frank Roman succeeded Greenblatt as bandmaster; Roman embellished the song with trumpet flourishes and publicized it. Roman copyrighted the song in 1919.

Tech's first student publication was the Technologian, which ran for a short time in 1891. The next student publication was The Georgia Tech, established in 1894. The Georgia Tech published a "Commencement Issue" that reviewed sporting events and gave information about each class. The Technique was founded in 1911; its first issue was published on November 17, 1911 by editors Albert Blohm and E.A. Turner, and the content revolved around the upcoming rivalry football game against the University of Georgia. The Technique has been published weekly ever since, with the exception of a brief period during which the paper was published twice weekly. The Georgia Tech was merged into the Technique in 1916.

History of Georgia Tech  - georgia tech tuition
Engineering school

Includes the administration of Lyman Hall (1896â€"1905)

In 1888, Captain Lyman Hall was appointed Georgia Tech's first mathematics professor, a position he held until his appointment as the school's second president in 1896. Hall had a solid background in engineering due to his time at West Point and often incorporated surveying and other engineering applications into his coursework. He had an energetic personality and quickly assumed a leadership position among the faculty. As president, Hall was noted for his aggressive fundraising and improvements to the school, including his special project, the A. French Textile School. In February 1899, Georgia Tech opened the first textile engineering school in the Southern United States, with $10,000 from the Georgia General Assembly, $20,000 of donated machinery, and $13,500 from supporters. It named the A. French Textile School after its chief donor and supporter, Aaron S. French. The textile engineering program would move to the Harrison Hightower Textile Engineering Building in 1949.

Hall's other goals included enlarging Tech and attracting more students, so he expanded the school's offerings beyond mechanical engineering; new degrees introduced during Hall's administration included electrical engineering and civil engineering in December 1896, textile engineering in February 1899, and engineering chemistry in January 1901. Hall also became infamous as a disciplinarian, even suspending the entire senior class of 1901 for returning from Christmas vacation a day late.

Hall died on August 16, 1905 during a vacation at a New York health resort. His death while still in office was attributed to stress from his strenuous fundraising activities (this time, for a new chemistry building). Later that year, the school's trustees named the new chemistry building the "Lyman Hall Laboratory of Chemistry" in his honor.

On October 20, 1905, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt visited the Georgia Tech campus. On the steps of Tech Tower, Roosevelt presented a speech about the importance of technological education:

America can be the first nation only by the kind of training and effort which is developed and is symbolized in institutions of this kind ... Every triumph of engineering skill credited to an American is credited to America. It is incumbent upon you to do well, not only for your individual sakes, but for the sake of that collective American citizenship which dominates the American nation.

Roosevelt then shook hands with every student. Tech was later visited by president-elect William H. Taft on January 16, 1909 and president Franklin D. Roosevelt on November 29, 1935.

History of Georgia Tech  - georgia tech tuition
World War I

Includes the administration of Kenneth G. Matheson (1906â€"1922)

Upon his hiring in 1904, John Heisman (for whom the Heisman Trophy is named) insisted that the school acquire its own football field. Previously, the team had used area parks, especially the playing fields of Piedmont Park. Georgia Tech took out a seven-year lease on what is now the southern end of Grant Field, although the land was not adequate for sports, due to its unleveled, rocky nature. In 1905, Heisman had 300 convict laborers clear rocks, remove tree stumps, and level out the field for play; Tech students then built a grandstand on the property. The land was purchased by 1913, and John W. Grant donated $15,000 (equivalent to $363,500 in 2016) towards the construction of the field's first permanent stands. The field was named Grant Field in honor of the donor's deceased son, Hugh Inman Grant.

Attempts at forming an alumni association had been made since 1896; a charter was applied for by J. B. McCrary and William H. Glenn on June 28, 1906 and was approved by Fulton County on June 20, 1908. The Georgia Tech Alumni Association published its first annual report in 1908, but the group was largely dormant during World War I. The organization played an important role in the 1920s Greater Georgia Tech Campaign, which consolidated all existing alumni clubs and funded a significant expansion of Georgia Tech's campus.

Georgia Tech's Evening School of Commerce began holding classes in 1912. The school admitted its first female student in 1917, although the state legislature did not officially authorize attendance by women until 1920. Anna Teitelbaum Wise became the first female graduate in 1919 and went on to become Georgia Tech's first female faculty member the following year.

World War I caused several changes at the school. During the conflict and for some time afterwards, Georgia Tech hosted a school for cadet aviators, supply officers, and army technicians. Tech also started a Reserve Officer Training Corps unit; the first in the Southern United States, it became a permanent addition to the school. World War I affected the school academically as well: the United States government asked for and financed an automotive school for army officers, a rehabilitation program for disabled soldiers, and a geology department. Federal aid also helped to establish Tech's Industrial Education Department, courtesy of the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. The war also placed on hold extensive fundraising efforts for a new power plant, and made it difficult to find engineers willing to teach at the school; Matheson toured Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and MIT in 1919 but failed to secure a single hire, as none of the students wished to work for such low wages.

The bitter rivalry between Georgia Tech and the University of Georgia flared up in 1919, when UGA mocked Tech's continuation of football during the United States' involvement in World War I. Because Tech was a military training ground, it had a complete assembly of male students. Many schools, such as UGA, lost all of their able-bodied male students to the war effort, forcing them to temporarily suspend football during the war. In fact, UGA did not play a game from 1917 to 1918.

When UGA renewed its program in 1919, their student body staged a parade which mocked Tech's continuation of football during times of war. The parade featured a tank-shaped float marked "Argonne" with a sign "Georgia in France 1917" followed by an automobile with three people in Tech sweaters and caps bearing a sign "Tech in Atlanta". A printed program was subsequently distributed in the stands with a similar point. While the Tech faculty was able to prevent a riot, no apology was made, and this act led directly to Tech cutting athletic ties with UGA and canceling several of UGA's home football games at Grant Field (UGA commonly used Grant Field as its home field). Tech and UGA did not compete in athletics until the 1921 Southern Conference basketball tournament. Despite intense pressure on Tech to make amends, Matheson stated that he would never change his mind unless "due apologies" were offered, and if he was overruled, he would resign. Regular season competition did not renew until after Matheson's retirement, in a 1925 agreement between the two institutions negotiated by athletic directors J. B. Crenshaw and S. V. Sanford.

In 1916 Georgia Tech's football team, still coached by John Heisman, defeated Cumberland 222-0, the largest margin of victory in college football history. Cumberland's total net yardage was -28 (minus 28), and it had only one play for positive yards. Cumberland beat Georgia Tech's baseball team 22 to 0 the previous year, reportedly with the help of professional players Cumberland had hired as "ringers", an act which infuriated Heisman. Heisman amassed 104 wins over 16 seasons and led Tech to its first national title in 1917. After divorcing from his wife, Heisman moved to Pennsylvania in 1919, leaving Tech's Yellow Jackets in the hands of William Alexander.

In its first decades, Georgia Tech slowly grew from a trade school into a university. The state and federal governments provided little initiative for the school to grow significantly until 1919. That year, the Georgia General Assembly passed an act entitled "Establishing State Engineering Experiment Station at the Georgia School of Technology". This change coincided with federal debate about the establishment of Engineering Experiment Stations in a move similar to the Hatch Act of 1887's establishment of agricultural experiment stations; each Engineering Experiment Station would be a consultant group dedicated to assisting a region's industrial efforts. The EES at Georgia Tech was established with the goal of the "encouragement of industries and commerce" within the state. The coinciding federal effort failed, however, and the state did not finance Georgia Tech's EES, so the new organization existed only on paper.

The latter years of Matheson's presidency were troubled by a chronic shortage of funds. In 1919â€"1920, facilities designed for 700 students had to serve 1,365 students, and the school received the same $100,000 appropriation (equivalent to $1,381,400 in 2016) that it had received since 1915, made worse by inflation which nearly halved its value in that time. Matheson was able to acquire a $25,000 increase from the General Assembly that year. In 1920â€"1921, though, an increase of $125,000 (to $250,000) was passed but subsequently tabled due to differences between the House and Senate version of the bill unrelated to Tech. To continue running the school, a frantic scramble for funds was undertaken, resulting in $40,000 from the General Education Board, $30,000 from a loan fund organized by the Georgia Rotary Club, and a grant from the Atlanta City Council. The University of Georgia, in a similar financial condition, was forced to cut its faculty's salary. After this drama, the sit uation still did not improve: in 1922â€"1923, only $112,500 of the requested $250,000 had been appropriated, leading Matheson to reluctantly start charging in-state students for tuition. The rates were $100 for in-state students (equivalent to $1,400 in 2016) and $175 for out-of-state students (equivalent to $2,500 in 2016). Georgia Tech still needed a $125,000 line of credit against its first professional fund-raising effort, the "Greater Georgia Tech Campaign".

As Matheson was leaving for the presidency of Drexel Institute in late 1921, he wrote in The Atlanta Constitution that while Georgia Tech was "my first love" he found it a "humiliating burden" to get enough money from the state legislature to run and enlarge the school. The Board of Trustees offered him a substantial pay increase, but his issue was with the politics of the time, and not with his financial situation.

It was our hope and belief that by developing an efficient technological school, the legislators would amply support it. In spite of many handicaps and discouragements, we gave to the state what competent critics declare to be the second engineering college of the nationâ€"the first [MIT], by the way, having recently spent $28,000,000 in its development. Notwithstanding ... [soaring] enrollment, donated equipment totaling many thousands of dollars in value, $1,500,000 in subscriptions from friends and other evidences of growth, the legislatures of the past two summers have appropriated only half of the amount actually needed for the operation of the school. In 1920, upon the failure to appropriate the additional $100,000 necessary to keep Tech's doors open, I again became a modern Lazarus and successfully begged from Atlanta to New York the crumbs from the rich men's tables which a rich mother had denied ... Again [in 1921] we have met the emergency at a disruptive and destructi ve cost which cannot be continued.

History of Georgia Tech  - georgia tech tuition
Technological university

Includes the administration of Marion L. Brittain (1922â€"1944)

On August 1, 1922, Marion L. Brittain was elected as the school's president. He noted in the 1923 annual report that "there are more students in Georgia Tech than in any other two colleges in Georgia, and we have the smallest appropriation of them all." He was able to convince the state of Georgia to increase the school's funding during his tenure. Additionally, a $300,000 grant (equivalent to $4,301,000 in 2016) from the Daniel Guggenheim Fund for the Promotion of Aeronautics allowed Brittain to establish the Daniel Guggenheim School of Aeronautics. In 1930, Brittain's decision to use the money for a new school of aeronautics, headed by Montgomery Knight, was controversial; today, the Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering boasts the second largest faculty in the United States behind MIT. Other accomplishments during Brittain's administration included a doubling of Georgia Tech's enrollment, accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and the c reation of a new ceramic engineering department, building, and major that attracted the American Ceramics Society's national convention to Atlanta.

In 1929, some Georgia Tech faculty members belonging to Sigma Xi started a research club that met once a month at Tech. One of the monthly subjects, proposed by ceramic engineering professor W. Harry Vaughan, was a collection of issues related to Tech, such as library development, and the development of a state engineering station. Such a station would theoretically assist local businesses with engineering problems via Georgia Tech's established faculty and resources. This group investigated the forty existing engineering experiments at universities around the country, and the report was compiled by Harold Bunger, Montgomery Knight, and Vaughan in December 1929.

The Great Depression threatened the already tentative nature of Georgia Tech's funding. In a speech on April 27, 1930, Brittain proposed that the university system be reorganized under a central body, rather than having each university under its own board. As a result, the Georgia General Assembly and Governor Richard Russell, Jr. passed an act in 1931 that established the University System of Georgia and the corresponding Georgia Board of Regents; unfortunately for Brittain and Georgia Tech, the board was composed almost entirely of graduates of the University of Georgia. In its final act on January 7, 1932, the Tech Board of Trustees sent a letter to the chairman of the Georgia Board of Regents outlining its priorities for the school. The Depression also affected enrollment, which dropped from 3,271 in 1931â€"1932 to a low of 2,482 in 1933â€"1934, and only gradually increased afterwards. It also caused a decrease in funding from the State of Georgia, which in turn caused a decre ase in faculty salaries, firing of graduate student assistants, and a postponing of building renovations.

As a cost-saving move, effective on July 1, 1934, the Georgia Board of Regents transferred control of the relatively large Evening School of Commerce to the University of Georgia and moved the small civil engineering program at UGA to Tech. The move was controversial, and both students and faculty protested against it, fearing that the Board of Regents would remove other programs from Georgia Tech and reduce it to an engineering department of the University of Georgia. Brittain suggested that the lack of Georgia Tech alumni on the Board of Regents contributed to their decision. Despite the pressure, the Board of Regents held its ground. The Depression also had a significant impact on the athletic program, as most athletes were in the commerce school, and resulted in the elimination of athletic scholarships, which were replaced by a loan program. Plans for an industrial management department to replace and supersede the Evening School of Commerce were first made in fall 1934. The d epartment was established in 1935, and evolved into Tech's College of Management.

In 1933, S. V. Sanford, president of the University of Georgia, proposed that a "technical research activity" be established at Tech. Brittain and Dean William Vernon Skiles examined the Research Club's 1929 report, and moved to create such an organization. W. Harry Vaughan was selected as its acting director in April 1934, and $5,000 in funds were allocated directly from the Georgia Board of Regents. These funds went to the previously established Engineering Experiment Station (EES); its initial areas of focus were textiles, ceramics, and helicopter engineering. Georgia Tech's EES later became the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI).

The EES's early work was conducted in the basement of the Shop Building, and Vaughan's office was in the Aeronautical Engineering Building. By 1938, the EES was producing useful technology, and the station needed a method to conduct contract work outside of the state budget. Consequently, the Industrial Development Council (IDC) was formed. It was created by the Chancellor of the University System and the president of Georgia Power Company, and the EES's director was a member of the council. The IDC later became the Georgia Tech Research Corporation, which currently serves as the sole contract organization for all Georgia Tech faculty and departments.

In 1939, EES director Vaughan became the director of the School of Ceramic Engineering. He was the director of the station until 1940, when he accepted a higher-paying job at the Tennessee Valley Authority and was replaced by Harold Bunger (the first chairman of Georgia Tech's chemical engineering department). When the ceramics department was temporarily discontinued due to World War II, the current students found wartime employment. The department would be reincarnated after the war under the guidance of Lane Mitchell.

The Cocking affair occurred in 1941 and 1942 when Georgia governor Eugene Talmadge exerted direct control over the state's educational system, particularly through the firing of University of Georgia professor Walter Cocking, who had been hired to raise the relatively low academic standards at UGA's College of Education. Talmadge justified his actions by asserting that Cocking intended to integrate a part of the University of Georgia. Cocking's removal and the subsequent removal of members of the Georgia Board of Regents (including the vice chancellor) who disagreed with the decision were particularly controversial. Talmadge attempted to place Tech football star Red Barron in a new position as vice president of Georgia Tech; the move was widely criticized by Georgia Tech alumni, who marched on the capitol, and Barron subsequently declined to accept the position. In response to the actions of Governor Talmadge, the Southern Association of Independent Schools withdrew accreditation from all Georgia state-supported colleges for whites, including Georgia Tech. The controversy was instrumental in Talmadge's loss in the 1943 gubernatorial elections to Ellis Arnall.

World War II resulted in a dramatic increase of sponsored research, with the 1943â€"1944 budget being the first in which industry and government contracts exceeded the EES's other income (most notably, its state appropriation). Vaughan had initially prepared the faculty for fewer incoming contracts as the state had cut the station's appropriation by 40 percent, but increased support from industry and government eventually counteracted low state support. The electronics and communications research that Directors Gerald Rosselot and James E. Boyd attracted is still a mainstay of GTRI research. Two of the larger projects were a study on the propagation of electromagnetic waves, and United States Navy-sponsored radar research.

Until the mid-1940s, the school required students to be able to create a simple electric motor regardless of their major. During World War II, as an engineering school with strong military ties through its ROTC program, Georgia Tech was swiftly enlisted for the war effort. In early 1942 the traditional nine-month semester system was replaced by a year-round trimester year, enabling students to complete their degrees a year earlier. Under the plan, students were allowed to complete their engineering degrees while on active duty. During World War II, Georgia Tech was one of 131 colleges and universities that took part in the V-12 Navy College Training Program which offered students a path to a Navy commission. The school was also one of only five U.S. colleges feeding into the United States Naval Academy.

History of Georgia Tech  - georgia tech tuition
Postwar changes and unrest

Includes the administration of Blake R. Van Leer (1944â€"1956)

Founded as the "Georgia School of Technology," the school assumed its present name on July 1, 1948 to reflect a growing focus on advanced technological and scientific research. The name change was first proposed on June 12, 1906, but did not gain momentum until Blake R. Van Leer's presidency. Unlike similarly named universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, the Georgia Institute of Technology is a public university. Concurrent with the name change, President Emeritus Marion L. Brittain published The Story of Georgia Tech, the first comprehensive, book-length history of the school.

The Southern Technical Institute (STI) was established in 1948 in barracks on the campus of Naval Air Station Atlanta (now DeKalb Peachtree Airport) in Chamblee, northeast of Atlanta. At that time, all colleges in Georgia were considered extensions of the state's four research universities, and the Southern Technical Institute belonged to Georgia Tech. STI was established as an engineering technology school, to help military personnel returning from World War II gain hands-on experience in technical fields. Around 1958, the school moved to Marietta, to land donated by Dobbins Air Force Base. STI was split from Georgia Tech in 1981, at a time when most other regional schools separated from the University of Georgia, Georgia State University, and Georgia Southern University.

The only women that had attended Georgia Tech did so through the School of Commerce. After it was removed in 1931, women were not able to enroll at Tech until 1952. In 1952 women could only enroll in programs not offered at other universities in Georgia. In 1968 the Board of Regents voted to allow women to enroll in all programs at Tech. Also in 1968, Helen E. Grenga became Georgia Tech's first full-tenured female engineering professor. The first women's dorm, Fulmer Hall, opened in 1969. Women constituted 31.1% of the undergraduates and 25.5% of the graduate students enrolled in Fall 2010.

Glen P. Robinson and six other Georgia Tech researchers (including Robinson's former professor and future EES director Jim Boyd and EES director Gerald Rosselot) each contributed $100 to found Scientific Associates (later known as Scientific Atlanta) on October 31, 1951, with the initial goal of marketing antenna structures developed by the radar branch of the EES. Robinson worked as the general manager without pay for the first year; after the fledgling company's first contract resulted in a $4,000 loss, Robinson (upon request) refunded five of the six other initial investors. Despite its rocky start, the company managed to succeed. In 1951, there was a dispute over station finances and Rosselot's hand in the foundation of Scientific Atlanta against Georgia Tech vice president Cherry Emerson. Initially, Rosselot was president and CEO of Scientific Atlanta, but later handed off responsibility to Glen P. Robinson; at issue were potential conflicts of interest with his role at Georg ia Tech and what, if any, role Georgia Tech should have in technology transfer to the marketplace. Rosselot eventually resigned his post at Georgia Tech, but his participation ensured the eventual success of Scientific Atlanta and made way for further technology transfer efforts by Georgia Tech's VentureLab and the Advanced Technology Development Center.

This period also saw a significant expansion in Georgia Tech's postgraduate education programs, driven largely by the Cold War and the launch of Sputnik; this effort received substantial support from the EES. Despite its slow start, with the first Master of Science programs in the 1920s and the first Doctorate in 1946, the program became firmly established. In 1952 alone, around 80 students earned graduate degrees while working at EES. Herschel H. Cudd, EES director from 1952 to 1954, created a new promotion system for researchers that is still in use. Many EES researchers held the title of professor despite lacking a doctorate (or a comparable qualification for promotion as determined by the Georgia Board of Regents), something that irritated members of the teaching faculty. The new system, approved in spring 1953, used the Board of Regents' qualifications for promotion and mirrored the academic tenure track.

Sugar Bowl controversy

After a successful (8â€"1â€"1) football season in 1955, Tech was invited to play in the 1956 Sugar Bowl in New Orleans against the University of Pittsburgh. It would be the school's fifth straight bowl appearance under renowned coach Bobby Dodd. Pittsburgh had a black starting player, fullback Bobby Grier, but as Tech had played a 1953 game against a desegregated Notre Dame team, and the University of Georgia had very recently played out-of-state games against desegregated opponents, president Van Leer and the Tech Athletic Association saw the game's contract as acceptable. However, racial tension in the South was high following the recent Brown v. Board of Education decision. Georgia Governor Marvin Griffin had privately given Dodd his support, but he surprised the campus and the state on Friday, December 2, 1955 by bowing to pressure from segregationists and sending a wire to the Georgia Board of Regents chairman, Robert O. Arnold, requesting not only that Tech not play t he game, but that all University System of Georgia teams play only segregated games.

It is my request that athletic teams of units of the University System of Georgia not be permitted to engage in contests with other teams where the races are mixed on such teams or where segregation is not required among spectators at such events. The South stands at Armageddon. The battle is joined. We cannot make the slightest concession to the enemy in this dark and lamentable hour of struggle. There is no more difference in compromising integrity of race on the playing field than doing so in the classrooms. One break in the dike and the relentless seas will rush in and destroy us. We are in this fight 100 percent; not 98 percent, nor 75 percent, not 64 percentâ€" but a full 100 percent. An immediate called meeting of the State Board of Regents to act on my request is vitally necessary at this time.

Enraged, Tech students organized an impromptu protest rally on campus. At midnight, a large group of students hung the governor in effigy and ignited a bonfire. They then marched to Five Points, the Georgia State Capitol, and the Georgia Governor's Mansion, hanging the governor in effigy at each location. The students did some minor damage to the Governor's Mansion before the march was dispersed by state representative "Muggsy" Smith at 3:30 a.m.

At the State Capitol, the boys pulled fire hoses from their racks, adorned the sculpt head of Civil War Hero John Gordon with an ashcan. A dozen effigies of Governor Marvin Griffin were hanged and burned during the students' march, which culminated in a 2 a.m. riot in front of the governor's mansion.

Van Leer's only comment to the media came on Saturday, December 3, 1955: "I am 60 years old and I have never broken a contract. I do not intend to start now". At a tense meeting of the Board of Regents on Monday, it was decided that Georgia Tech would be allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl. The new policy was that "all laws, customs and traditions of host states would be respected but all games played in Georgia would be segregated", a policy that would remain until 1963. The regents, with the exception of Tech alum David Rice, condemned the "riotous" behavior of Tech students. Rice instead criticized Marvin Griffin, and was lauded by The Technique as the "only man with the moral conviction to stand up against Griffin, ... and co". Ironically, Tech defeated Pittsburgh 7â€"0 because of a pass interference call on the black player. Van Leer died six weeks after this incident, on January 23, 1956; the stress of the controversy was believed to have shortened his life.

History of Georgia Tech  - georgia tech tuition
Integration and expansion

Includes the administrations of Paul Weber (interim, February 1956â€"August 1957) and Edwin D. Harrison (1957â€"1969)

After Van Leer's death, Paul Weber served as acting president from January 1956 to August 1957, while still holding the title of Dean of Faculties; it was difficult to find a permanent replacement due to discriminatory state laws and the looming issue of integration, along with a salary gap between Georgia Tech and comparable institutions. Weber's short tenure as acting president saw significantly increased enrollment standards, efforts by the Georgia Tech Foundation to increase faculty salaries, and further campus expansion including the Alexander Memorial Coliseum, which was completed and dedicated on October 27, 1956. Weber left larger organizational changes and integration for his eventual successor. After the selection of a replacement in the University of Toledo's Dean of Engineering, Edwin D. Harrison, Weber remained a Georgia Tech administrator and was named Vice President for Planning in 1966.

Around 1960, state law mandated "an immediate cut-off of state funds to any white institution that admitted a black student". At a meeting in the Old Gym on January 17, 1961, an overwhelming majority of the 2,741 students present voted to endorse integration of qualified applicants, regardless of race. Three years after the meeting, and one year after the University of Georgia's violent integration, Georgia Tech became the first university in the Deep South to desegregate without a court order, with Ford Greene, Ralph A. Long, Jr., and Lawrence Michael Williams becoming Georgia Tech's first three African American students; they registered for class on September 18, 1963 and started class on September 20. Members of the press were barred from the campus to discourage disruptive behavior, and plainclothes police officers were placed on the campus. The ANAK Society claims to have met with their families and discreetly kept an eye on the students once they enrolled to ensure peaceful integration.

There was little reaction to this by Tech students who, like the city of Atlanta described by former mayor William Hartsfield, were "too busy to hate". On the first day, the Ku Klux Klan came to Georgia Tech, marched up North Avenue, and picketed Harrison's house, staying just long enough to have their pictures taken. Lester Maddox chose to close his restaurant (near Georgia Tech's modern-day Burger Bowl) rather than desegregate, after losing a year-long legal battle in which he challenged the constitutionality of the public accommodations section (Title II) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1965, John Gill became The Technique's first black editor, and Tech's first black professor, William Peace, joined the faculty of the Department of Social Sciences in 1968.

The Ramblin' Wreck, the iconic 1930 Ford Model A Sport coupe that serves as the official mascot of the student body, was acquired in this era. The Wreck is present at all major sporting events and student body functions, and leads the football team into Bobby Dodd Stadium at Historic Grant Field, a duty it has performed since 1961. Dean of Student Affairs Jim Dull recognized a need for an official Ramblin' Wreck when he observed the student body's fascination with classic cars. Fraternities, in particular, would parade around their House Wrecks as displays of school spirit and enthusiasm. It was considered a rite of passage to own a broken-down vehicle. In 1960, Dull began a search for a new official symbol to represent the Institute. He specifically wanted a classic pre-war Ford. Dull's search employed newspaper ads, radio commercials, and other means to locate this vehicle. The search took him throughout the state and country, but no suitable vehicle was found until the autumn o f 1960 when Dull spotted a polished 1930 Ford Model A outside of his apartment located in Towers Dormitory. The owner was Captain Ted J. Johnson, Atlanta's chief Delta Air Lines pilot. When Johnson returned to his car, he found a note from Dull attached to his windshield. Dull's note offered to purchase the car to serve as Georgia Tech's official mascot. Johnson, after great deliberation, agreed to take $1,000; he eventually returned the money in 1984 so that the car would be remembered as an official donation to Georgia Tech and the Alexander-Tharpe Fund. The Ramblin' Wreck was officially transferred to the Athletic Association on May 26, 1961.

James E. Boyd, Assistant Director of Research at the Engineering Experiment Station since 1954, was appointed Director of the station from July 1, 1957, a post in which he served until 1961. While at Tech, Boyd wrote an influential article about the role of research centers at institutes of technology, which argued that research should be integrated with education; he correspondingly involved undergraduates in his research. Under Boyd's purview, the EES gained many electronics-related contracts, to the extent that an Electronics Division was created in 1959; it would focus on radar and communications. The establishment of research facilities was also championed by Boyd. In 1955, Van Leer had appointed Boyd to Georgia Tech's Nuclear Science Committee, which recommended the creation of a Radioisotopes Laboratory Facility and a large research reactor. The $4.5 million ($35.2 million in 2016) Frank H. Neely Research Reactor would be completed in 1963 and would operate until 1996.

Harrison's administration also addressed the disparity between salaries at Georgia Tech and competing institutions. This was solved via the "Joint Tech-Georgia Development Fund" developed by the Georgia Tech Alumni Association in 1967, which supplemented salaries of faculty at both Georgia Tech and UGA and worked to attract high-quality faculty members to both schools.

Students across the nation protested the Vietnam War, including at similar institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where students picketed and blocked access to the Draper Laboratory that was producing guidance systems for the Poseidon missile. While The Technique did publish editorials against the United States' involvement, the Student Council easily defeated a bill endorsing the Vietnam Moratorium in the fall of 1969. There were significant protests at other institutions that conducted military research, but there were no protests against the military electronics research at the Georgia Tech Research Institute.

There was similar nationwide concern over the United States' involvement in the Cambodian Civil War, resulting in the Kent State shootings, which in turn caused about 450 colleges to suspend classes. In Georgia, the student response was largely restrained. Several hundred students at the University of Georgia marched on the home of president Frederick Corbet Davison demanding that the school be closed; consequently, all schools in the University System of Georgia were closed on May 8 and 9. While there were no protests at Tech, the students were still concerned over the events at Kent State; on May 8, four hundred students and faculty filled Bertha Square for a student-organized memorial, after which the students left quietly.

A 1965 plan signaled the beginning of Tech's expansion to include what is now West Campus. The area west of Hemphill Avenue, for decades the campus' western border, was then a working-class multiracial neighborhood, and Hemphill itself was a major city thoroughfare connecting Buckhead, the Atlantic Steel Mill, Techwood Homes and Downtown. In July 1968, Harrison resigned to the surprise of many in the Georgia Tech community; it was leaked to the press prior to his official announcement, and he subsequently released a public statement, saying that "ten years was long enough to be president of one university". The true reasons stemmed from his reorganization of the campus administration, and difficulties between Harrison and the Georgia Board of Regents and its chancellor over long-term goals and procedures.

History of Georgia Tech  - georgia tech tuition
Rapid turnover

Includes the administrations of Vernon D. Crawford (interim, March 1969-August 1969), Arthur G. Hansen (1969â€"1971), and James E. Boyd (interim, 1971â€"1972)

On July 1, 1968, Vernon D. Crawford became dean of the institute's General College. In March 1969, Harrison announced that he would take a leave of absence until his resignation was effective; Chancellor George L. Simpson subsequently announced that Crawford would be the interim president. One notable development during Crawford's term was the advancement of the School of Industrial Management to a college. In 1966, Arthur G. Hansen, then a chairman of the University of Michigan's mechanical engineering department, was named Georgia Tech's Dean of Engineering. On August 1, 1969, Hansen became the institute's next president, a post he held until his resignation on July 1, 1971, to become president of his alma mater, Purdue University.

James E. Boyd, who had assumed the vice chancellorship of the University System of Georgia the previous month, was appointed Acting President of Georgia Tech by Chancellor George L. Simpson in May 1971. Simpson's selection of Boyd as interim president was influenced by Boyd's previous experience as an academic administrator, his experience as director of the Engineering Experiment Station, and his ongoing position on the station's board of directors. The chancellor hoped this combination would help resolve a brewing controversy over whether the EES should be integrated into Georgia Tech's academic units to improve both entities' competitiveness for federal money.

The EES had sizable and growing support from the state of Georgia and its Industrial Development Council, which developed products and methods and provided technical assistance for Georgia industry. However, due in part to efforts made by Boyd and previous station director Gerald Rosselot, the station increasingly relied on electronics research funding from the federal government. In 1971, funding to both Georgia Tech's academic units and the EES began to suffer due to a sharp decline in state funds combined with cuts to federal science, research, and education funding after the end of the Space Race funding boom. Similar institutions, such as the Battelle Memorial Institute, Stanford Research Institute, and the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute had weathered this storm by becoming exceedingly good at obtaining research contracts.

Boyd's predecessor Arthur G. Hansen's "bold and controversial" solution to both entities' problems was to completely integrate the station into Georgia Tech's academic units. On paper, this would dramatically increase Georgia Tech's stated research funding (as all of it would be performed through the academic units), and it would increase options and financial aid for graduate students. Another, less publicized, reason was that Georgia Tech would gain access to the contract organization's reserve fund, which was said to be over $1 million ($6.2 million in 2016). Thomas E. Stelson, Dean of the College of Engineering at Georgia Tech, was named to "reorganize" the station. Publicly, Stelson's task was simply to recommend a plan for reorganization, but the administration clearly intended for Georgia Tech and the EES to be closely integrated. Maurice W. Long, who was director of the station at the time, viewed the move as a violation of the EES's charter as legislatively established by the Georgia General Assembly in 1919, and asserted that Georgia Tech did not have the authority to merge the two institutions. EES employees and business executives involved with the station appealed to the Georgia Board of Regents and to Governor of Georgia Jimmy Carter (himself a Georgia Tech alumnus); the controversy received coverage in both The Technique and The Atlanta Constitution.

This was the climate into which Boyd entered as interim institute president after Hansen had announced, on April 27, 1971, that he would be departing Georgia Tech to become president of Purdue University on July 1 of that year. Boyd stopped the plan for absolute absorption of the station, but did allow plans for closer control and more aggressive contract solicitation to proceed. Among these measures were increased resource-sharing, including increased sharing of physical assets and research staff. The latter was evidenced by the increase in joint faculty appointments between the EES and Georgia Tech. The move paid off, and the fiscal year 1970â€"1971 saw EES win new contracts and grants, totaling a record $5.2 million ($30.8 million 2016).

Boyd had to deal with intense public pressure to fire Yellow Jackets football coach Bud Carson. Georgia Tech alumni â€" accustomed to success under football legends John Heisman (whose career winsâ€"lossesâ€"draws statistics were 185â€"70â€"17), William A. Alexander (134â€"95â€"15) and Bobby Dodd (165â€"64â€"8) â€" made repeated calls for Carson's dismissal. The complaints were based on a long list of infractions, including "mistreating and humiliating students" and "unsportsmanlike conduct", but the most important issue was his 27â€"27 record. The last straw was his 6â€"6 season in 1971, which included both a loss to Georgia Tech's longtime rival, the Georgia Bulldogs, and to the 1971 Ole Miss Rebels football team in the 1971 Peach Bowl. As institute president, Boyd chaired the Board of Directors of the Georgia Tech Athletic Association, which had been suffering both in win percentage and in finances.

Traditional sources of Athletic Association income, primarily ticket sales, had declined as a result of both the Yellow Jackets' poor record and the relatively recent establishment of professional football in Atlanta, namely the Atlanta Falcons. Bobby Dodd, then athletic director, had warned for years that Georgia Tech's rising academic standards and its limited curriculum would affect the athletic program. At a meeting on January 8, 1972, the Athletic Association board, led by Boyd, ignored a 42-page list of "charges" drafted by an alumnus, but nevertheless voted to not renew Carson's contract, making him the first Georgia Tech coach to be fired. The board also voted to not accept Bobby Dodd's resignation, which had been offered at the meeting. Carson went on to have a successful career, particularly with the Pittsburgh Steelers. On January 21, 1972, Boyd announced that Bill Fulcher had been selected as the new football head coach. This would not change the Georgia Tech Athletic Association's fortunes, however; after Carson's departure, the on-field and financial problems remained.

Georgia Tech's mascot Buzz got his start in the 1970s. The original Georgia Tech Yellow Jacket mascot was Judi McNair who donned a homemade yellowjacket costume in 1972 and performed at home football games. She rode on the Ramblin' Wreck and appears in the 1972 Georgia Tech Blueprint yearbook. McNair's mascot was considered a great idea, as it was a big hit with the fans. In 1979, McNair's idea for a Yellow Jacket was reintroduced by another Georgia Tech student, Richie Bland. Bland, who was apparently unaware of McNair's prior initiative, paid $1,400 to have a local theme park costume designer make a yellowjacket costume that he first wore at a pep rally prior to the Tennessee football game. Rather than obtain permission from Georgia Tech as Judi had done in 1972, this student simply sneaked onto the field in costume during a football game and ran across the field. The fans believed that this costumed character was acting as an official member of the cheerleading squad and responded accordingly. By 1980, this new incarnation of the yellow jacket mascot was given the name Buzz Bee and was adopted as an official mascot by Georgia Tech. This new Buzz character would be the model for a new Georgia Tech emblem, designed in 1985 by Mike Lester.

History of Georgia Tech  - georgia tech tuition
Research expansion

Includes the administrations of Joseph M. Pettit (1972â€"1986) and Henry C. Bourne, Jr. (interim, 1986â€"1987)

Joseph M. Pettit became president of the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1972. During his 14-year tenure as president, Pettit was credited with turning Georgia Tech into a top-flight research institution. Pettit has also received credit for shifting Georgia Tech back to its roots with regards to providing assistance with economic development within the state of Georgia. In the decades known for the Vietnam War and the launch of Sputnik, research at Georgia Tech and the Georgia Tech Research Institute had become so tied with NASA and the Department of Defense that local industrial development had been largely forgotten.

During Pettit's tenure, the Institute progressed into the top tier of technological education institutions. Under his leadership, Tech's research budget surpassed the $100 million mark for the first time in its history. Thomas E. Stelson was Georgia Tech's Vice President for Research from 1974 to 1988. Faced with a longstanding cultural war over the relative merits of basic research versus applied research, Stelson emphasized the importance of both. An increased focus on research activities allowed more funding for academics, which allowed the school's ranking to start a long and continuing rise from that of the 20s. Stelson simultaneously served as the interim director of the Georgia Tech Research Institute from 1975 to 1976, during which time he reorganized the station into eight semi-autonomous laboratories in order to allow each to develop a specialization and clienteleâ€"a model that GTRI retains (with slight modifications) to this day.

In the aftermath of the launch of Scientific Atlanta and the subsequent disputes, Georgia Tech's culture encouraged hard work, but did not encourage start-ups. This changed during Pettit's administration; Pettit was at Stanford during the development of the Silicon Valley and worked to change the culture to inspire something similar in Atlanta. "That was when Tech began actively encouraging faculty, staff and students to be entrepreneurial ... In some ways it was a shift back to our roots, with Tech beginning to reconnect with the state through the Advanced Technology Development Center, the Economic Development Institute and the Georgia Research Alliance", according to Bob McMath.

Pettit also oversaw Georgia Tech's application and admittance into the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), an athletic league founded in 1953 which included seven charter members. Georgia Tech had withdrawn from the Southeastern Conference in January 1964 and had operated as an Independent until 1975 when Georgia Tech joined the Metro Conference. Georgia Tech was admitted to the ACC on April 3, 1978. The ACC has expanded from 8 to 12 members since that time.

The Institute celebrated its centennial in 1985. Pettit and J. Erskine Love, Jr. spearheaded Tech's $100 million Centennial Campaign. A total of $202.7 million was raised during the Centennial Campaign, which was Georgia Tech's largest single fundraising effort to that date. Among other centennial observances, a time capsule was placed in the Student Center, and a team of historians wrote a comprehensive guide to Georgia Tech's history, Engineering the New South: Georgia Tech 1885â€"1985. In 1986, Pettit died of cancer, and Henry C. Bourne, Jr. served as interim president.

Restructuring controversy

Includes the administration of John Patrick Crecine (1987â€"1994) and Michael E. Thomas (interim, 1994)

President John Patrick Crecine proposed a controversial restructuring in 1988. The Institute at that point had three colleges: the College of Engineering, the College of Management, and the catch-all COSALS, the College of Sciences and Liberal arts. Crecine reorganized the latter two into the College of Computing, the College of Sciences, and the Ivan Allen College of Management, Policy, and International Affairs. Crecine announced the changes without asking for input, and consequently many faculty members disliked him for his top-down management style. The administration sent out ballots in 1989, and the proposed changes passed with very slim margins. The restructuring took effect in January 1990. While Crecine was seen in a poor light at the time, the changes he made are considered visionary. In January 1994, Crecine resigned.

In October 1990, Tech opened its first overseas campus, Georgia Tech Lorraine (GTL). A non-profit corporation operating under French law, GTL primarily focuses on graduate education, sponsored research, and an undergraduate summer program. In 1997 GTL was sued on the grounds that the course descriptions on its internet site did not comply with the Toubon Law, which requires that advertisements must be provided in French. The case was dismissed on a technicality; the GTL site subsequently offers course descriptions in English, French and German.

Crecine was instrumental in securing the 1996 Summer Olympics for Atlanta. In September 1989 he imagined a grand multimedia presentation for the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The resulting 3-D presentation, developed by the institute's Multimedia Laboratory, provided a "1996" view of Atlanta, complete with digitized graphic models of non-existent facilities overlaid on their proposed sites. More than 40 Georgia Tech computer scientists were recruited to assemble the virtual reality, three-dimensional tour through Olympic venues that had not yet even been designed. The term "virtual reality" was almost unknown in 1989 when Tech's seven-foot tall, three-screen, 3-D interactive video and laser disc projection system debuted during a meeting of the IOC at San Juan, Puerto Rico. Members of the committee used a trackball and a touch screen to view a dazzling montage of animation, computer graphics, aerial photography, video, and satellite topographical photographs created to de pict Atlanta during the Centennial Olympic Games. Many believe the presentation showed the IOC that Atlanta was a major player in its Olympics bid and served to create the foundation for the city's high-tech theme for the Centennial Games.

After Atlanta won the Olympics bid, a dramatic amount of construction occurred, creating most of what is now considered "West Campus" in order for Tech to serve as the Olympic Village. The Undergraduate Living Center, Fourth Street Apartments, Sixth Street Apartments, Eighth Street Apartments, Hemphill Apartments, and Center Street Apartments housed athletes and journalists. The Georgia Tech Aquatic Center was built for swimming events, and the Alexander Memorial Coliseum was renovated.

Modern history

Includes the administrations of G. Wayne Clough (1994â€"2008), Gary Schuster (interim, 2008â€"2009), and George P. "Bud" Peterson (2009â€"present)

In 1994, G. Wayne Clough became the first Tech alumnus to serve as the President of the Institute. The 1996 Summer Olympics took place in Atlanta early in Clough's tenure. In 1998, he split the Ivan Allen College of Management, Policy, and International Affairs, creating the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts and returning the College of Management to "College" status. During his tenure, research expenditures increased from $212 million to $425 million, enrollment increased from 13,000 to 18,000, Tech received the Hesburgh Award, and Tech's U.S. News & World Report rankings steadily improved.

Clough's tenure especially focused on a dramatic expansion and modernization of the institute. Coinciding with the rise of personal computers, computer ownership became mandatory for all students in 1997. In 1998, Georgia Tech was the first university in the Southeastern United States to provide its fraternity and sorority houses with internet access. A campus wireless network, the Local Area Wireless/Walkup Network (LAWN), was established in 1999; it now covers most of the campus.

In 1999, Georgia Tech began offering local degree programs to engineering students in Southeast Georgia. In 2003 Tech established a physical campus in Savannah, Georgia, called Georgia Tech Savannah. Clough's administration also focused on improved undergraduate research opportunities and the creation of an "International Plan" degree option that requires students to spend two terms abroad and take internationally focused courses. In addition, Clough spearheaded the creation of a fund to make Georgia Tech more affordable for low-income students (the G. Wayne Clough Georgia Tech Promise Program).

The master plan for the school's physical growth and developmentâ€"created in 1912 and significantly revised in 1952, 1965, and 1991â€"saw two further revisions under Clough's guidance in 1997 and 2002. While Clough was in office, around $1 billion was spent on expanding and improving the campus. These projects include the construction of the Manufacturing Related Disciplines Complex, 10th and Home, Tech Square, The Biomedical Complex, the completion and subsequent renovations of several west campus dorms, the Student Center renovation, the expanded 5th Street Bridge, the Georgia Tech Aquatic Center's renovation into the CRC, the new Health Center, the Klaus Advanced Computing Building, the Molecular Science and Engineering Building, and the Nanotechnology Research Center.

The school has also taken care to maintain its Historic District, with several projects dedicated to the preservation or improvement of Tech Tower, the school's first and oldest building and its primary administrative center. As part of Phase I of the Georgia Tech Master Plan of 1997, the area was made more pedestrian-friendly by the removal of access roads and the addition of landscaping improvements, benches, and other facilities. The National Register of Historic Places has listed the Georgia Tech Historic District since 1978. In the 2007 "Best of Tech" issue of The Technique, students voted "construction" as Georgia Tech's worst tradition.

On March 15, 2008, Clough was appointed to lead the Smithsonian Institution, effective July 1, 2008. Dr. Gary Schuster, Tech's Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, was named Interim President, effective July 1, 2008. On February 9, 2009, George P. "Bud" Peterson, chancellor of the University of Colorado at Boulder, was named the finalist in the presidential search; he took office on September 3, 2009. On April 20, 2010, Georgia Tech was invited to join the Association of American Universities, as the first new member institution in nine years.

In 2011, Georgia Tech opened the G. Wayne Clough Undergraduate Learning Commons building named in honor of his commitment to undergraduate students; it was dedicated on his birthday, September 24, 2011. In 2012, Ernest Scheller Jr. gave a $50 million gift that led to the renaming of the Georgia Tech College of Management to the Scheller College of Business.

Learn more »