MIT Track distance

maybe consider Vanderbilt. Top academics and starting to recruit much better than they have in the past

To the OP’s question about why their longer distance times are slower, I’ll offer the tough academic schedule and weather as two potential reasons. Kids come in refreshed and fired up in the fall and run well. Indoor has great opportunities to run fast, but OP is specifically asking more about 5k/10k. Spring weather in New England is terrible, and at a place like MIT the athletes are more likely to be burned out by the end of the year.

YOU don’t want him to go to MIT? I think you overestimate your place in the young man’s life.

He is overestimating the kid's ability also. There were hundreds of kids in 9:1x range last year. He may never make top 7 at MIT. And he hasn't told us his test score or Financials. Price and academics are lifetime decisions while running is a 4 year decision.

"...who's..."

Several issues here.

Regarding MIT, they did not compete at all during all of 2021 track and outdoor or xc 2020. The coach they had for almost 40 years was old school and pretty tough with the runners, and may have contributed to burnout (and injuries?) among some of the runners. First year with new coach has coincided with first DIII national title. It requires real commitment to stick to running for the entire year when the academic exigencies are well beyond those in 99% of colleges, no matter the division. The combination of these factors seems to have led in the past few years to some of the top xc runners not participating in track (or even leaving xc despite having good performances there). Acquaviva (3rd in xc2022) did not run track in 2022. Raman (10th at xc nationals as a freshman in 2019) does not run track (or xc last year). The guy who finished 5th at xc nationals in 2022 runs 400-mile distances in track (national champ in 800).

The second issue is academics. What does it mean that your kid is "smart"? Most MIT students score between 770 and 800 in the math SAT, and many who were at the top of their classes in high school struggle at MIT. The kids doing sports there are students first, and second, and only then are they athletes. If running is close to as important as academics, no point going there. If you are a top student who wants an academic challenge in a STEM discipline, thrives as part of a team, and also likes to run and is relatively good at it, then MIT is hard to beat.

If you have been following DIII track & xc you will know that they did very well in 2022 and I think they are bound to repeat that this year. Wilson was last year champ in the 800, indoor and outdoor. They had a 7.88m long jumper who also won the 110h. They do well in the field disciplines in part because most of those guys only compete during the second semester.

And, as others have said, many of their recruits with good athletic credentials and excellent grades don't make it through admissions. The admissions scandal involving Stanford, Souther Cal, and other schools could not happen at MIT, because the coach has no decision power.

Most families don’t pay the full cost.

WPI's CS program is right up there with any of those that you mention but much more likely to take a 4:2X miler and give them a path for success.

in the early 80’s, MIT had two high Level runners, Paul Neves, who ran 1:50

880 at local Brockton high school, and about a 4:01 mile in college, and

Frank Richardson, who I think still has the records at Fresh Pond, Cambridge,

and ran a sub 2:14 marathon after college.

This is wrong. A 9:10 junior is basically a 5-star recruit for D3, even for the national champs.

I would also look at WashU in St. Louis as an option. Great academics and Jeff Stiles has really built a strong program. Last XC season had some injuries but if you look at their roster they have smart and fast kids.

The title of this thread is making me irrationally annoyed. It’s a beyond awful title though. Pretty sure the track is either 200 or 400 meters though

No. Not wrong. Although 9:10 is fast for a D3 recruit, large improvement is required to make top 7 at MIT.

He thinks the kid is too fast for MIT. He won't consider Wash U or Vanderbilt.

I’m not knocking MIT or D3 but a 9:10 HS junior would be one of MIT’s top several distance runners as a HS junior/senior. I don’t know what the basis could be for saying he wouldn’t make the top 7. MIT coach would be thrilled to get interest from a recruit at that level, but Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, state flagship if a good program, etc, would be better athletic fits.

But the athlete can judge this by looking at tfrrs and seeing how his times this spring compare. With guys there’s typically a lot of improvement from HS junior year to college soph/junior if the training is appropriate and they stay healthy.

MIT gets D1 level recruits because of their reputation academically. Their talent develops a little bit but their athletes are so good that they could still be all Americans without improving much from their HS marks.

Part of the reason they may not have had good performances in outdoor is because their old coach Halston Taylor was a psycho and ran his athletes into the ground. They'd have great performances in XC and indoor but many of them (not all) would be burnt out by the spring.

I expect this will probably change now that they have a new, younger coach who I heard looks after the health of his athletes a lot better. They're going to keep getting some of the best talent in D3, but in the coming years that talent may develop more and stay healthier.

Emailed him a couple of years ago about their track program. At the time, I had run 9:27 which was 2 seconds over their "required mark" of 9:25. Even though I had run about 40 mpw and was really young for my grade (only turned 17 in senior fall), he replied tersely basically saying "our standard is 9:25. You're not there"

MIT track distance is 400m. You’re welcome

MIT track is a net downhill - the power of engineering.