Less prestigious education with better running program or other way around?

The old college crunch. Go to oregon clown kollege and get the best NOPe dope, or get an education.

Why are you placing more value on prestige instead of the actual education?

That wasn't my intention, and it's not really my view. I believe that a good education can be attained at nearly any university if you put the work in. But, there are those out there, among those who do the hiring, that value "prestige" factor of say an Ivy league school. [quote]setselfup wrote:

setselfup wrote:

Why are you placing more value on prestige instead of the actual education?

Obviously, someone could go to a joke school like Oregon and learn something just by reading textbooks 15 hours a day. But even if they graduate, it is still a degree from a joke school. This guy want to get a degree and not be laughed at by job recruiters.

It's easier to be a great runner in a mediocre program than it is to be a brilliant student in a mediocre college.

KemBOII wrote:

Hey Letsrun. Currently I am a senior in high school coming up upon decision time for where to go to school next year.

I really want to run as fast as I possibly can in college and have been accepted to and recruited to a top tier distance program. But, I also am relatively smart (35 ACT), and have been accepted to some really prestigious academic universities whose programs are not as strong.

I just wanted to get some input from others on this dilemma. I feel that college will be my one big shot at running as fast as I can and I feel like I would regret not doing everything I can to reach my potential. But, I also feel that going to a less prestigious academic school wouldn't set me up as well for the future.

What do you guys think?

I think you should go to Haverford and run for Tom Donnelly. But perhaps it's a little late to apply.

Plan B would be to go to top tier distance program, run fast, and study hard. If you do extremely well academically, you will likely be able to get into a top-tier graduate program if that's part of the plan.

I suppose it depends also on which prestigious academic universities have accepted you.

You should go to the school that gives you the best overall education for the degree program you're interested in. That may or may not be the most "prestigious" college.

That's the other thing. I don't know what I want to study.

We have your ACT score which barely tells us anything. We have no idea how fast you run.

We really need to know what you have done in each to help you decide.

As you make your choice, think about what would happen if the coaches you are interested in running for move or retire.

This question comes up pretty often. My own view is that, unless it's pretty clear that you're going to be a serious candidate for an Olympic team (or something at that level), the running program should take a back seat. In fact, if you're an academic star, the running program should probably take a back seat even if you're a serious candidate for an Olympic team. Be grateful that your running may have gotten you into a top academic institution, and take advantage of it.

Of course, there can be some tough choices. I'm hesitant to provide any particular comparisons of my own, because I don't want to get enmeshed in one of those threads about which school is better or more prestigious or some such thing. But I will pass on Kenny Moore's anecdote about Bill Bowerman, the legendary coach at the University of Oregon. When Ric Rojas, an outstanding high school runner from New Mexico, was offered admission and a full scholarship to Harvard, Bowerman told him, "You'd be crazy to come to Oregon." Good advice. Rojas went to Harvard. He still managed to become a pretty darn good runner.

Many of us on this site were, at one time or another, obsessed with becoming the best runners we could be. There are circumstances when that's probably fine. But running at your peak is, at best, a fleeting thing, and life can be very long, so be very careful about letting your running ambitions dictate your choice.

We have this debate frequently. If you anticipate having a professional career your degree will always be on your bio in proposals, on your website, when you are introduced at conferences, etc.

for the rest of your life that degree will be a first impression as to who you are. You need to do something along the way of course but it is a first impression.

Think of someone that went to Oregon that didn't make it as a professional runner, say AJ Acosta, was it worth scoring at NCAA's when he now claims that he can't even afford new running shoes?

Also, for those that will say all undergraduate programs are the same I'd ask "are all college running programs the same?". Of course not. Academic institutions are the same with different faculties, resources, endowments and students. The good ones are good ones for a reason.

This is false. Your first impression will be what have you done/where worked/experience.

Your other comment makes no sense. Just because all running programs are not the same doesn't mean that all colleges are not the same. There's nothing that links the two concepts. Resources, endowments, and students are not education. There are no actual "good ones". They are "good ones" because of marketing and advertising which you have obviously been subjected to.

The prestigious university degree is definitely valuable when looking for a job, but that's about where the value of the credential ends. Your college education is what you put into it. if you go to Harvard and do exclusively what it takes to get the best grades you are going to be a very narrow-minded person despite all of your knowledge.

What I wish someone told me: If you know what field you want to get into (scientific field.. if you want a humanities degree you need to go to a small private for sure) then you should figure out what top-tier schools have the highest density of legitimate professors in that discipline. Don't expect great teachers wherever you go because they will be few and far between given the current college environment in the US. The ability to teach is something that is not of much import when colleges are looking to give out tenure. So internalize the fact that you need to be a bit of an autodidact if you want to pursue a well-rounded education. Your professors will be a great resource for you in other ways though: always have a list of deep questions that you have thought through when you attend office hours. College can be very valuable, but most people waste it by either buying into the whole thing too much and never thinking for themselves or by simply wasting their time drinking and smoking pot. Don't be one of those kids... you can take a year off to party when you graduate.

KemBOII wrote:

Hey Letsrun. Currently I am a senior in high school coming up upon decision time for where to go to school next year.

I really want to run as fast as I possibly can in college and have been accepted to and recruited to a top tier distance program. But, I also am relatively smart (35 ACT), and have been accepted to some really prestigious academic universities whose programs are not as strong.

I just wanted to get some input from others on this dilemma. I feel that college will be my one big shot at running as fast as I can and I feel like I would regret not doing everything I can to reach my potential. But, I also feel that going to a less prestigious academic school wouldn't set me up as well for the future.

What do you guys think?

Why can't you have it both ways? Stanford is one of the best schools in the country for running and one of the top schools for education/prestige as well. The Ivies are all top academic institutions and pretty good (if not Stanford level) with athletics as well.

You really haven't given us a ton. Are you fast enough to run at Stanford? Are you smart enough to get into Princeton? All these schools get a ton of top recruits and put out future stars/Olympians.

Chris Derrick (Stanford), Garrett Heath (Stanford), Jacob Riley (Stanford), Ben True (Dartmouth), Donn Cabral (Princeton), Morgan Uceny (Cornell), Anna Willard (Brown), Kyle Merber (Columbia), Abbey D'Agostino (Dartmouth), Alexi Pappas (Dartmouth) to name a few.

setselfup wrote:

Just because all running programs are not the same doesn't mean that all colleges are not the same. There's nothing that links the two concepts. Resources, endowments, and students are not education. There are no actual "good ones". They are "good ones" because of marketing and advertising which you have obviously been subjected to.

My analogy is spot on. We all split hairs over whether Oregon's distance program is better than Colorado, Wisconsin, Stanford,etc. We realize that coaches are different, training facilities are different, climate is different and that each one draws different talent. At the same time you want to argue that each academic institution is identical. This makes no sense.

Here are some more analogies:

Audi and Ford are not the same

Disneyland and Disneyworls are not the same.

Budweiser and Dogfish Head are not the same

Paris, France and Paris, Texas are not the same

Why would colleges be the only institution where every single example is the same?

You haven't given us any information on *which* top tier distance program you've been recruited by, probably because you may be the only recruit with that type of score. Based on the fact that you posed this question as a dichotomy, I'll assume the school isn't Stanford. As for other elite running schools, there is still a pretty wide disparity in academics; in the extremes, Wisconsin is still a relatively prestigious school, while Oregon is so poor they don't even have an engineering department or a medical school.

There's more to it than just running and academics as well. How do you actually like the locations and their respective cultures? How well do you like the teams and coaches? (You're going to be spending a lot of time with them.) How close do you want to stay to your family? (Giving an ACT score is an indicator that you may be from the midwest, where that is more frequently a larger consideration than it tends to be for people on the coasts.) How much will your education end up costing?

I'm someone who had similar scores many years ago who chose to go to an elite running school (which was still academically prestigious) over an ivy, and I would make the same exact decision if given the choice now, but my decision was rooted much more in those latter questions than any concerns of running.

I know I haven't given much information and that makes it difficult to really give much in depth comparison, but I've elected to do that for my own privacy and out of respect for the schools involved.

You should imagine the possibility that you blow out your Achilles' the first day of practice your freshman year and you can't break 16 min in a 5K again.

Choose a school where you'd still be happy and you'd still be proud to display a degree from.

here's the real deal wrote:

You should imagine the possibility that you blow out your Achilles' the first day of practice your freshman year and you can't break 16 min in a 5K again.

Choose a school where you'd still be happy and you'd still be proud to display a degree from.

This. Education trumps athleticism.

Get set up right for your life by going to a good school and make your education count. A whole lot more of those guys that go to great programs such as Oregon, never become Olympians anyway.

If you are meant to be an Olympian, you will be one. Jenn Suhr didn't even seriously start pole vaulting until after college. She played freaking basketball in college.