Imagine being the top academic school in the country and also putting three guys under four minutes. This definitely tops Washington's feat in my books.
Imagine being the top academic school in the country and also putting three guys under four minutes. This definitely tops Washington's feat in my books.
It’s clearly super impressive but any comparison to UW is pointless. You could also say Harvard has easier recruiting with their generous financial aid packages for everyone and their academic appeal. But no need—it’s independently impressive.
Heps record for Graham Blanks with 3:56.63. He now has the mile and 5k records indoors, and the 3k record looks toast now too assuming he runs it at Valentine next week.
US News ranks Harvard as the number 3 school in the nation and Washington is number 55. On a scale of 1-100, that would put Harvard at 97 (100-3) and Washington at 45 (100-55). To accurately equate the two we would multiply school rank by number of sub-4 runners this year. That would be 97*3 = 261 for Harvard and 45*8 = 360 for Washington.
Imagine being the top academic school in the country and also putting three guys under four minutes. This definitely tops Washington's feat in my books.
It’s clearly super impressive but any comparison to UW is pointless. You could also say Harvard has easier recruiting with their generous financial aid packages for everyone and their academic appeal. But no need—it’s independently impressive.
the problem w your logic is harvard can only recruit from a sliver of the athlete pool that UW can, bc the min academic standards to go to harvard (even for elite athletes) is still so high
US News ranks Harvard as the number 3 school in the nation and Washington is number 55. On a scale of 1-100, that would put Harvard at 97 (100-3) and Washington at 45 (100-55). To accurately equate the two we would multiply school rank by number of sub-4 runners this year. That would be 97*3 = 261 for Harvard and 45*8 = 360 for Washington.
It’s clearly super impressive but any comparison to UW is pointless. You could also say Harvard has easier recruiting with their generous financial aid packages for everyone and their academic appeal. But no need—it’s independently impressive.
the problem w your logic is harvard can only recruit from a sliver of the athlete pool that UW can, bc the min academic standards to go to harvard (even for elite athletes) is still so high
They aren’t THAT high. (Personal experience. Went to Ivy as recruit and I had no business based on test scores and grades being there.) I’m not saying the alternative is appropriate either. I’m saying let’s not compare.
US News ranks Harvard as the number 3 school in the nation and Washington is number 55. On a scale of 1-100, that would put Harvard at 97 (100-3) and Washington at 45 (100-55). To accurately equate the two we would multiply school rank by number of sub-4 runners this year. That would be 97*3 = 261 for Harvard and 45*8 = 360 for Washington.
Nice try but math doesn't lie.
This literally makes zero sense. Nice try though.
I literally got a degree in statistics from Cornell, so maybe you should do some research before coming after me with such a meager rebuttal. I am just giving unbiased facts.
the problem w your logic is harvard can only recruit from a sliver of the athlete pool that UW can, bc the min academic standards to go to harvard (even for elite athletes) is still so high
They aren’t THAT high. (Personal experience. Went to Ivy as recruit and I had no business based on test scores and grades being there.) I’m not saying the alternative is appropriate either. I’m saying let’s not compare.
Not all Ivies are the same. I bet you went to Brown lol.
Bro what does this mean? There are far more than 100 schools in the nation, and I'd divide them into tiers instead based off job prospects (i.e. will companies look at your resume based off your college's name, assuming the rest is solid) and overall prestige.
Really great job. Graham Blanks really impresses me and so does new recruit Erick Guander of Sweden. He hasn’t competed but might be the most talented guy on the team
Let's say you are the CEO of a top tier company like Google. You have two applicants: one is at 3:56 miler with a degree from Harvard while the other runs a 3:52 mile from Washington. It would be a really tough choice but I would have to give the Harvard guy the edge here.
They aren’t THAT high. (Personal experience. Went to Ivy as recruit and I had no business based on test scores and grades being there.) I’m not saying the alternative is appropriate either. I’m saying let’s not compare.
Not all Ivies are the same. I bet you went to Brown lol.
I hate how this board always turns into prestige comparing but I admit I almost originally said I went to a non-brown non-cornell ivy 😂
to elaborate a little on my prior post, here's what I've seen in my experience working at a 'prestigious' trading company:
tier 1 - you can get interviews with a sparse resume, and having a strong resume will catapult you to the front. in general, for HF jobs based off what I've heard from friends (I'm in trading so CMU and Berkeley are high tier 2), these schools are the top 3 Ivies, Stanford, and MIT. special acknowledgements should be given to some of Penn's (Wharton's) dual degree programs.
tier 2 - almost as good as tier 1. There's virtually no difference except at maybe ~10 companies, but that difference is slight even at those companies. these schools are Penn, Duke, Chicago, Caltech, Hopkins, and Columbia*.
tier 3 - this has a wider range and is where you start getting into the "resume not looked at" when you're towards the bottom of this tier. The best schools in this range are Cornell (especially CS / Dyson), Dartmouth, Brown (definitely the worst Ivy, but still a good school), WashU
mid tier 4 - except if you're in CS/math or in Ross at Michigan, good luck. these are CMU, Berkeley, and Michigan. CMU and Berkeley excel at CS but are pretty weak everywhere else, while Michigan has decent placement into BB banks, but it's much worse per capita, especially if you don't fulfill ≥1 quota.
low tier 4 - Emory, UCLA, NYU except Stern (location + alumni can't be beat and it's well-known), UVA
Anything else: except if you're a disabled minority lesbian, you're not getting it
I literally got a degree in statistics from Cornell, so maybe you should do some research before coming after me with such a meager rebuttal. I am just giving unbiased facts.
so you went to Dartmouth or Columbia. Leaning towards Dartmouth since Columbia typically has been viewed as more prestigious until their rankings abuse was made known.
Imagine being the top academic school in the country and also putting three guys under four minutes. This definitely tops Washington's feat in my books.
It’s clearly super impressive but any comparison to UW is pointless. You could also say Harvard has easier recruiting with their generous financial aid packages for everyone and their academic appeal. But no need—it’s independently impressive.
Actually no they recruit from a much smaller pool bc most people who could get into UW would not have the academic chops to get into Harvard....so recruiting much more difficult.
Washington places well into Google, but that's since their CS program is good and they're in Seattle. However, Google isn't in the top, top tier of companies.
US News ranks Harvard as the number 3 school in the nation and Washington is number 55. On a scale of 1-100, that would put Harvard at 97 (100-3) and Washington at 45 (100-55). To accurately equate the two we would multiply school rank by number of sub-4 runners this year. That would be 97*3 = 261 for Harvard and 45*8 = 360 for Washington.
Nice try but math doesn't lie.
Definitely a math major from a non Stanford or Berkeley pac12 school.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.