I joined Georgia Tech’s QCF program with high hopes—expecting a collaborative, intellectually honest environment where hard work and ethics are respected. What I encountered was the complete opposite.
In one of our flagship courses, “The Practice of QCF” (MGT 6785), we were assigned to a semester-long capstone project with a real company. On paper, this was a fantastic opportunity to gain real-world experience. In reality, it turned into a nightmare—thanks to a toxic team dynamic and the complete failure of the program director, Dr. Chava, to protect students who tried to do the right thing.
One teammate blatantly took advantage of the group. She volunteered for the most technical task (coding) but never wrote a single functional line of code. Instead, she dominated meetings with empty talk, gave orders, and disrupted everyone else’s work. When it came time to present to the company, she publicly criticized our efforts—work she didn’t even participate in—and falsely took credit for key slides and models built entirely by others.
We thought our efforts and evidence would speak for themselves. We documented her behavior and reached out to Dr. Chava as soon as we saw the grade: she got an A, and the rest of us got Bs and Cs.
To our shock, Dr. Chava not only ignored our concerns, he blamed us for “team miscommunication.” We were essentially punished for trying to keep the project on track while our teammate sabotaged it. The person who disrupted, lied, and misrepresented her work was rewarded. The people who built the project were left disillusioned.
This isn’t just about a grade. It’s about a program that refuses to stand up for fairness. If you’re a quiet, hardworking student, don’t expect protection here. Expect to be bulldozed—especially if your teammate knows how to play politics.
To those considering QCF: If you value integrity, transparency, and support from your program leadership, think twice. The coursework is tough—but navigating the politics and favoritism is tougher. And when things go wrong, you’ll be on your own.
In one of our flagship courses, “The Practice of QCF” (MGT 6785), we were assigned to a semester-long capstone project with a real company. On paper, this was a fantastic opportunity to gain real-world experience. In reality, it turned into a nightmare—thanks to a toxic team dynamic and the complete failure of the program director, Dr. Chava, to protect students who tried to do the right thing.
One teammate blatantly took advantage of the group. She volunteered for the most technical task (coding) but never wrote a single functional line of code. Instead, she dominated meetings with empty talk, gave orders, and disrupted everyone else’s work. When it came time to present to the company, she publicly criticized our efforts—work she didn’t even participate in—and falsely took credit for key slides and models built entirely by others.
We thought our efforts and evidence would speak for themselves. We documented her behavior and reached out to Dr. Chava as soon as we saw the grade: she got an A, and the rest of us got Bs and Cs.
To our shock, Dr. Chava not only ignored our concerns, he blamed us for “team miscommunication.” We were essentially punished for trying to keep the project on track while our teammate sabotaged it. The person who disrupted, lied, and misrepresented her work was rewarded. The people who built the project were left disillusioned.
This isn’t just about a grade. It’s about a program that refuses to stand up for fairness. If you’re a quiet, hardworking student, don’t expect protection here. Expect to be bulldozed—especially if your teammate knows how to play politics.
To those considering QCF: If you value integrity, transparency, and support from your program leadership, think twice. The coursework is tough—but navigating the politics and favoritism is tougher. And when things go wrong, you’ll be on your own.
