University of Texas is top 30 academic university in The World. Also with a very top-tier (perhaps best in US) sprint/longer sprint program. I doubt Kings college can rival that.
University of Texas is top 30 academic university in The World. Also with a very top-tier (perhaps best in US) sprint/longer sprint program. I doubt Kings college can rival that.
no no wrote:
adsfadgdsf wrote:She actually raises a good point. There isn't a great deal of intersection for top-level academics and sprinting. I'm talking about best of the best, not just "good". For distance running, Stanford would be the natural choice (I'm a Berkeley alum so that's really saying something but I hate our coach). A team like Georgetown or Dartmouth might be close seconds.
But Stanford is not a powerhouse for sprinting and neither are any of the top academic programs.
I don't know anything about sprinting in England but the criticism makes sense to me.
No. There is no such thing as top level academics. The difference between undergrad at different schools is generally nonexistent.
As a recent graduate of a small liberal arts college who is currently a graduate student and teaching assistant at a public state school, I can assure you that you are pitifully incorrect.
trollism wrote:
jingo jango wrote:Why do so bloody many Brits need to have hyphenated names?
When she gets married to, let's say, Joe Jones-Johnson, wtf are kids going to be named???
It's not because of a marriage, it's because her parents are not married.
It's a very common thing these days for Black British kids to take both their mother and father's last name.
OK. But what do her kids get named (if she ever has any), with Joe Jones-Johnson?
I'm honestly curious how this works.
Agreed and I would like to echo what others have said Harvard has excellent coaches. I know both Texas and Harvard's coaches both are wonderful people too.
She wants to go pro, but doesn't want to say it outright.
Sooo, what is her chosen area of study?
She wants to study history - to learn about how white people raped and pillaged all over the world because their own countries were lacking in resources and their own people were too lazy.
Ryry wrote:
Agreed and I would like to echo what others have said Harvard has excellent coaches. I know both Texas and Harvard's coaches both are wonderful people too.
Excellent coaches ain't the same thing as the best coaches when you're talking about a world junior champ. How many world champions have those guys coached? And would she get to race a reasonable season, or be expected to run multiple events and relays every meet because she's the top dog?
She should start here, which is the Forbes list of worst college majors (history is #9 on the list):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/10/11/the-10-worst-college-majors/
Only real dumbshits take liberal arts majors like history and only arrogant dumbshits do this while criticizing the academics of many US colleges--probably means she's a letsrun poster. People stupid enough to do this while actually paying for this deserve what happens to them when they graduate. If she really wanted to have a light academic load to focus on athletics, she should have gone "whole hog" and gone to Oregon and majored in communications.
If she was actually smart she could have done what the Junior World Record holder (Allyson Felix) did and go to USC and train with Bob Kersee. Or go with UCLA and Kersee or John Smith.
USC is ranked overall #51 on the Shanghai List, while Kings College is #59. So Dina is worse off than Allyson on all accounts: Worse college, worse coach, and a useless college major.
She is not good enough for Jacksonville State.
The other problem with the QOD caption is the assumption that she had an option to go to Harvard or Florida State "for free." Harvard has no athletic scholarships and if she is able to pay 9,000 pounds per year, I doubt her assessed family contribution would have been zero at Harvard.
But she is studying history, for gods sake.
coach d wrote:
If she was actually smart she could have done what the Junior World Record holder (Allyson Felix) did and go to USC and train with Bob Kersee. Or go with UCLA and Kersee or John Smith.
USC is ranked overall #51 on the Shanghai List, while Kings College is #59. So Dina is worse off than Allyson on all accounts: Worse college, worse coach, and a useless college major.
The Shanghai list compares top research universities. This is a decent metric for graduate students to decide where they want to do a PhD, but NOT for undergraduates to figure out where they'll have the best learning environment. Undergraduates are pushed to excel far more strongly at King's College than USC or UCLA.
This is a silly article. She couldn't find a school that was excellent in *both* track and undergraduate liberal arts in the US, so she chose Kings College? That track and field powerhouse?
It's an excellent school, but I don't see an actual tradeoff here. I'm going to step out on a limb here and suggest that Stanford, Duke, Michigan, and Berkeley might have been able to figure out a way to offer her a scholarship. All are ranked more highly than Kings College on some world collegiate ranking systems (e.g.
) , and they all have legitimate track and field programs.
coach d wrote:
She should start here, which is the Forbes list of worst college majors (history is #9 on the list):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/10/11/the-10-worst-college-majors/Only real dumbshits take liberal arts majors like history and only arrogant dumbshits do this while criticizing the academics of many US colleges--probably means she's a letsrun poster. People stupid enough to do this while actually paying for this deserve what happens to them when they graduate. If she really wanted to have a light academic load to focus on athletics, she should have gone "whole hog" and gone to Oregon and majored in communications.
If she was actually smart she could have done what the Junior World Record holder (Allyson Felix) did and go to USC and train with Bob Kersee. Or go with UCLA and Kersee or John Smith.
USC is ranked overall #51 on the Shanghai List, while Kings College is #59. So Dina is worse off than Allyson on all accounts: Worse college, worse coach, and a useless college major.
This thread is full of the expected, ironic and uniquely American combination of arrogance and ignorance. Your post, coach d, really defines the low-water mark.
A few points:
1. Re. "worst college majors": You do understand that this is her undergraduate program, right? As a bright and motivated student, it will almost certainly not be her terminal degree. Once difference from today and the time of dinosaurs like you is that the choice of undergrad program (sorry, "college" for Americans) is not a binding determinant of future studies or achievement. ("HISTORY? What are you going to do with THAT?" is a cliched question uttered only by those who haven't grasped this.) Outside of science and tech, you can do almost anything following a humanities degree from King's College.
2. Coaching: Obviously, her coaching/training set-up is working out decently for her. (Note to Americans: that is called an "understatement.") The very American idea of constantly leaving programs to go to the "best" brand-name coach is not necessarily the best thing for an 18 year-old sprinter transitioning to college. Especially when that coach is Bob Kersee, whose reputation has more than a little sketch to it.
3. As for the Shanghai list: You do understand that is a ranking driven by research productivity, right? There are few things less relevant to the experience of an undergraduate student than the research funding and output of the institution (not that King's does badly on that front either, as you point out). Good teaching and resources (and being in an environment where class size is not in the triple digits) are much more important.
As a parent, if I were in England with a kid of this girl's talent and interests, I wouldn't want her going to UCLA or USC, either. (Oh, and I'm American.)
aegdasfad wrote:
coach d wrote:USC is ranked overall #51 on the Shanghai List, while Kings College is #59.
The Shanghai list compares top research universities. This is a decent metric for graduate students to decide where they want to do a PhD, but NOT for undergraduates to figure out where they'll have the best learning environment. Undergraduates are pushed to excel far more strongly at King's College than USC or UCLA.
This^
Coach D is more worried about a list he doesn't understand than about what actually happens at a school.
If you told me I could hire a King's College grad or a USC grad, and gave me no other information, I would sure as sh!t hire the King's grad.
well...... wrote:
This is a silly article. She couldn't find a school that was excellent in *both* track and undergraduate liberal arts in the US, so she chose Kings College? That track and field powerhouse?
Is the article so "silly" that you couldn't comprehend it? You must be a Florida State or USC graduate ;)
She obviously isn't training at her university, genius. The article states that explicitly. I know reading can be hard but this wouldn't make it as an SAT question.
[quote]coach d wrote:
Only real dumbshits take liberal arts majors like history . . . ./quote]
When I read this remark, the first person I thought of was a guy named John Glover Roberts, Jr., who graduated s.c.l. from Harvard College in three years with a bachelor of arts degree in history. Eventually, he overcame his intellectual deficiencies to become chief justice of the Supreme Court.
I'm surprised by the extent and intensity of the criticism of Asher-Smith in this thread. Her commemts seem reasonable to me, as does her decision.
My thought with this thread was to identify schools with good sprints and academics. Her two examples told me that she had not really seriously considered coming to the NCAA system. It looks like everything is working out for her so she made the right choice for herself. Perhaps she didn't even visit any US colleges.
jingo jango wrote:
Why do so bloody many Brits need to have hyphenated names?
When she gets married to, let's say, Joe Jones-Johnson, wtf are kids going to be named???
So true - It used to be the aristocracy but now I think it reflects the unmarried status of the parents.
Also, I think she's a fool for staying in the UK, but she is obviously happy in london with a training set up that she knows well. Most athletes go to Loughborough university, so I think any athletic support she will be getting is through British Athletics and National Lottery funding.