People generally move or commute to cities for higher education and that isn't really news. So depending what those numbers really mean could be significant.
People generally move or commute to cities for higher education and that isn't really news. So depending what those numbers really mean could be significant.
I'm not sure that's true. My impression is that most universities are in small towns. In the U.S., that describes many large state universities. I would guess that the cost of land in cities is a big reason.
EDIT: With many large universities enrolling tens of thousands of students, plus employing faculty and staff and supporting all the third parties (from caterers to construction to police to temp agencies), their towns can't be too tiny.
I grew up in rural Montana and wanted to study Electrical & Computer Engineering. I didn't really have a choice to stay in state (and get my degrees from a quality program). I could have studied at University of Montana, but that would have left me with a degree that, for what I wanted to do, would have been worthless. Sure, I could have made the 30-45 minute commute and gotten a cheap degree, but the result would have been a degree I didn't want.
For an in-state state-school engineering degree, I'd have had to at a minimum gone to Montana State University (5+ hours from my parents' house). MSU doesn't have much of a EE/CPE department, but does have some good engineering programs (like chemical). I had to go to Chicago to find the program I wanted.
What? I'm from Oregon... Eugene (UO) is population 166k, Corvallis (OSU) is 57k. Portland is like 3x bigger than both combined. And UW fits your point, but WSU is so far in the middle of nowhere that it's practically in Idaho.
In other words, small town or city, neither is what I would describe as "rural".
What the study defines as rural would probably cover a lot of small towns I suspect so who really knows.
UW's main campus is not a school worth going to, the programs that are worth taking have so many people applying that if you don't have connections or cash to burn, you won't get in.
CSE has no bias for or against Americans, I’m not sure where that came from.
E.g. New York City has 110 universities and colleges with roughly 600k students[1]. Boston has 35 with 150k students[2]. DC has 20 with about 85k students[3]. Pittsburgh has over 150k students[4], etc.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_New_York_City
[2] http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/3488e768-1dd4-4446-...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universit....
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universit...
I guess you could argue that in today's world you shouldn't have to move to a city to get a higher education.
But the truth is, even with improved remote offerings students will still flock to larger cities for their higher education.
The people remaining either don't want, need, or can achieve higher education and I don't see any problems with that.
This all assumes the stat is talking about people in rural areas vs people from rural areas.
I would be concerned if people from rural areas had largely less percentage points of higher education, but only if it was a very large gap.
Community and local bias toward lesser rates of higher education is expected. Both from the "my dad was a farmer, I'm a farmer too" stereotype and also the fact that income disparity/inequality between city living and rural living would result in a substantial gap when education costs are the same across the board.
That last point is something I have a problem with but honestly the attitude towards education spending in USA from the majority is very one sided. (My taxes shouldn't fund your fancy degree when I work in a factory - regardless of societal benefit I constantly receive.)