Only this place, could take the subject of one of the most amazing high school times ever run; something truly inspiring, and turn it into a shit show. I award you no points and may God have mercy upon your soul
Go Cayla !
Only this place, could take the subject of one of the most amazing high school times ever run; something truly inspiring, and turn it into a shit show. I award you no points and may God have mercy upon your soul
Go Cayla !
Metawampi wrote:
Q and A
http://www.milesplit.com/articles/82779-2012-track-chats-cayla-hatton
Its amazing how healthy she looks compared to girls ni the past who've ran blazing distance times. She has powerful muscles.
These are very odd muscle comments... Kind of gross that old men are looking at young girls this way.
But anyways, She is going to be destroyed by the machine at Stanford. I predict a solid freshman year then a few years of injury as she gets worn down by mileage then an attempted come back the senior year that is cut short by... injury.
Hope I'm wrong but there is a reason Stanford is called the machine. Because you are replaceable. Because the machine grinds you down and only the strongest survive.
Someone who doesn't run a lot of races (every workout is a race there) and has a history of injury is against the odds no?
And please do not reference her muscular legs.
not creepy. they're not talking about the sexual attractiveness of girls' legs, they're talking about runners...athletes.
what do you think male coaches do when they scout female runners? they evaluate their legs, theirs hips (omg!), their waistline. believe me, they spend a lot of time looking at their butts, for that is where the success of their program resides.
compare the honches of a top D1 team to those of a junior college team and you will see why coaches spend time looking at the butts of your precious teenage daughters.
im not an old man. im 24. and she'll be 18 this year, so its even less gross, and was not gross in the first place.
and since when is 17-almost 18 a young girl? and even if i were commenting that she is attractive, I, at 24, would definitely date a college freshman who is 18 years old.
and as far as wide age differences being frowned upon, this is only a recent trend in the grand history of things. It wasn't until the early 1900s that the age of consent was changed from 12 to 18. So centuries up until that point, it was normal, believe it or not, for men to date teenage girls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#History_and_social_attitudes
There is a very good chance that many of the great men of history would be considered pedophiles by today's laws. Crazy isn't it?
The age of consent is as low as 16 in several states. 18 isn't some magic number
I think the better point is that she has already put on the few pound that maturity brings - she isn't running on some temporary power to weight ratio.
At least by conventional wisdom, she could keep improving.
Reasoning?? wrote:
Why do you think this? The laws of science are the same at every school. And even if you're a rankings slave, Oregon is rated #1-#5 in the nation in several majors. So it really just depends on the major.
Oregon doesn't even have a school of engineering.
Stanford Nobel Laureates = 27. Oregon = 2. Stanford alumni's companies include Cisco Systems, Google, Hewlett-Packard, LinkedIn, Silicon Graphics, Sun Microsystems, Varian Associates, and Yahoo!. Oregon has Nike (although Bill Knight technically graduated from Stanford Business school).
The acceptance rate at the University of Oregon in 2010 was 79.9% vs. 7.3% for Stanford in the same year. Considering the applicant pool trying to get into Stanford is probably more qualified to begin with, this represents a HUGE difference. Selectivity isn't everything, but it is a pretty good indicator of academic/career/etc success.
Also, school of education ranking isn't a good metric for comparing a state university and an ivy or ivy-like university. How many people go to Stanford, Harvard, MIT, etc. to become teachers? Maybe some will do a stint with Teach for America for resume building, but that's about it.
This is a silly conversation.
colllllllege chick wrote:
Reasoning?? wrote:Why do you think this? The laws of science are the same at every school. And even if you're a rankings slave, Oregon is rated #1-#5 in the nation in several majors. So it really just depends on the major.
Oregon doesn't even have a school of engineering.
Stanford Nobel Laureates = 27. Oregon = 2. Stanford alumni's companies include Cisco Systems, Google, Hewlett-Packard, LinkedIn, Silicon Graphics, Sun Microsystems, Varian Associates, and Yahoo!. Oregon has Nike (although Bill Knight technically graduated from Stanford Business school).
The acceptance rate at the University of Oregon in 2010 was 79.9% vs. 7.3% for Stanford in the same year. Considering the applicant pool trying to get into Stanford is probably more qualified to begin with, this represents a HUGE difference. Selectivity isn't everything, but it is a pretty good indicator of academic/career/etc success.
Also, school of education ranking isn't a good metric for comparing a state university and an ivy or ivy-like university. How many people go to Stanford, Harvard, MIT, etc. to become teachers? Maybe some will do a stint with Teach for America for resume building, but that's about it.
This is a silly conversation.
No.
Stanford has departments that Oregon doesn't. But Oregon also has departments that Stanford doesn't. It's not a one-way street. So, back to my point - it depends on your major. Don't go to a school that doesn't have you major.
Selectivity and Nobel prize winners mean nothing if they are not in your field of study. What good is a Stanford Nobel physics guy gonna do for a person gonna do for a person who wants to major in humanities - nothing. So, back to my original point, it depends on what you want to major in.
I don't understand your school of education argument. Clearly, there are enough people majoring in education at Stanford or else they wouldn't have an education department. Actually, could you rephrase or elaborate this point again. I'm failing at figuring out what your point is.
And I was not comparing the schools. So finding a fair metric to compare a state and ivy/ivy like school is irrelevant. All I've been saying is that it depends on your major. Oregon is ranked higher in some areas. Stanford is ranked higher in other areas. Overall school rankings are near pointless.
A school's bragging points are irrelevant unless they apply to your major.
People don't spend $45,000 per year for high school at Philips Andover to attend the University of Oregon.
Sorry, it's gonna be Stanford, Ivies, small elite East coast university, or Berkeley/UCLA all the way.
jetriotiojgirejg wrote:
People don't spend $45,000 per year for high school at Philips Andover to attend the University of Oregon.
Sorry, it's gonna be Stanford, Ivies, small elite East coast university, or Berkeley/UCLA all the way.
Even if they don't have your major? Or if Oregon is better in the particular area of focus?
Exactly. They spend money cause they're snobs.
Stanford is a snobby place, so that's where they like to go.
Reasoning?? wrote: But like I told the other guy, you don't major in a field in grad school, you major in a sub field. Even in undergrad, there are many different majors that fall under "business". What this means for you is that UO does have #1 rankings in some parts of education. Every school has strengths and weaknesses in every field.
UO has a #1 ranking in things like sports business and marketing, etc. With Nike nearby, there's probably a great exercise physiology or medical school cardiovascular and musculoskeletal programs also.
Easy spot to gain some internships and employment experience.
UO has a #1 ranking in the sub field of rhetoric called irrational heel-digging.
A HS girl would beat me by at least 2-3 minutes. Sad. How many guys on Letsrun would lose to Cayla?
T 24 you would date someone 18? You miss you prom that much? Sicko.
Are you guys really arguing over whether Stanford is an across the board better place to go to college than UO? Come on, people.
The name recognition alone will open doors. I don't care what field you go into Stanford will raise eyebrows right off the bat. UO will get you a 'meh' and require a stronger individual performance to get you an interview. UO will never open doors the way Stanford will. Doesn't matter why. It is just a fact.
I went to Standford and it helped me to get a job at Burger Whopper.