Hey, I was wondering what were my chances of getting into a college based off of times, etc. Thanks.

DIIIRunner wrote:

Also, I had a 1360 old SAT, 3.9 GPA (4.45 weighted) and ran 15:29 at Mt. SAC. I got in everywhere I applied including Cal and UCLA but decided to go the D3 route since my running was nothing spectacular.

In hindsight, do you think that was a good move? Over the course of your life, do you think are better off having run varsity at a DIII school or having a degree from Cal or UCLA? I would have gone to Cal or UCLA, whether or not I was good enough to run for them.

a wise man wrote:

In hindsight, do you think that was a good move? Over the course of your life, do you think are better off having run varsity at a DIII school or having a degree from Cal or UCLA? I would have gone to Cal or UCLA, whether or not I was good enough to run for them.

It really depends on what DIII school he's talking about doesn't it? An undergrad degree from Williams, Amherts, Harvey Mudd, or similar (all DII) would be a step up from Cal or UCLA.

Cal is probably one of the top five universities in the country (arguably the world), but that is primarily due to it spectacular graduate programs. Similarly, UCLA has an elite law school and business school. However, niether school's undergrads are particularly spectacular (solid top 25 major universities, but not elite).

Typo:

*(all DIII)*

Gainfully Employed guessed right, my school is highly ranked and I consider it to be a step up from Cal or UCLA at the undergraduate level.

DIIIRunner wrote:

Gainfully Employed guessed right, my school is highly ranked and I consider it to be a step up from Cal or UCLA at the undergraduate level.

I just wanted to make the point to other high schoolers to think twice about rejecting a big school with a better academic reputation to instead go to a clearly inferior academic school to run on the school team. There may be other reasons to go to an academically inferior school -- better fit, better student to teacher ratio, etc. But going to a clearly inferior academic school just to run on the team is, in my view, a very bad idea in the long run. In the job world, virtually no one cares if you ran in college, so having the more presigious degree usually is the way to go.

you should contact coaches and fill out athletic recruiting information- those times are in line to run on the team.

I got into Cal and some liberal arts schools back in the day, and even though I was in-state, Cal was far more expensive than the liberal arts schools for me, because the latter gave me primarily grant-based aid, covering nearly all tuition and board, whereas Cal gave me only a $500 scholarship--leaving me with probably $10k or more to pay in cost of living and tuition.

There are tons of californians at the university of Michigan.

arguable one of the best coaches, mike mcquire is there too. he's produced dominating dmr 4*800 teams (they've had something like 5 or 6 sub 2:05 girls in the last 2 years) in the last couple years. he's coach ncaa xc champs too. if you want to go to one of the best publically funded schools (top 25 of any school) and run for a great coach and successful program then michigan is worth a look.

www.umich.edu

search the directory for mike's email, and tell him letsrun sent you!

check out these names

katie erdman

lindsay gallo

katie mcgregor

nicole edwards

geena gall

Anna Willard

I would definitely think Ivy League. 5:04 (thus far) as a junior is pretty respectable and your grades/SATs are pretty good as well (assuming you go to a decent high school). You might not be a top tier recruit at a school like Princeton, but schools like Cornell and Brown which have decent women's programs would be happy to take you. It might be a bit of a stretch academically, but depending on how your fall xc season goes, you might want to contact Harvard which has a quickly improving programs on both sides.

On academics alone, for admission to UCLA and Cal, your sat score is excellent, but your gpa is on the weaker side for admission. Based on recent history you probably have a decent-good chance of getting into ucla or cal but i honestly don't think it would be a lock. Not sure how it is now, but with the previous coach at ucla I know first-hand that some runners who weren't quite good enough to merit scholarship money but with enough running potential(and decent but not great grades) for the coach to take a chance on got 'pushed' thru admissions. With your grades/test scores and continued improvement in running, I'd bet you can garner some attention and admission from some ivy's. Good luck.