This is true, but it does not follow from this that the NCAA ought to do the same and hold 1500m races as well.
The NCAA has neither an obligation to follow the lead of the world championships and Olympic games, nor does the NCAA have an obligation to prepare athletes for competition after college (and this is to not even address the pathetically weak argument that running the mile instead of the 1500 puts runners at a disadvantage due to lack to 1500m experience).
The NCAA is an American association and holds competitions in the United States. The relevance of the mile in countries outside the United States is irrelevant as to the question of which event should be held in competitions inside the United States.
This is not the case. The majority of collegiate distance runners don't run under 4 minutes in the mile. It is a significant barrier still.
Further, this fails to address the fact that the existence of a barrier is not the only reason why the mile ought be held instead of the 1500. The mile should be held because it is a more relevant distance to Americans than the 1500m is.
Addressing these two points together because they are essentially the same claim.
I addressed this point in an earlier post so I'll just re-post my response here:
She claimed that women don't have an equivalent sub-4 barrier in the mile as men do in the mile, implying that the NCAA should therefore not switch from putting on 1500s to putting on miles.
And it's a bad argument for several reasons.
Do women have an analogous sub 4 barrier in the 1500 as men do in the mile? Her implication is yes, and it's the sub 4 1500.
Only one woman has ever broken 4 minutes in the 1500 while competing as a college athlete - Jenny Simpson in 2009, and only by one tenth of a second, and it was in a professional race, not an NCAA race. No woman has ever run under, or even gotten close to running under 4 minutes in an NCAA race. Here is the top-10 all time performers list for collegiate women over 1500m:
3:59.90............Jenny Simpson (Colorado)................06/07/09
4:06.19............Hannah England’ (Florida St).............06/14/08
4:06.67............Sally Kipyego’ (Texas Tech)................06/14/08
4:06.75............Tiffany McWilliams (Mississippi St).....06/14/03
4:06.87............Emma Coburn (Colorado)...................05/17/13
4:07.50............Sarah Brown (Tennessee)....................06/14/08
4:07.69............Lena Nilsson’ (UCLA)...........................05/24/03
4:08.26............Suzy Hamilton (Wisconsin)..................06/02/90
4:08.54............Brie Felnagle (North Carolina)..............05/17/08
4:08.90............Susan Kuijken’ (Florida St)...................05/02/09
In the history of woman's collegiate athletics, the fastest a woman has run in NCAA competition is 4:06.19, which is more than 1.65 seconds per lap slower than needed to sneak under 4 minutes.
There is no special draw to seeing women run 1500m in collegiate competition because no one is close to breaking 4 minutes in collegiate competition. And no one has ever been close.
As noted above, I don't think that you can claim that being a significant barrier is a former status of the mile. It is still significant today.
Further, again, this fails to address the fact that the existence of a barrier is not the only reason why the mile ought be held instead of the 1500. The mile should be held because it is a more relevant distance to Americans than the 1500m is.
The claim that this was done for nostalgic reasons is dubious. The Mile is more relevant today in the United States than the 1500 is.
Further, there is no evidence that "women's competition, international competition, or the current relevance of the mile" was not considered.
Lastly, as noted above, international competition and the current relevance of the mile outside the United States are irrelevant factors to consider when deciding what event the NCAA, an American association, ought to put on.