If you can get into MIT you go to MIT. Track is just secondary to an education and there are very few institutions in the world where you'll get a better education than MIT.
If I had a guaranteed spot on the track team at a place like NC State (women), NAU, or Oregon but I can go to MIT I would pick MIT every time. Same goes for the sprint schools.
there are so many arrogant losers in this thread. There have been several studies that prove your college does not matter. the biggest determining factor in income is high school grades and test scores. A 4.0 and 36 ACT will make the same money whether he goes to Harvard or MIT or UMass Amherst. It is clear you feel superior to everyone else.
The idea that it is noble to sacrifice sports just for the imagined notion of getting a better job is LAUGHABLE. Athletes get jobs at higher rates because they know teamwork, leadership, work ethic, and time management.
The experience of being on a college team is invaluable. Most would argue you learn a lot more about life and build a lot more character on the playing field rather then in a classroom.
You have 4-5 years of opportunity in college to be on a team and test your physical or mental limits. You are going to work for the next 50 years of your life. When you are 90 years old would you rather look back and reflect on how much money you made before you turned 30, or look back at the 4 years of amazing memories of being on a college team, something that less than 99.99% of humans get to do?
This is a harsh way to phrase it, but you are correct. If you are getting a full financial aid package to attend MIT for free, go for it. But if you are paying 80k per year to go to MIT, maybe you are not as smart as you thought.
Anecdotally, went to a D3 school that was academically top-100, had a challenging academic experience that prepped me for my profession, improved in the 5k all four years of college, had an awesome time, competed in three national championship meets, and don't regret anything. Only found that path because 1) I took many overnight visits at schools and 2) decided to put ego on the back-burner and go D3 because it was the best fit, not because it would make a cool instagram post.
Had many teammates who went D1 and also had great experiences, etc, but I found a school that fit academically and athletically and that was what was important to me.
Some athletes get to a D1 school and thrive among the elevated competition and training partners; as most of us have seen, there are plenty that fall apart in that environment as well. One thing that worked for me was the carrot of competing at nationals. I know everyone on LetsRun has run sub 13:45, but as a 4:28 hs miler I was very, very happy to get under 14:30 and run in a national meet. But, like I said, take visits!
Bumping Harvey Mudd for tech schools since it hasn’t seemed to be mentioned much. Strong CS department and great connections / job placement, while not quite as hard to get into since people just don’t seem to know about it.
No. Not wrong. Although 9:10 is fast for a D3 recruit, large improvement is required to make top 7 at MIT.
This is in fact wrong. Any high schooler who runs 9:10 is going to have an impact as a freshman on a DIII team unless they are injured or get worse at running. If someone disagrees please provide the track PRs of the guys currently on DIII teams that would stop this high schooler from contributing as a freshman.
No. Not wrong. Although 9:10 is fast for a D3 recruit, large improvement is required to make top 7 at MIT.
This is in fact wrong. Any high schooler who runs 9:10 is going to have an impact as a freshman on a DIII team unless they are injured or get worse at running. If someone disagrees please provide the track PRs of the guys currently on DIII teams that would stop this high schooler from contributing as a freshman.
MIT Top 7 tffrs PRs from XC Nats
#1 has no track times but 24:03 8k pr and top 3 at XC nationals
#2 1:50,4:06 mile, top 5 XC nationals
#3 8:12 3000, 14:20 5k
#4 4:07 mile
#5 14:25 5k, was the top runner in MA and a national champ in HS
#6 8:26 3000
#7 8:36, 14:37, 30:37
Depends on your definition of impact, but a 9:10 2 miler would be fighting for the 7th spot at best
Here are a few random examples of guys who graduated in IL last year and their corresponding 5 mile time this fall to show they wouldn't have been top 7 for MIT.
Tunney 9:07-25:21
George's 9:11-25:48
Furlong 9:12-25:32
There are hundreds of guys at 9:1x who wouldnt make MIT's top 7. There are seniors in college who ran 9:1x in HS and didn't break 25 this year.
I ran for MIT during its 'join-the-varsity' era and disapprove of MIT's current approach. The team was slower than my high school team, but it was perfect as a break from academics and to be able to hang out with other women when the old skewed m:f ratio made it hard to do otherwise. I cracked 40 mpw once despite running 50+ in hs.
I quit donating after they started taking training trips during spring break. MIT has a multitude of unique offerings; it's a shame to encourage people to miss out on any of those for their running program, which is not exceptional. Some of the best opportunities, such as stretching myself in super hard math classes, would have been lessened if I hadn't put a huge amount of time and effort into them. That level of effort wasn't compatible with the sort of serious training I did after college.
The post-collegiate Boston running clubs, at least during my time, gave access to world class coaches and awesome teammates. I'm pretty sure I plumbed the depths of my moderate talent (making it to OTM and winning a few races of importance to me) in a setup that was much more enjoyable than one where I was trying to balance running against MIT academics.
There have been several studies that prove your college does not matter. the biggest determining factor in income is high school grades and test scores. A 4.0 and 36 ACT will make the same money whether he goes to Harvard or MIT or UMass Amherst. It is clear you feel superior to everyone else.
. . .
You have 4-5 years of opportunity in college to be on a team and test your physical or mental limits. You are going to work for the next 50 years of your life. When you are 90 years old would you rather look back and reflect on how much money you made before you turned 30, or look back at the 4 years of amazing memories of being on a college team, something that less than 99.99% of humans get to do?
1. No, there actually haven't been "several studies that prove your college does not matter." The one study that has often been cited was reported in a 2001 article (with an extensive update in 2011) by the late economist Alan Krueger and his research associate Stacy Dale. Though often cited by journalists and commentators, it is clear that very few (if any) have actually read the articles, which did not say the various things that they are cited for. The articles are actually a long and hard read, with statistical analysis that would be incomprehensible to the kinds of people who cite the articles.
Also, the articles say nothing about Harvard and MIT. In fact, as is made very clear in the articles' footnotes, which identify all schools from which the survey subjects graduated, no Harvard or MIT graduates were involved and no statistics relating to Harvard or MIT were used. (I have no idea whether any of the survey subjects graduated from UMass Amherst.)
2. If you are a top-notch student, being on a college sports team is not going to "test" your "mental limits." And though I am not yet 90 years old, I can guarantee you that, in the past several decades, I have looked back at neither "how much money [I] made before [I] turned 30" (which was close to zero, since I was an undergraduate at MIT for four of those years, an Air Force officer for another four, and a law student at Harvard for another three) nor any "amazing memories of being on a college team" (at least in part because I don't know of any such amazing memories). I do, however, rely every day on knowledge that I acquired or learned to acquire during my university years, and I continue to run without the limitations imposed by college coaches and competition schedules. There is no way that I would trade that for some memories of collegiate running.
3. In response to another poster who has agreed with your comment, you are not going to pay $300,000 for four years at MIT unless you are in very fortunate financial circumstances or are unwilling to apply for financial aid. At MIT, that's true even for foreign (or so-called "international") students, which is generally not true at other schools (I think Harvard may have recently changed its policy to mirror MIT's in that regard).
Bumping Harvey Mudd for tech schools since it hasn’t seemed to be mentioned much. Strong CS department and great connections / job placement, while not quite as hard to get into since people just don’t seem to know about it.
I agree that Harvey Mudd merits serious consideration. (I still think that its name is awful.)
I entered my info the quick calculator and it says my student amd parent contribution is $79,900. You are incorrect. I am not fortunate. I started life in poverty as a child and worked through college. My wife and I take no vacations, have no cable TV, have inexpensive cell phones, drive old cars, use coupons, don't eat out, and are super savers. But for doing those things the school would charge me $79,900.
I ran for MIT during its 'join-the-varsity' era and disapprove of MIT's current approach. The team was slower than my high school team, but it was perfect as a break from academics and to be able to hang out with other women when the old skewed m:f ratio made it hard to do otherwise. I cracked 40 mpw once despite running 50+ in hs.
I quit donating after they started taking training trips during spring break. MIT has a multitude of unique offerings; it's a shame to encourage people to miss out on any of those for their running program, which is not exceptional. Some of the best opportunities, such as stretching myself in super hard math classes, would have been lessened if I hadn't put a huge amount of time and effort into them. That level of effort wasn't compatible with the sort of serious training I did after college.
The post-collegiate Boston running clubs, at least during my time, gave access to world class coaches and awesome teammates. I'm pretty sure I plumbed the depths of my moderate talent (making it to OTM and winning a few races of importance to me) in a setup that was much more enjoyable than one where I was trying to balance running against MIT academics.
I love this response. I can't honestly say that I enjoyed my time at MIT back in those days (IHTFP - "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"), but I respected the place and its commitment to hard work and academic excellence, with athletics as something that, like everything else, you just had to fit in as best you could. And yes, the idea of "spring break training trips" -- or even "spring break" anything -- seems antithetical to MIT's core values, as does the practice of recruiting athletes.
And I, like you, found post-collegiate running much more enjoyable and rewarding. In fact, when I see talented and accomplished collegiate runners quit the sport soon after their college days, it seems odd and a bit sad, and I realize that my own relationship with the sport has been something very different from theirs.
I ran for MIT during its 'join-the-varsity' era and disapprove of MIT's current approach. The team was slower than my high school team, but it was perfect as a break from academics and to be able to hang out with other women when the old skewed m:f ratio made it hard to do otherwise. I cracked 40 mpw once despite running 50+ in hs.
I quit donating after they started taking training trips during spring break. MIT has a multitude of unique offerings; it's a shame to encourage people to miss out on any of those for their running program, which is not exceptional. Some of the best opportunities, such as stretching myself in super hard math classes, would have been lessened if I hadn't put a huge amount of time and effort into them. That level of effort wasn't compatible with the sort of serious training I did after college.
The post-collegiate Boston running clubs, at least during my time, gave access to world class coaches and awesome teammates. I'm pretty sure I plumbed the depths of my moderate talent (making it to OTM and winning a few races of importance to me) in a setup that was much more enjoyable than one where I was trying to balance running against MIT academics.
I love this response. I can't honestly say that I enjoyed my time at MIT back in those days (IHTFP - "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"), but I respected the place and its commitment to hard work and academic excellence, with athletics as something that, like everything else, you just had to fit in as best you could. And yes, the idea of "spring break training trips" -- or even "spring break" anything -- seems antithetical to MIT's core values, as does the practice of recruiting athletes.
And I, like you, found post-collegiate running much more enjoyable and rewarding. In fact, when I see talented and accomplished collegiate runners quit the sport soon after their college days, it seems odd and a bit sad, and I realize that my own relationship with the sport has been something very different from theirs.
So MIT's core values are that you should have zero time to exercise while in college? Their core values are that you aren't allowed to be good at two things at the same time?
You even admit you hated your time there. If MIT preached balance to their students, they would get better grades, live a healthier lifestyle, have more fun and make more friends.
They literally just won a national championship. And they all have very good grades. You are saying that it's bad that they tried to be good at running?
You are all just jealous because they recruited people both smarter and faster than you. They can get better grades than you while studying only half as much as you.
There have been several studies that prove your college does not matter. the biggest determining factor in income is high school grades and test scores. A 4.0 and 36 ACT will make the same money whether he goes to Harvard or MIT or UMass Amherst. It is clear you feel superior to everyone else.
. . .
You have 4-5 years of opportunity in college to be on a team and test your physical or mental limits. You are going to work for the next 50 years of your life. When you are 90 years old would you rather look back and reflect on how much money you made before you turned 30, or look back at the 4 years of amazing memories of being on a college team, something that less than 99.99% of humans get to do?
1. No, there actually haven't been "several studies that prove your college does not matter." The one study that has often been cited was reported in a 2001 article (with an extensive update in 2011) by the late economist Alan Krueger and his research associate Stacy Dale. Though often cited by journalists and commentators, it is clear that very few (if any) have actually read the articles, which did not say the various things that they are cited for. The articles are actually a long and hard read, with statistical analysis that would be incomprehensible to the kinds of people who cite the articles.
You just proved the arrogant part as accurate, LMAO. God I would hate to meet people like you in real life. You sound like someone who has no friends because you insist on telling everyone you meet that you are smarter than them. Hint - you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
The recruit mentioned by the OP was a low 9:10s *sophomore* in HS. He’ll be 9:10 or faster as a junior, probably graduate as a sub-9.
Are people really saying that runner wouldn’t be an unusually fast D3 recruit? And that he’d have trouble contributing as a freshman. I’m a big fan of D3 running but that just seems ridiculous to me.
I mean, has MIT ever recruited a kid at that level? I’m guessing most of their recruits are 9:20ish as HS juniors, no?
I entered my info the quick calculator and it says my student amd parent contribution is $79,900. You are incorrect. I am not fortunate. I started life in poverty as a child and worked through college. My wife and I take no vacations, have no cable TV, have inexpensive cell phones, drive old cars, use coupons, don't eat out, and are super savers. But for doing those things the school would charge me $79,900.
Your experience sounds much like my father's. He grew up in poverty, dropped out of high school to join the Navy during WWII after his only brother was killed flying over France, fought in the Battle of Okinawa when he was 18, returned to high school, eventually went to college on the G.I. Bill, and later returned to the Navy and became an officer through officer candidate school. Our household income never topped $30,000. But my father was, as you say, a super-saver, and when he discovered that financial aid programs generally "penalized" frugality, he refused to fill out any financial aid forms. I ended up applying for and receiving a four-year Air Force ROTC scholarship for scientific and engineering studies, which paid my tuition and a monthly stipend to get through MIT, but left me with a four-year active-duty commitment after college. Financial aid programs now provide more generous loans backed by the U.S. government (along with shameful promises to allow borrowers to default on some or all of the outstanding debts). But the system does still "penalize" frugality, and I think your comment is very fair in that respect. I don't know what options are currently available for MIT students. In earlier times, MIT generally favored loans over grants (that is, various discounts off sticker prices), because the expected future incomes of their graduates were so high, but times, attitudes, and government policies have changed.
I love this response. I can't honestly say that I enjoyed my time at MIT back in those days (IHTFP - "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"), but I respected the place and its commitment to hard work and academic excellence, with athletics as something that, like everything else, you just had to fit in as best you could. And yes, the idea of "spring break training trips" -- or even "spring break" anything -- seems antithetical to MIT's core values, as does the practice of recruiting athletes.
And I, like you, found post-collegiate running much more enjoyable and rewarding. In fact, when I see talented and accomplished collegiate runners quit the sport soon after their college days, it seems odd and a bit sad, and I realize that my own relationship with the sport has been something very different from theirs.
So MIT's core values are that you should have zero time to exercise while in college? Their core values are that you aren't allowed to be good at two things at the same time?
You even admit you hated your time there. If MIT preached balance to their students, they would get better grades, live a healthier lifestyle, have more fun and make more friends.
They literally just won a national championship. And they all have very good grades. You are saying that it's bad that they tried to be good at running?
You are all just jealous because they recruited people both smarter and faster than you. They can get better grades than you while studying only half as much as you.
In the 1970s, MIT had more intercollegiate sports teams than any other college in the country. It also had a very extensive intramural sports program, as well as physical fitness class requirements. And the athletics department wasn't required to sell tickets to sports events or obtain money from booster clubs to fund those many sports and exercise programs. MIT's core values obviously didn't include some idea about having zero time to exercise. And you could be very good at two or more things at the same time, as many of us were.
I don't think it was MIT's job to "preach balance to their students." Nor do I think it would have been a proper goal for MIT to increase student grades, although students who can't keep up or handle the work should not be overlooked. Grades are horribly inflated at most schools, and I think it's a serious problem. (Same with standardized test scores, which have a well-documented history of "re-centering" and inflating scores.) I do think it was proper for MIT to recognize that the pressure on students was greater than it needed to be, and the school has taken significant steps to change that without reducing the academic quality and rigor.
Your last two paragraphs are apparently straw men with no clear to relationship to anything I've said.
Recently it’s catered a little more towards athletes while still maintaining its academic reputation. There’s about a 2 hour period blocked off in the afternoon for people to practice which I’m pretty sure almost no other comparable colleges have