flurry of recent articles suggests that, finally, Georgia Tech is being recognized at the highest levels. This is epitomized by a recent Wall Street Journal ranking, which placed Tech ninth nationally, accompanied by a spotlight article that calls out Tech by name and features a student sharing his love for Tech and Atlanta. The buzz feels like a validation of decades of determined work by many great students and faculty, and I couldn’t be more here for it. But have we outpaced ourselves?

 

One question has stuck with me throughout my time here: “What’s wrong with Tech?” There are so many great parts of Tech, but I and other students have noticed a confusing undercurrent of erosion. Many students have experienced a confrontational disposition of administrative and student support staff, along with a surprising likelihood that the systems we use daily—phone trees, websites, student services, HVAC—are down with Tech staff unaware. This problem is not isolated to the student experience; once I mention I go to Tech, employees from nearby small and medium businesses share their frustrations over not being paid for work they completed years ago.

 

At first, I saw these problems as simple lapses. However, the more I listened, the more I learned that certain policies set by various Tech administrators are knowingly different from those that would best support students. “We know that our gadgets and study room policies are frustrating for students,” a senior library staff member told me recently, “but we have no plans to change the policy…” Through this and other interactions, I realized that deeper, more systemic issues might be at play.

 

The root of the issue came into focus through the lens of Tech’s developing student housing crisis. Small, crowded info sessions are filled with anxious students who ask countless questions about their newly uncertain living conditions. As I listened, a community manager explained that President Cabrera’s student-body expansion initiatives have left them no other option. They acknowledge that student organizations such as the Student Government and Graduate Student Government Associations (SGA and GSGA) have been raising concerns about this crisis for the last two years. Yet, there are no plans to break ground on new on-campus housing buildings for the foreseeable future. During that time, all graduate students and families will be denied second-year campus housing, campus childcare and schooling, and generally affordable and flexible housing needed to navigate internships and graduation. Undergraduate students, too, are being forced out of campus at record numbers.

 

The on-campus student population has burgeoned by 21% in just four years, pushing Tech to its breaking point. Across campus, similar stories of an overburdened university unfold—ranging from a lack of support for international students transitioning to America, to our crowded gyms, study spaces, and dining venues. The consequence is not simply a poor university product; students move from across the world to live, study, and work at Tech—inadequate support can lead to significant hardships. The sentiment of overpopulation is echoed by staff and students alike, such as the previously mentioned library staff member, whose quote actually ends, “We have no plans to change the policy; we simply have too many students needing the services we offer.” Similarly, the Technique published the consensus opinion Growing Pains, aptly noting that the combination of Tech’s growth and lack of infrastructure “risks falling short” of “meeting the basic needs” of its students. 

 

All roads lead to President Angel Cabrera, who has been implicated to me as the decision-maker behind key missteps. Year after year, he and his administration have made short-term decisions with the presupposition that Tech must grow, unwittingly transforming our campus into a massive tragedy of the commons. With infrastructure lagging behind enrollment, students are left to navigate a strained system, protecting what remains of their Tech experience—a dynamic that fuels unusually restrictive policies and overburdens administration and staff. While our university seems to have endured such growth while producing high-quality research and graduates, it is not too hard to see that the consequences of these decisions risk creating a sugar-high in ratings. 

 

President Cabrera has shown he is aware of the downsides of these decisions but often responds with a familiar mantra: “I would rather have growing pains than stagnation pains.” Such a statement suggests that the challenges we face are a necessary trade-off for his vision. But this is not the case. At other universities, their student union represents a true partnership between the administration and the student body, which brings everyone to the table. These administrations consider the long-term outlook of the university collaboratively rather than prioritizing a set agenda. If they choose to grow, they grow with consensus decision-making, adequate infrastructure, and student buy-in. Their policies are intentionally accommodating and flexible because they ensure sufficient resources and staffing are in place. At these institutions, the administration understands that their priorities mesh with the motivation and efforts of students and faculty—we all move forward together.

 

In contrast, the push for student-body growth at Tech feels increasingly isolated. During this academic year, President Cabrera’s administration is primed to set a fifth consecutive enrollment record by more than a thousand students, despite calls from organizations like the GSGA to pause growth. Perhaps it is time for us students to dissent more openly, to push back against unsustainable growth justified by phrases and mantras, and to make our message clear: “I am concerned for the future of Georgia Tech.”