Grant Fisher commits to Stanford

No one should ever question a guy who goes to Stanford, it is simply stupid.

EVER

Great Climate, great school., GREAT academics, running?

I guess Don Sage, Stembers, Derrick and Heaths, last 20 years, maybe Dobson?

Yet they under achieve at least every other year in Cross and key guys are hurt and not marginally , miss entire key seasons. The Rosas have rarely run healthy together an entire three seasons, Mc Gorty who was a "cannot miss" has barely contributed to date and he is in his second year.. Giveme the last Stanford 4 x mile or DMR winner at Penn.

No one should mistake that I am not a Nova shill, you know why, I know Marcus and he is the most decent man I know in the sport. Equal to Ron Warhurst.

Tiernan will be top 5, McEntee will be a top 20 I think and has run sub four countless times, Jordy Williamz was 5th last year at 15 and 1:46.x relay , Tiernan ran 13:31 at 19. Denault, sub 4 more than once , Sam Ellison All American at 800 and winning Penn anchor.

Give me a more well rounded program than that without a stud 400 guy for a DMR, Dusty Solis someone no one has ever heard of ran 2:51.x to get them into NC's DMR. At a small private school . You know what he ran in HS? No one can even figure that and he is good.

Nova is one that can run 4x8 4 x mile and make Nc's DMR every year

By the way they recruit American guys, so I am so sick of that, that they only recruit foreigners

They get Curtis he runs 13:31 at :

NCAAs smacking Brent Vaughn who had run 13:16? And was 4th in monster XC NCAA cross race(I think McDougal, Rupp, Lolong) THE hardest race to win.

By the way Grant made a great choice. No doubt. He is that good. Juts a monster talent.

Your point? All great undergrad schools. I don't see UO represented.

there's no better place to go to become a millionaire or billionaire right now, if that's what you want. the weather's fantastic, it's a beautiful campus and area, and terrific mountain trails are everywhere. stanford's not done badly with its top talent but not put it all together in xc for pretty many years. not sure if both rosas will be out of eligibility by next year but mcgorty, fisher, ostberg alone make them contenders in two years if not next year. the transition to college xc can be difficult of course. This year at regionals, Stanford would have been right there with Oregon for the win had McGorty and Jim Rosa run or been able to run. And they'd be contenders for #2 at nationals. So, it's not doing badly at all. Korolev won regionals and should place highly. He hasn't been ruined by the coaching.

Bleu wrote:

Your point? All great undergrad schools. I don't see UO represented.

You really think it's impossible for an Oregon graduate to be accepted to Stanford Medical? I obviously don't have access to their records, but given those I have seen as present and former Stanford faculty members, and given that Oregon graduates have succeeded in medicine and science, such as

Raymond Delacy Adams, former Bullard Professor of Neuropathology at Harvard Medical School

Pamela J. Bjorkman, Max Delbrück Professor of Biology at the California Institute of Technology

William P. Murphy, graduate of Harvard Medical School and co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine

Robert Wah, reproductive endocrinology residency at Harvard and is now President of the AMA

I don't see why not. If Oregon graduates can be accepted to, graduate from and teach at Harvard Medical, why not Stanford?

Trialswatcher wrote:

No one should ever question a guy who goes to Stanford, it is simply stupid.

EVER

1000% agree on that. We may have that decision to make...

No one should mistake that I am not a Nova shill, you know why, I know Marcus and he is the most decent man I know in the sport. Equal to Ron Warhurst.

Knowing RW, that is quite a quote. We visited there and I immediately liked MOS, MC and the feel of the program. MOS is a mentor as much as a coach, which is invaluable.

By the way they recruit American guys, so I am so sick of that, that they only recruit foreigners

Correct!!

By the way Grant made a great choice. No doubt. He is that good. Juts a monster talent.

He's a special talent no question and LOTS more in the tank so stay tuned!

505 wrote:

Reach for the stars wrote:

Grant Fisher's future is bright. Stanford's track and XC program's future is bright. Last I knew one has to be rather bright to get into Stanford so he made a bright decision.

I'm not saying that he isn't smart, but does the top recruit in the country actually have to be smart to get into Stanford?

You'd be amazed at the number of great runners with excellent academic records who don't get accepted.

Is that correct? wrote:

I am sure Fisher will do well and he made a good choice. But i am not sure of your statement here. Are you forgetting Verzbicas? Did Solomon Haile and Michael Fout become all Americans?

Fout was a two-time All-American in both XC and track.

Hate to say it but you will never here the name Grant Fisher again Stanford it seems makes it's runnners slower in College then they were in High School. Stanford gets either the number 1 or 2 recruiting class ever single year yet is never even in the top 20 in Track and hardly ever in the top 20 in Cross Men's or Women's. Is it overtraining crappy coaching what does Stanford do to make it runners terrible especially on the Women's side???????? Thanks

they call me flopro wrote:

Hate to say it but you will never here the name Grant Fisher again Stanford it seems makes it's runnners slower in College then they were in High School. Stanford gets either the number 1 or 2 recruiting class ever single year yet is never even in the top 20 in Track and hardly ever in the top 20 in Cross Men's or Women's. Is it overtraining crappy coaching what does Stanford do to make it runners terrible especially on the Women's side???????? Thanks

I just don't understand this. Are we judging the future of the Stanford program based on previous years/coaching? So strange.

If we're using the history of the program- and other coach's results, should we also say that when Stanford puts it together, they really smack it out of the park (see: 6 guys in top 13 at nationals, three Olympians in 2000, ncaa track champions in 01, countless Ncaa 1500m champions, multiple DMR championships (including last year), 1/2 in the 5000 at nationals and on and on and on)?

Lemme see.... Uh. I got into Stanford and Oregon. I'm having a hard time deciding which one to go to.

Richard Cheese wrote:

Lemme see.... Uh. I got into Stanford and Oregon. I'm having a hard time deciding which one to go to.

If you're gifted both intellectually and as a track champion, you can indeed be in for a touch decision if either you are surrounded by the herd mentality, or intellectual snobs, or you're lying to yourself about your motivations or running ability. This turmoil is really only experienced by the truly gifted, those who would struggle to search within themselves: am I truly good enough to be an NCAA champion, to make the Olympic team, and run the professional dream for a few years or so afterwards? Am I all in to try that path, and if so, what might happen to my career opportunities if running at the world elite level doesn't work out for me?

From my perspective, what good is any education if it doesn't enable you to be totally sold out to your calling? If you can't use it to take the next step, to learn the next skill to reinvent yourself? I can only think that fear or a desire not to disappoint one's parents or social circle would drive the most talented runners away from pursuing their gifts.

They call me Flo pro... How did your running, academic, and professional career go for you? Wish you had one one hundredth the athletic and mental ability of Grant Fisher? Wish you had earned the opportunity to wear USA and Stanford on your chest? Anyone outside of your inner circle know/remember your name?

Thought so.

Fishers' name will be remember for what he has already achieved. With much more to come from him in high school, college, and perhaps professionally athletically and for sure professionally in the working world, he will be known and remember by many.

I only did one year of Cross Country in High School my PR was 16 flat not to bad considering i didn't even really try. My teammates said i could have been a great runner but i liked Tennis Ski team and soccer a lot more then Cross Country so i focused on those sports in High School. But that was years ago lol

You spek english? YOu must no go satnfurd.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

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.

The stats speak to the likelihood. I guess you're trying to argue about the actual causal mechanism and tell a story where the education at Stanford has little impact itself on the outcomes of the student, and the outcomes are solely linked to the student. Or in other words the same student will be equally likely to succeed regardless of school choice. Or maybe you're making a broader statement that the same student will receive the same educational benefits regardless of school choice. Who knows...

Any, regardless of the underlying mechanism, signaling economic/theory demonstrate that regardless if a person ends up actually being smarter or "better" by attending stanford, the mere act of attending and having a credential from stanford will lead to more future success because future employers, graduate schools, potential partners, etc. all associate the Stanford degree with intelligence and potential. This association will lead to better outcomes for the Stanford student, irrespective of it they are warranted or deserved.

Again, it's hard to argue against Stanford, yet some of you are trying to do so. I'd expect at least more clear, well thought out arguments if you're trying to disprove something that's more or less a well accepted truth.

Explore some of the reading below:

(economics)

statistician wrote:

This association will lead to better outcomes for the Stanford student, irrespective of it they are warranted or deserved.

statistician,

thanks for fighting the good fight on this thread. I truly wish I had someone in my life like you when I was Fisher's age to give me sound advice. I chose a State U free ride over MUCH better academic choices, because:

1. I was obsessed with track (while not having national-team talent; oops)

2. I was surrounded by lower-middle to middle class family with advice like you have been fighting in this thread. Examples of this talk are, "You can get a great education anywhere," and, "A smart, driven kid will do well anywhere."

That's not what it's about, folks! It's about playing the cards you're given to the best of your ability. It's about maximizing your own chances. It's about succeeding, in part, BECAUSE of your choices, not IN SPITE of them!

In the words of Van Morrison in his great song, "I Have Finally Come to Realize":

"child don't do what I have done

I cut my nose to spite my face

I made my own odds 10,000 to one."

If any HSers are reading this thread, PLEASE listen to people like stats and me.

berealbro wrote:

Not the same universe as:

Stanford

Princeton

...

That is my initial thought also.

However, what have the following people done with their Stanford degree?

Stember

Sage

Hejny

Robinson

Jennings

Riley

Hall

I really don't know, they could have done amazing or not. Interesting to do a longitudinal study here...

I guess that they are not being held back because of their Stanford degree, but does anybody know?

lil pillbox hat wrote:

statistician wrote:

This association will lead to better outcomes for the Stanford student, irrespective of it they are warranted or deserved.

That's not what it's about, folks! It's about playing the cards you're given to the best of your ability. It's about maximizing your own chances. It's about succeeding, in part, BECAUSE of your choices, not IN SPITE of them!

If any HSers are reading this thread, PLEASE listen to people like stats and me.

BUM 10^6

lil pillbox hat wrote:

I was surrounded by lower-middle to middle class family with advice like you have been fighting in this thread. Examples of this talk are, "You can get a great education anywhere," and, "A smart, driven kid will do well anywhere."

Which is true, of course.

What isn't true is a statement like "CU is a mediocre school at best."

That's just a stupid comment and people were right to call him out on it.