Most and Least Educated Cities in America
wallethub.com
wallethub.com
The problem isn't a lack of smart, ambitious kids. It's not bad schools. There are even multiple universities.
The problem's that the smart, ambitious kids mostly choose to move elsewhere after HS or college. Even for the ones that want to stay, the local economy and job market isn't that great.
We need to improve the level at which you attract/retain both educated people and well-paying jobs for them. How do we do that, given that both are at fairly low levels and it's something like a chicken-or-egg problem?
Far too many common folks out in the country think that education is not worth it, science is not worth learning, healthcare and public transportation is second-class.
It shows in the way they live, the way they socialize, the way they vote. They'd rather spend money on Church than healthcare. They'd rather worry about their individual taxes than on improving schools and teaching critical thinking and sciences.
The really ambitious/educated kids realize that it is a (apologies) shit-hole and get out asap.
The fact that these communities basically with education create forces that harass and destroy them, makes the delay in backlash actually quite astounding.
What I was getting at is that the more educated people feel stifled in communities that disregard rational thought process.
People out there are good but they have very little proclivity to critical thinking and desire for educated neighbors.
An example is that they'd rather segregate the poor out than actually work towards building an educated society and uplift the unfortunate.
I grew up in a evangelical high religious environment, with some family members clearly having mental issues, that factored into religion (what you would consider extremism).
Some of them viewed the city lifestyle and tech in particular as "parasites" leaching to religious communitys and countrys, as there society was not able to substain itself. I dislike that viewpoint, but disliking never made that piece of ugly truth go away.
On the other side, these communities live longer and healthier by now- due to non-parasitic tech and as other countrys show, religious conservatism on its own, spirals into a eternal (every second gen) civil war, once all lands/ressources are used up.
Could we agree upon, that both sides need one another- even though everyone in this thread has lovely family memorys.
Ugly truth? The major urban metros are the ones subsidizing the rural areas, just look at any state's map of each county's tax revenue generation vs spending.
It's the rural, country areas that are mooching, the people living there just don't want to admit that the free market that they worship has abandoned them, because it turns out that effective modern commerce requires population density.
I don't think the rural zones actually worship the free market, and that is part of the problem they have communicating their values to the economically successful, who tend to prefer arguments couched in terms of economic benefits rather than the vague social goods (low social friction, multiple status hierarchies, respect for religion, etc.) desired by the rural/traditional communities.
Not sure I follow. How do rural cultural values and practices "invisibly support the modern economy"?
> I don't think the rural zones actually worship the free market
Obviously 'worship' is a bit of hyperbole, but they do tend to vote for representatives that constantly talk up the free market and constantly put down the government.
>An example is that they'd rather segregate the poor out than actually work towards building an educated society and uplift the unfortunate
SF spent 20 million last year on arresting homeless people and getting them out of the city. It's basically illegal to be homeless in SF, yet they are seen as the paragon of liberal values. Do as I say, not as I do.
It's an interesting point, though it reminds me of this satirical ad on GTA SA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XydMKkHBL4
It's not that hard to understand if you try and put yourself in their shoes and don't assume they are "disgusting, stupid, and small-minded". You aren't any different than them in your judgement of other societies, you just happen to have a potential advantage in education. What is your excuse for such derision?
You act like these people are animals and you aren't ever going to reach them and you are going to exacerbate the same impact you are talking about. Do you have the same view of all poor people embedded in a national culture?
As I was born in a conservative background and I found my way out in a long journey in a totally different country, I agree that people with the conservative background regardless of any country have a tendency to see the education, tech, big cities or most of the new things as poisonous to their core values. So that, they are trying to hinder their children to have access to these just because they love them and care them. They just want their kids to be happy and stay in the family as themselves who were kept by their parents.
In my opinion, this is not a new thing. This has been going for a very long time throughout the history. I understand that the change is scary from the conservative point of view. This is why; I try to not to judge anyone. But, I just see it as a puny fight against the windmill in the long run.
The most important choices in parenting are mutually exclusive "good" options.
It is exceedingly hard understand their point of view, because their point of view is inconsistent and their beliefs are phantasmagoric. Derision against this kind of willful ignorance is the minimum.
That is to say it's understandable.
Combine that with the last 9 years or so, including the economic collapse and ensuing recovery that left any population center under several million basically to freeze and die, and the attitude of rural America is pretty easy to explain. You never gave a shit about what we had to say; why should we give a shit what you have to say now?
That's not to say of course that I agree with this attitude. I'm just saying it gets really old to watch all my liberal friends scratching their heads like "Why don't they like us?" after you spent the last several decades pissing them off at every turn, like a college kid who just got their own apartment and doesn't have to live by Mom and Dad's rules anymore.
And just like that sort of arrangement: the cities need the rural areas a hell of a lot more than the rural areas need the cities. So you know, keep that in mind.
> And just like that sort of arrangement: the cities need the rural areas a hell of a lot more than the rural areas need the cities.
They may need the rural areas, but do they really need the rural population? I assume you're talking about farms, for food, fuel, etc, but from what I understand, most of that is produced by big farms, using mostly immigrant workers (legal and otherwise)[1]; not necessarily "big corp", but still, a relatively small percentage of the population[2]. In fact, most small scale farmers earn more money from other occupations[3].
It's not clear to me that cities actually need the non-immigrant rural population.
[1] https://www.voanews.com/a/us-farmers-depend-on-illegal-immig...
[2] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/big-farms-are-getting-b...
[3] http://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2017/01/importance-non-fa...
Agreed. In fact, I think the entire thing driving the data here is population flow. I grew up in #148 (Porterville) and moved to #6 (Boston) in the list for school. And most of the people I know in Boston didn't themselves grow up there.
A city could have the best education system in the world, but if it didn't have a thriving economy to keep its graduates it would still show up low on this list. On the other hand, a city with a crap education system can still hire in the best graduates of other schools if it has the jobs to draw them.
I'm not even sure what data I'd be curious to see here. I was going to say it would be interesting to look at most educated cities considering only people born and raised there. But someone living in the same place all their life is so rare anymore, I'm not sure how meaningful that would be. Maybe just looking at people who graduated college there would be cool; after you graduate you're more likely to just stick around if you can. If that's the case, I guess the takeaway would be to try to establish strong universities in every city?
For example, the guy I know who opted for HVAC trade school and started his own company, he didn't get the broad university education, but he's run his own business for 20 years, working with and for people of all socioeconomic statuses and races. University isn't for everyone, this idea that it is just isn't helpful.
Employers want to locate their businesses in places where they would want to live themselves. People are looking for a city where an educated, or non-educated spouse might be able to find a job. They want to live in a "nice" environment.
The Trenton MSA gets a high ranking because of Princeton and the pharma companies nearby. Where Rutgers and J&J don't affect their score as much since their MSA (NYC) is so populated.
So many people with so much money are significantly upgrading houses or outright purchasing for their children (or huge down payment) that neighborhoods have 1.5$m homes across from $125k homes.
It used to be just about everyone in a neighborhood could afford to buy each other's house.
Do Americans?
Half could not find New York State on a map of the United States. A third of the respondents [Americans aged 18 to 24] could not find Louisiana, and 48 percent couldn't locate Mississippi on a map of the United States.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_...
Move to McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX.