When we are talking about 4:10 "milers" are we talking a full mile or the 1600? Most HS kids never run a true mile in their career. I assume everyone is talking about the 1600 and just saying "mile" because it is a standard expression.
When we are talking about 4:10 "milers" are we talking a full mile or the 1600? Most HS kids never run a true mile in their career. I assume everyone is talking about the 1600 and just saying "mile" because it is a standard expression.
no namer wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
No you didn't. You may have gotten a full ride based on financial need, but you didn't get an academic scholarship because Ivy League schools do not give academic scholarships.
Not sure this is entirely true. Some very well respected, non-ivy league schools with comparable academic standards do provide very generous academic scholarships that are not based on financial need.
He said he did this at an IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL. No, he didn't for the reason I mentioned.
Not mine wrote:
Hey flagpole. My wife and I make a combined $195k and we have saved a few hundred thousand outside of our retirement accounts and we are paying the full fare. Keep in mind we have 2 at different Ivies. You would think that would have gotten us a break, but no. We didn't follow the typical American motto of spending our money thinking someone else would help us out so now here we are being responsible or foolish.
1) That is $45,000 MORE than you used in your example.
2) What you did wasn't foolish, but there is nothing wrong with putting yourself in a good situation before sending a kid to an Ivy League school. We had extra money too in non-retirement places, so a year before our oldest went to college, we used cash to pay for bathroom renovation, buy a car and throw money at the house so that we had next to NO money liquid.
3) One school my daughter considered was Brown (plus a couple of other Ivys). Some stats using the Net Price Calculator:
Family of 4, 2 in college, $150,000 income, $3000 in checking, $300,000 house with $100,000 left on it - $71,490 is sticker price. With this situation, price is $24,193, and that is with NO loans and no monetary contribution from student. ~14,000 of that is room and board, so tuition in this case is just about $10,000. Like I said, we make a little less than $150,000, and her estimated price for Brown would have been a little less...about $19,000 per year to go there.
Family of 4, 2 in college, $195,000 income, $300,000 in savings account $500,000 house with $200,000 left on it - $46,220
The Ivys are all pretty similar with running that Net Price Calculator, so a rough estimate of what you said about yourself shows $46,220 per year. If you are paying close to full price, then either you make more, or have more than I said or have a bigger house that you own more of or you didn't fill out your financial info properly or something.
Yes I always use the $150k number as the bar when other parents at school inquire for their HS kids. They are in the same financial situation as we are in terms of being a bit older and homes and assumed investments so I don’t want them to be surprised. That’s the rough number with significant assets when you will pay full tuition. You got me curious so I just plugged my stuff in and it came up with 70,501. The only real differences in what you missed in your attempt are home equity, child assets, and a hobby farm that we inherited.
Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly. According to both milesplit and athletic.net There were 10 junior boys who ran 4:10 or better last indoor or outdoor. Let's say 11 if you throw in Zach Kreft's 4:10.10. There were 16 in the entire country that ran under 4:12. In looking at the mile, there were six who ran under 4:10, and at least three were the same as ones on the 1600 list. So, that means that only about 15-18 guys that have potential at the D1 level and not everyone can take a 4:12 guy - when there are only 10-11 sub 4:10 guys? That part doesn't make sense to me.[/quote]
Some goobers might run fast times at small meets that don't make it into the database. My high school pr was 4:12 but the meet wasn't put in so instead i was listed with a 4:16.
Friend of Joe wrote:
Let's look at some numbers:
On any given year, 600 boys can run sub 4:20.00 in the 1600m (milesplit search).
Of those 600 boys, 350 of them are seniors.
There are 780 NCAA institutions that offer outdoor track as a certified sport (this is NOT including NAIA and Junior College).
At any given four year cycle, there could be (350 x 4 = 1400) former sub 4:20 HS boys that exist within the collegiate ranks.
Given an even distribution, that about 2 sub 4:20 HS boys per NCAA program
This is also assuming that all 780 programs offer scholarship (they don't). 294 of the programs are D3 and even though they do not offer athletic scholarship, how many sub 4:20 boys choose to attend D3 . . .
That leaves 486 programs that could offer scholarship to a sub 4:20 HS boy.
That's almost 3 sub 4:20 HS boys per potential scholarship program.
How many of those 486 D1 and D2 programs actually put money into middle distance?
The trend should show you that 4:20 wouldn't make it into the top 3 mile / 1500m runners at any given point on any given program.
Find a lower tier program and leverage your ability to make an impact at the conference level or impress the coach at a higher tier program hoping to walk on and impress so much they'll offer you scholarship later on.
SUMMARY: 4:20 isn't as good as you think
Wait, what? You literally had me convinced that 4:20 was definitely enough to get scholarship money until the last three lines.
Let's say there are 486 programs that could offer scholarships to the top 350 boys. Many of those top 350 boys will go to the same schools, or opt to walk on to higher ranked programs, or go to programs that don't offer scholarships.
Bottom line, it sounds like there are enough schools and enough scholarships to accommodate any of the boys in the top 350 if they want to.
So now you're telling me that there are no lower-ranked programs that will offer scholarships to the fastest guys that they can get their hands on? That there are NO programs that rely on turning 4:20 HS milers into faster dudes in order to score at their conference meet? Surely there must be programs that give some scholarships to 4:20 HS milers or else they just won't be able to recruit anyone at all.
The numbers seem to be there.
There is something about discipline that equates to good academics and good athletics which makes distance runners some of the best students. They are probably getting some academic aid so the coaches take them for granted. Therefore, many programs put their scholarship money into sprints, jumps, and throws. Iowa has a solid track program that is sprint heavy and puts no money into distance, but look deeper into the season and you will see that they had 3 guys run 4:10 or better and 7 guys run 4:17 or better. They also had 6 guys run 8:25 or better in the 3k which is sub 9 minutes indoor for 3200. So if you were the coach, how could you give a scholarship to an incoming freshman who ran 4:20 or even 4:15 when he initially may not even make the squad on an average XC program that is not compensating the current guys? Coaches aren't going to waste money on potential. They will wait until someone is proven. I think that too many people responding to this thread are too close to the high school scene without realizing how fast guys need to run in college in order to score. The 4:10 mark that keeps getting mentioned is a good rule of thumb of where some aid may start for a freshman but if the coach finds out that the kid is from a strong program, he may already be near his potential.
adfasgasfsd wrote:
Friend of Joe wrote:
Let's look at some numbers:
On any given year, 600 boys can run sub 4:20.00 in the 1600m (milesplit search).
Of those 600 boys, 350 of them are seniors.
There are 780 NCAA institutions that offer outdoor track as a certified sport (this is NOT including NAIA and Junior College).
At any given four year cycle, there could be (350 x 4 = 1400) former sub 4:20 HS boys that exist within the collegiate ranks.
Given an even distribution, that about 2 sub 4:20 HS boys per NCAA program
This is also assuming that all 780 programs offer scholarship (they don't). 294 of the programs are D3 and even though they do not offer athletic scholarship, how many sub 4:20 boys choose to attend D3 . . .
That leaves 486 programs that could offer scholarship to a sub 4:20 HS boy.
That's almost 3 sub 4:20 HS boys per potential scholarship program.
How many of those 486 D1 and D2 programs actually put money into middle distance?
The trend should show you that 4:20 wouldn't make it into the top 3 mile / 1500m runners at any given point on any given program.
Find a lower tier program and leverage your ability to make an impact at the conference level or impress the coach at a higher tier program hoping to walk on and impress so much they'll offer you scholarship later on.
SUMMARY: 4:20 isn't as good as you think
Wait, what? You literally had me convinced that 4:20 was definitely enough to get scholarship money until the last three lines.
Let's say there are 486 programs that could offer scholarships to the top 350 boys. Many of those top 350 boys will go to the same schools, or opt to walk on to higher ranked programs, or go to programs that don't offer scholarships.
Bottom line, it sounds like there are enough schools and enough scholarships to accommodate any of the boys in the top 350 if they want to.
So now you're telling me that there are no lower-ranked programs that will offer scholarships to the fastest guys that they can get their hands on? That there are NO programs that rely on turning 4:20 HS milers into faster dudes in order to score at their conference meet? Surely there must be programs that give some scholarships to 4:20 HS milers or else they just won't be able to recruit anyone at all.
The numbers seem to be there.
Here's the problem. You don't want to run for a DI program that gives money to 4:20 milers (and by milers, yes, I actually do mean 1600 guys...just quicker to say milers...take 2s off for guys who ran the full mile for the sake of this example). I should know...I was at one. It only means two things both with the same result... A) The coach doesn't know what they're doing. B) They have so little scholarship to award that they can't get foreigners...so they're just desperate for anyone to show up to keep them around so they have to beg a few less 4:40 guys to show up (well, that and 4:20 guys are a lot better than they're otherwise going to get). The result? The team is awful because all of their competition is only giving money to the 4:10 guys, whether here or abroad. You will spend your four years getting your a$$ kicked sideways, forward & backward...& just hoping you went to the right school for the right reasons. Now, maybe being able to call yourself a "DI scholarship athlete" means a lot at first...but get back to me in four years. That same athlete could have gone DII if academics weren't important or DIII & found some other way to pay for it...and probably had a much more positive experience being able to compete with his peers. And Ivies aren't wasting their effort to get one of those guys in when 5 of them will get in independently & they'll probably take those guys.
And to my point before...we can *usually* take a 4:12 guy in the fall or winter who did that as a junior (depending on how strong the current class is shaping up & our available roster spots of course). But often can't if they don't do that until their senior year. If a strong class is shaping up though, we've signed one sub 4:08 domestic, one sub 3:45 international, got one in-state 4:10 kid accepted into school with a guaranteed roster spot...and now may only have one roster spot left. Chances are, another 4:10 kid is going to want to join that strong class & walks on with further admission assistance in the winter. With say a VERY generous roster limit of 15 (some programs have 10 - 12), that averages out to be about 4 - 5 open roster spots a class...only assuming normal attrition.
Of course this example is overly simplistic and assumes all things are equal about those times (like training, coaching, background, location, etc). But for the sake of a relatively concise example, that's how it works.
By the way, look at the NCAA Indoor list this year...the slowest guy to get into NCAA's in the mile (full mile mind you) was a 3:58.28 guy...and that's only because the list scratched down that far. It was possible that a 3:57 guy wasn't getting in. That mean's 10 sub 4 milers are sitting at home next weekend with nothing to say but "welp, better luck next year." Now picture yourself as a head track coach, knowing how hard/rare it is to take 15 seconds off (from their 1600 conversion) of an already elite prep distance runner in four years. How generous do you think they're doing to be if they have aspirations at the NCAA level?