Firsthand proof that MIT overtrains its runners - from MIT Confessions

I agree with 100% of what you wrote. Very eloquently put.

Sorry I just went back and saw this. MIT is not very different from the Ivies or Stanford:

1. There are walk-ons at any D1 university and most athletes at many universities aren't on scholarship. Runners at the Ivies can't get scholarship money at all. Most people don't run for the money and there are few other advantages that D1 universities have. It's running, it's not football. My university certainly didn't have an alter-G!

2. Zero grade inflation huh?

3. People who quit for all sorts of other reasons (e.g. academics, startups, international programs, research labs, clubs, greek life, etc.) -- this is exactly the same as other schools.

@David S

Look at the forest through the trees. You're not arguing in good faith, and it's clear from an objective standpoint that you have a chip on your shoulder which is why you feel the need to try to dismiss the enormous rigors that the institute places on its undergraduate students versus other universities. (PS your grade inflation link proves my point exceedingly well when you compare to other schools and factor in STEM vs non-STEM majors)

MIT HasBeen Runner wrote:

@David S

Look at the forest through the trees. You're not arguing in good faith, and it's clear from an objective standpoint that you have a chip on your shoulder which is why you feel the need to try to dismiss the enormous rigors that the institute places on its undergraduate students versus other universities. (PS your grade inflation link proves my point exceedingly well when you compare to other schools and factor in STEM vs non-STEM majors)

I don't know what you could possibly mean by "zero grade inflation" then. I double-majored in two STEM fields and got a PhD in one of them, and half of my team was in STEM. Here's Stanford's roster for instance:

. I'm going to stop posting on this thread.

The Starved Elephant wrote:

Why hasn't MIT, especially the men, every really challenged for a title?

MIT can't even win the World Computer Programming Championships, which considering its reputation it should be able to do regularly. Last time it won was in the 1970's when it was probably just US schools competing. Now, forget it. Russia, China, Poland.

Are MIT students really so arrogant that they think that the workload at their school is distinctively higher than other elite institutions? Damn.

Person who worked hard not at MIT wrote:

Are MIT students really so arrogant that they think that the workload at their school is distinctively higher than other elite institutions? Damn.

I know probably hundreds of people who went to MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, U Chicago, etc. The impression I always got was that the MIT students found their undergrad experience to be the extremely stressful. I never got a similar impression from students from other elite schools, with the possible exception of Chicago. Of course, stress can be a function of culture as much as workload. Also, in STEM, the "workload" can vary a lot depending on your IQ. If you're struggling to keep up, you can spend twice as much time on a course as someone for whom it comes naturally.

Where is the other confession? I didn't see it even w/searching.

No dog in the fight, but seems like Coach might be pushing some athletes too hard. A good coach doesn't treat every single person on the team the exact same, and tries to motivate/push them the best way for them. The bigger the team, the harder to do this, but if it's D3 survival of the fittest it's probably not ideal.

I didn't realize robots had feelings.

joedirt wrote:

I probably wouldn't blame the coach, as you don't cater the program to each athlete, but try to bring the athlete up to fit the training.

Trying to make the athlete fit into the training is exactly what a bad coach does. Any idiot can assign mileage and workouts. You actually need a head on your shoulders to make adjustments when life happens.

This is a nasty habit that a lot of college coaches have. There are a lot of amazing high school coaches, but many college coaches disregard what's worked for athletes in the past and try to make the athlete fit some mold. Everyone adapts to training and stress differently. It's the job of the coach to understand these differences between athletes and build a cohesive team. It's a hard thing to do, but that's why most coaches don't coach All-Americans.

Concerned Coach wrote:

It's the job of the coach to understand these differences between athletes and build a cohesive team. It's a hard thing to do, but that's why most coaches don't coach All-Americans.

Um, or the reason is because there are a highly limited number of all-American spots up for grabs.

Yep, yer smart. wrote:

Concerned Coach wrote:

It's the job of the coach to understand these differences between athletes and build a cohesive team. It's a hard thing to do, but that's why most coaches don't coach All-Americans.

Um, or the reason is because there are a highly limited number of all-American spots up for grabs.

Source?

Except that the OP was not willing to train to become a great athlete. The OP chose to prioritize academics over athletics and I do not fault him for that. I did the same thing in college. I was a good but not great college athlete, but excelled academically in engineering and graduated with honors in four years with 30 extra credits. I slept less than I probably should have as an athlete given the rigorous major I chose and probably did not reach my full potential as a runner. On the other hand, a number of my teammates who were exercise / sports science majors were able to train more and sleep more as a number took 5 years to graduate in a cotton candy soft major. It's the same reason a school like Alabama is consistently able to defeat Notre Dame and Stanford in football.

This person sounds super soft lol.

David S wrote:

MIT HasBeen Runner wrote:

@David S

Look at the forest through the trees. You're not arguing in good faith, and it's clear from an objective standpoint that you have a chip on your shoulder which is why you feel the need to try to dismiss the enormous rigors that the institute places on its undergraduate students versus other universities. (PS your grade inflation link proves my point exceedingly well when you compare to other schools and factor in STEM vs non-STEM majors)

I don't know what you could possibly mean by "zero grade inflation" then. I double-majored in two STEM fields and got a PhD in one of them, and half of my team was in STEM. Here's Stanford's roster for instance:

https://gostanford.com/roster.aspx?roster=1688&path=track#sidearm-m-roster

. I'm going to stop posting on this thread.

I was gonna say. . . Just ask Grant Fisher. Stanford STEM is tough.

Also, Williams, WashU, and the Johns Hopkins women are consistently challenging for and winning titles despite their academic rigors. Plenty of kids at WashU and Hopkins are in STEM. I don't want to hear any more about how MIT is head and shoulders above every other school.

Too many pimples on the face due to stress of MIT courseload

Not enough sleep

Pressure from parents

Pick at your acne more so it leaves permanent scars

don’t get laid

Makes sense why your life would suck

The Starved Elephant wrote:

David S wrote:

I don't know what you could possibly mean by "zero grade inflation" then. I double-majored in two STEM fields and got a PhD in one of them, and half of my team was in STEM. Here's Stanford's roster for instance:

https://gostanford.com/roster.aspx?roster=1688&path=track#sidearm-m-roster

. I'm going to stop posting on this thread.

I was gonna say. . . Just ask Grant Fisher. Stanford STEM is tough.

Also, Williams, WashU, and the Johns Hopkins women are consistently challenging for and winning titles despite their academic rigors. Plenty of kids at WashU and Hopkins are in STEM. I don't want to hear any more about how MIT is head and shoulders above every other school.

One thing to remember about MIT is that the core curriculum that all students have to take is extremely hard, including biology, chemistry, physics, and calculus. That's just the baseline, and most MIT students are STEM majors (obviously).

In comparison, a lit major at Williams doesn't have to deal with all of these challenging science classes on top of their major classes. Williams is obviously an excellent school, but I think there is something to be said about the academic load at MIT compared to it's peer DIII schools.