Grant Fisher commits to Stanford

C PARKER wrote:

Colorado a better medical school than Hopkins? ROFLMAO

Sorry I upset you so. I did NOT say CU was a better Med school. I simply did not. And you are right CU is NOT the better med SCHOOL. I get that and do not believe otherwise. In what I had said, I wrote medicine, and in the field I linked they were. Just like I never said CU was #6 engineering school ( they clearly are not). I said a field of engineering.

i fully admitted I clicked on wrong link but, my point is valid. CU is very strong academically is several areas.

Another poster made a great point that the same misconceptions that students have are held by employers. That is very sad, but I think to be true.

It's possible to produce a list of notable alumni for any school, especially a state school that has had hundreds of thousands of lifetime students. These schools can still be mediocre.

Why did he not committ to Oregon? Did he not have the akademic credentials?

but it does show that you can still do GREAT things despite the schools flaws.

logician wrote:

It's possible to produce a list of notable alumni for any school, especially a state school that has had hundreds of thousands of lifetime students. These schools can still be mediocre.

logician wrote:

It's possible to produce a list of notable alumni for any school, especially a state school that has had hundreds of thousands of lifetime students. These schools can still be mediocre.

What does "mediocre" even mean? Like Jeff said, smart, driven people can find success anywhere. Your education is what you make of it.

And CU is not a mediocre school. Making such a sweeping comment about a school is incredibly stupid and a good indication to others that your comments should be ignored.

Hey why are you guys in a pissing match about med schools when this is a thread about Grant Fisher committing to Stanford University? Get on with your lives, donate to the school you are so passionate about, buy the schools shirt or something. Cheer this kid on because he is an incredible talent.

Grant if you read LR, the vast majority of people who read or post on this site wish you continued success and a great future at Stanford. Brilliant choice in my opinion.

Have fun-

You are right and I apologize. I lost my dad to cancer 2 years ago, but thanks to CU hospital, I was able to spend an extra year and a half of quality time with him (as did my kids). So I guess it sort of irked me when a posted said any person wanting an education can write off CU automatically.

Again, a big congrats to Grant. Hope all goes well at post season races.

agip wrote:

On the other hand, many huge corporations actively search for high performers at big state schools like Colorado and Oregon to avoid the prima donnas at the ivies and stanford because those kids will likely just move on, and will want too much responsibility too soon.

Who wants to work at a "huge" corporation? Sounds like sure fire way to guarantee yourself a mediocre life.

Sorry to know that about your Dad.

We all get caught up in our passions and really everyone's passion that posts on LR is track and field and XC.

Let's embrace all the wonderful talent (HS young men and women) that we have the privilege to watch and know about. Grant is a fine example of such. Debate is healthy, so is supporting the future of running by supporting the many wonderful young athletes as they make their college choices.

As a state of Colorado guy, it sure would have been nice to see Grant in a CU uni.

Best of luck at Stanford.

Damn i feel bad for Fisher Stanford is where great high School runners go to die. If he was smart he would have went to either Oregon or Colorado.

its obvious wrote:

Here are the top 10 schools in the country (from US News & World):

Princeton

Harvard

Yale

Columbia

Stanford

University of Chicago

MIT

Duke

Penn

Cal Tech

I think Stanford is a no brainer for smart blue-chip recruits like this.

I agree that Stanford (assuming it has the degree path he wants, and honestly, maybe even if not) is the best choice for him among these schools, or ANY schools in the country. For the running and academic combination that Stanford has, it can't be beat. The ONLY reason he should have gone elsewhere would be if he didn't think he could hack it academically.

Just to be clear on one thing though, those are the top 10 NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES as declared by US News and World Report. US News and World Report defines a National University as one which "offers a full range of undergraduate majors, plus master's and doctoral programs." So, there aren't some EXCELLENT Liberal Arts colleges listed there (US News and Word Report) that would certainly compete to be on that list...Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, perhaps a couple others.

NCRunning wrote:

Grant isn't going to be a good college xc runner. His form isn't very economical. He needs to stick with the 1500 and 800 in college. Great runner and talent but not a 5k and 10k college guy.

Yet he consistently crushes his national class competition in a variety of distances and wins Footlocker. No good for college cross country you say? Economy and form problems?! Are you a troll, son? 2/10

Not completely true, athletes in general have a much easier time getting in, even to a school like Stanford.

Athletes get a rolling admission so if they're offered a rolling admission application they're basically in (unlike everyone else who has to apply for specific deadlines). I know plenty of average students who were great at a sport (swimming, softball, running, etc.) and got in. If you look at the Stanford team, a good chunk of them don't even have 3.0 GPAs which is significantly below the average of the rest of the school (average GPA at a school like Stanford is pretty high, with grade inflation, smart overall student body, etc.).

Of course, there are exceptions like Kathy Kroeger who had pretty close to a 4.0, but for the most part, the athletes tend to lag behind the rest of the student body in terms of academics.

they call me flopro wrote:

Damn i feel bad for Fisher Stanford is where great high School runners go to die. If he was smart he would have went to either Oregon or Colorado.

Maybe running is not the only thing on his mind. It's possible he will go pro after college but chances are he will go pro in something else: engineering, science, math, computer science, economics. So to say it was a mistake that he didn't pick the best possible school for running, while disregarding academics is just flat out wrong. I feel bad that you have this sort of POV man, I really do. Hope you come to realize the more important things in life. Grant's no Cheserek, or Rupp, or Prefontaine, so it's best he thinks about academics when picking a SCHOOL to run at.

Watch him race-- He looks like he could fall over any minute. I hope I am wrong but I don't see him as an All-American in XC. That is okay because he will win several 2 national championships in the 1500 after the stud from Oregon graduates.

10k training and racing is a different world. We just saw a guy win the Southeast regional that wasn't highly recruited out of high school. I don't think Grant's body will hold up to the training it takes to be a top XC guy. Many soccer players don't transition well to the 10k. Troll- My ass. Read some of my post and learn a thing or two.

dumb boy wrote:

He's an idiot to not run at Michigan State!!!

yeah because only idiots go to Stanford.........

they call me flopro wrote:

Damn i feel bad for Fisher Stanford is where great high School runners go to die. If he was smart he would have went to either Oregon or Colorado.

Where good runners go to die?

What do Gabe Jennings, Ryan Hall, Chris Derrick and J. Rosa all have in common?

If you said that they're collegiate studs than you wouldn't be wrong, but that's not what I'm looking for.

What I'm going for is that they all excelled under a different coach. So if we're going to point to teams running poorly or individual runners "doing to die" at Stanford, I think it's very important to take note of who coached them.

Coach Milt has only been there for two years and is just now beginning to coach his own athletes. In his brief tenure he has had a man and a woman finish top 5 at ncaa cross, had numerous athletes set seriously legit PRs (the Rosas and last year's 5K chick come to mind) and also coached the DMR team that won nationals.

I only mention the previous successes because some people seem to be spreading the false claims that he hasn't had good results on the Farm. The true review will be in another 1.5 years (when his first group are seniors), but so far I would say he's doing a very good job. Bring on Fisher and Ostberg!

C PARKER wrote:

Colorado a better medical school than Hopkins? ROFLMAO

In primary care, sure it is.

the other set of rankings are academic. They are made by factoring in government grant money, number of publications with high impact factors, etc. This is important in informing future medical practice and guidelines, but in no way makes these students better trained doctors clinically. In fact, they are arguably at a slight disadvantage as their professors are Ph.D.'s who are dragged in to teach biochem/phys etc, while primary care focused schools are more likely to have clinicians on faculty to do this.