Correct. But the kids who get into elite schools using their legs do better than if they had attended an average college.
Correct. But the kids who get into elite schools using their legs do better than if they had attended an average college.
Correct. But the kids who get into elite schools using their legs do better than if they had attended an average college.
Hollywood USA wrote:
Obviously USC, UCLA, Pepperdine, LMU, in Hollywood for the sun, surf, chicks (or guys) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. USC is in the gentrified DTLA. USC put the 1st man on the moon, USC is the only school awarded the main host of the Summer Olympic Games, and they have three times 1932, 1894, and 2028. Pepperdine and LMU make you take 3 religion classes to graduate, a negative. Each year UCLA has the most freshman college applications in the world. UCLA invented the internet,
UCLA did not invent the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
If you think using phone lines to communicate means you invented the internet than the telegraph has about 100 years on ucla/stanford
flyingfrog wrote:
my dd chose yale, son duke
your designated driver?
May sound weird but if you want to do engineering Colorado School of Mines would actually be a very good pick.. This year they would have beat all but maybe 14 D1 schools on the men's side and have engineering and CS on the similar level as CA schools and MA schools with a cheaper cost of living.
But that being said.. Went to a no name school and wasn't fast enough to get a scholarship anywhere but I don't know if there is an Olympic runner my age making as much as I make... of half what I make. The school you go to doesn't determine if you will be good at your job... and after you get your first job the last thing on your resume carries much more weight than the piece of paper where you got your degree (all the Ivy leagers will disagree because they want to justify the amount of debt they had to take out to go).
If you are a competitive person that will always seek to learn and be the best you can at work you will get rewarded more than a C student from an Ivy
Haverford
great school, incredible running program
Haverford
great school, incredible running program
trol wrote:
... and after you get your first job the last thing on your resume carries much more weight than the piece of paper where you got your degree (all the Ivy [Leaguers] will disagree because they want to justify the amount of debt they had to take out to go).
Shucks, *I* won't disagree. This is how employment works.
But then I had no debt when I graduated, so my opinion might not be representative.
In any case, the point of the thread is to get different people's opinions, not to come to some agreement on The Best College For Everyone--which doesn't exist.
Stanford. Great weather, great school, very competitive cross country team.
True. But it is clear from many of the responses that most Americans don't understand anything about money which is why so many are in debt. Recommending D3 schools shows how silly people are. The kid will pay $320k for the same education he could get for free at Stanford or Michigan or Duke or Notre Dame. And as a top recruit, he will get 100 times as much competition in D1 also.
Scholar Expert wrote:
[It] is clear from many of the responses that most Americans don't understand anything about money which is why so many are in debt. Recommending D3 schools shows how silly people are. The kid will pay $320k for the same education he could get for free at Stanford or Michigan or Duke or Notre Dame. And as a top recruit, he will get 100 times as much competition in D1 also.
I understand your point. However, not everyone would get "the same education...
at Stanford or Michigan or Duke or Notre Dame" that s/he might get at at an institution like MIT or Caltech--both D3.
[Full disclosure: I had paid my deposit to attend Caltech before an Ivy made me an offer I couldn't refuse. But I almost certainly would have graaduated from Caltech debt-free, as I did from my Ivy.]
Ivy's, D3- NESCACS/Johns Hopkins/UChicago/WashU, UNC, Duke, USC, UCLA, UVA, Georgetown, Stanford, UMich, UWashington, UWisconsin, UTexas, Villanova, Wake, etc.
No shortage of really good academic schools & good athletes don't have to just consider D1. If I had pro potential I would think about places like NAU/Colorado/Oregon. & I think all of those are perfectly good schools. If I had the chance to level up the education & maybe get into a school that wouldn't otherwise be an option it would be hard to pass on that. There are some schools that combine some of that like a Providence that provide a strong education with a program that can still get you to the pro level. Being on the east coast or west coast also seems like a consideration to be close to Stanford or BU for meets but everyone seems willing to travel for the most part.
new yerkeroo wrote:
heh fair enough.
I'm mostly going on reputation rather than just numbers....My sense is that Dartmouth and Princeton have institutionally decided to put an emphasis on undergraduate education, while other schools like Cornell and Harvard have not made that commitment. I'm not sure about Stanford.
This was my decision-making process years ago. Dartmouth or Princeton based on undergrad focus. Standard, Harvard etc. are great schools obviously and students CAN have a very undergrad focused experience BUT there is a higher risk of getting lost in the shuffle as an undergrad there. Dartmouth felt like a better fit and I went there. I went to one of the other two for a graduate degree. My initial perceptions re the schools were confirmed both by my own experiences and by talking to friends who went to the other schools.
The bottom line is people should use their legs to further their education because you’re never going to make NFL-type money from running.
What state school did you choose?
Top d3 schools will also have strong merit/need based scholarships and grants just like the Ivies.
Combat it wrote:
Why would you assume that wealthy people smart people wouldn't produce a high percentage of distance runners? What would cause the elite distance runners to be in a lower proportion in Ivy caliber kids? I absolutely disagree.
You're assuming two highly rarefied population groups (the 1% are way overrepresented at Ivy League schools) are themselves highly correlated, which is highly unlikely in sports where there are few economic hurdles in the way of outstanding performance. Running isn't a country club sport like golf, tennis, sailing, or rowing. Just look at the elite New England prep schools, which generate very few outstanding distance prospects. Exeter has a good runner now, but historically has been lousy in xc. As students, the elite athletes are not quite Ivy caliber. It is well documented that their academic credentials are worse than non-athletes admitted to Ivies. What drive for scholarships is there really among those who can afford full freight easily?
Hmm. One huge factor for me would be weather. Ivy leagues are great but you really don't get a good track season, just the May and perhaps April. I dislike indoor track which seems much bigger on the east coast.
Therefore I would pick Standford a chance to race some of the best running schools in the country.
Please list a few schools on the East coast and other areas with their associated indoor track schedules. There is no difference.
Elite distance runners hit the talent lottery. Better running genetics are likely to come with an overall better genetic makeup which means they will be smarter than the average kid. and of course teh average admitted athlete has lower test scores. We are only talking about distance running, not football or basketball or soccer. And elite distance runners with great test scores are choosing Stanford or Notre Dame or Michigan or Duke becuase they will attend for free rather than pay $320k at an Ivy. That's the point.
throwaway1220 wrote:
Top d3 schools will also have strong merit/need based scholarships and grants just like the Ivies.
Well, there are no merit scholarships in the Ivy League--all aid is need-based--but you are correct about merit-based aid at top D3s. I coached at a couple of UAA schools and they had some extraordinary merit scholarships, some of which went to kids whose families were very well-to-do.