Grant Fisher commits to Stanford

sgh wrote:

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.

We live in a world of probabilities. Sure you can go to state school and POSSIBLY do great things. BUT that same person at a better school will PROBABLY do even greater things OR is more likely to do great things. That's how the world works. And that's the type of information SMART people use to make decisions.

It's moronic to go through life saying, Joe did Y and STILL had success so, therefore if I do Y I am likely to have as much success. Instead SMART people say, if given this choice I have these expected outcomes. Given this other choice I have these other expected outcomes. I will choose the choice that is mostly likely to lead to the best expected outcome.

There are plenty of decisions to be made in life where we have little to no information on what the expected outcomes are. And in those cases we need to rely on faith, experiences of people we know, anecdotes, etc.

However there are also many decisions where there is an abundance of information as to what our expected outcomes will be. Choosing a college is one of those. Someone who goes to Stanford is more likely to be successful than someone who goes elsewhere. This is true on average and is nearly unanimously true for various segments/types of people as well.

For example:

If I go to Stanford AND i want to go to medical school, I am more likely to do so than if I go to Oregon.

Or

If I go to Stanford AND I want to go work on Wall Street, I am more likely to do so than if I go to Oregon.

One more time...

If I go to Stanford AND I want to be able to understand logic, statistics, and "common sense" I am more likely to do so, than if I go to Oregon.

AND you forgot to see the part that where I agreed with what you just said before you posted it. I did in fact say that I would have my son go to Stanford over CU.

As it stands Academically overall CU would be my 3rd choice in state behind DU and Mines.

At one point in time ( I do not know if it is still true), CU had produced more Nobel Laureates than any University in America.

So...

Following your logic, despite my lack of common sense, if you wanted to become worthy of a Nobel Prize you had a better chance with your CU degree than you Stanford degree.

Now that we are done picking on each other and puffing up our own chests, how about we realize that all of these schools are good schools and will on "average" give their graduates a life that is better than a very large percentage of the worlds.

Sgh wrote:

At one point in time ( I do not know if it is still true), CU had produced more Nobel Laureates than any University in America.

So...

Following your logic, despite my lack of common sense, if you wanted to become worthy of a Nobel Prize you had a better chance with your CU degree than you Stanford degree.

Stop trying to justify your point, you're making it worse. It is wildly totally and completely untrue that CU ever produced more Nobel Laureates than any other university in the US. Go look at the list, by any account they are far, far behind dozens of US universities, including - not surprisingly - Stanford.

You are right this isn't all that important, but just stop with the demonstrably incorrect points. CU is a mediocre school at best and that's fine.

Well, I figured I would fact check my memory...

I did misspeak - it was Nobel laureates on staff, not winners. I was very wrong on this and proof why one should be quiet and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

I clearly did not go to Stanford!

I dont really care if you agree with me or not. I'm here to clean up all of the silly and often false statements you're making. Let's go through this one by one.

First, No that's not still true nor do I think it was ever true. Granted the huffington post is not the best source, however, it will do for now. As you would expect Harvard has the most Nobel Prize Laureates (21) of any university, followed by Columbia (15), MIT (12) and UC Berkeley(11). Given that CU is nowhere on this list, I doubt your statement was ever true.

Again False. Just going with your absurd statement and following my logic you would want to know at a bare minimum the PERCENT of students who won a Nobel Prize. And if someone really was picking colleges on such a ridiculous metric, they'd also want to control for field and recent trends, among probably a laundry list of other things.

I do agree with that. Maybe we should change the title to "Grant Fisher commits to a good school" so no one gets their feelings hurt.

Stop wrote:

You are right this isn't all that important, but just stop with the demonstrably incorrect points. CU is a mediocre school at best and that's fine.

Thank you for simply calling it like it is.

NCRunning wrote:

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.

Looking like they'll tip over didn't stop Paula Radcliffe or Priscah Jeptoo, and I'm certainly not qualified to determine if the best HS 5K runner in the country will be successful at 10K. But I did check the Foot Locker winners for the past 20 years and the only two who ran in college and did not become an All-American in cross country were Chad Hall and AJ Acosta. Now I think you are saying that Fisher will be more like Acosta - a stud at shorter distances - but the odds are he will at least be an AA at cross country.

But keeping it real, his prospects would have been 100x as great if he had opted to attend MIT. Stanford regularly produces graduates that end up working for MIT alums.

Despite your moniker and tone, your post risks being elitist, anecdotal and unresearched. How about another common sense theory based on logic and observation?

(1) People generally get into elite schools such as Stanford because they're already smart and motivated, and will continue to be smart and motivated even if they choose not to go to Stanford. (2) A graduate degree from Stanford will maximize your intellectual, networking, and career opportunities at least as much as an undergraduate degree from Stanford, (3) a 3.75 undergraduate GPA from a reputable school such as Oregon will gain you entry into a Stanford graduate program, (4) a top coach at Oregon who has coached multiple NCAA champions (Wheating, Centro, Greer, Fleet) is going to maximize your once-in-a-lifetime NCAA running opportunities and professional running career if one is in the cards at all.

(5) it's a lot easier to run, have a balanced life, and earn a undergraduate degree that will get you into a Stanford graduate program at Oregon than it is at Stanford.

Therefore, the only logical outcome is: if you can get into Stanford and you are a studly runner you can have it all by taking your undergrad at Oregon, and your grad at Stanford. You can have it all! Why would anyone with the potential of making the Olympic team entrust that singular period of their life to any coach who hasn't proven their worth, or enter an environment that is anything less than the very best optimized for track championship success?

It is illogical to waste the gift. You can still go to grad school at Stanford if you can't cut it amongst the elite at Oregon track.

I don't doubt the stats. But I think that's more a reflection of the higher proportion of smart, driven students that go to the Ivies and the Stanfords of the world.

Career is set wrote:

Let's be honest. This is at least 50% a non-running decision. If he doesn't pursue running long term he'll still have a Stanford education and all the career opportunities that affords. Good for him.

Running does not seem to be something he lives and dies by. He JUST stopped playing soccer this year. I think Ritz is the only junior male to ever win FL, but I am sure that all 25 FL titlists were running full-time and not splitting their time between soccer and running.

We are all just projecting what WE would do if we had the talent for 4:02y as a junior (one of the fastest ever). We would do this, and we would do that ... because we would all want to try to run under 3:35 and 13:10 and 7:35, etc.

I just don't think he is going to pan out like most of us assume. First of all he has only been running 40 mpw. I wish him the best, and I hope he turns out better than Ritz and Webb and Hall or Fernandez. None of them had a wonderful college career.

newname wrote:

I wish him the best, and I hope he turns out better than Ritz and Webb and Hall or Fernandez. None of them had a wonderful college career.

Two of those men were NCAA Champions, and another was a runner-up. That's more success than most will ever dream of.

*I forgot about Hall's 5000m win in 2005. So 3/4 were NCAA Champions.

Please explain this wrote:

What is the benefit of graduating from Stanford compared to any other university.

Is Gabe Jennings doing better now than he would have from Oregon?

What about all those Stanford runners who disappeared, are they doing any better than they would have from some other university?

I doubt it.

Not so fast. I heard both Don Sage and John Riley make big bucks outside of running. Jennings, well that is a different story. lol

Maybe after battling these F'n b u l l s h i t winters (that are already gettig started) here in MI, he wants to enjoy some beautiul weather all year round.

He's insanely talented, smart, and has good work ethic. He'll be fine.

If you pull up the class stats of accepted Stanford medical students I highly doubt you will fine many Oregon grads. I'm not saying they aren't qualified but with all things being even they will always pull from an elite undergrad.

When considering Ivy medical schools you need not apply unless you are already elite.

statistician wrote:

Stop wrote:

You are right this isn't all that important, but just stop with the demonstrably incorrect points. CU is a mediocre school at best and that's fine.

Thank you for simply calling it like it is.

No. It is actually an incredibly stupid statement and any rationally thinking person realizes this.

Career is set wrote:

Let's be honest. This is at least 50% a non-running decision. If he doesn't pursue running long term he'll still have a Stanford education and all the career opportunities that affords. Good for him.

Yes, it's really about opportunities and there is no school in the world that provides the opportunities one can find at Stanford. Academic reputation aside, just take a look at the highest paying internships.

The top 2 are walking distance from the Stanford campus and 18 of the top 25 are in the Bay Area.

Bleu wrote:

If you pull up the class stats of accepted Stanford medical students I highly doubt you will fine many Oregon grads. I'm not saying they aren't qualified but with all things being even they will always pull from an elite undergrad.

We can't look at their students, but among some of their current and former Stanford Medical Faculty:

George W. Beadle - Undergrad at Nebraska. Nobel Prize laureate

Thomas J. Fogarty - Undergrad at Xavier College, MD at Cincinnati College of Medicine and interned at U of O Medical in Portland.

Philip Hanawault - Undergrad at Oberlin

Leonard Herzenberg - Undergrad at Brooklyn College

Brian Kobilka - Undergrad at Minnesota-Duluth

Arthur Kornberg - Undergrad at City College of New York, and MD at University of Rochester

Donald Laub - Bachelors and MD at Marquette

Kate Lorig - BS in Nursing at Boston University

Norman Shumway - Undergrad at Tarleton State University and Baylor

Irving Weissman - BS at Montana State College

Lucy Shapiro - Bachelors at Brooklyn College

Not that any of this matters. If someone has the talent and drive to pursue a career in medicine that's fantastic, whether it's at Stanford, like former NFL linebacker Milt McColl, or if it's at the University of Arkansas Medical School, like former 3000mSC AR holder Dan Lincoln.