Educational attainment of cities vs. their suburbs

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by 10023

In my experience, most of them.

Nevertheless, in my experience, it's always much easier to be "talented" when you were born to a "well connected" family.

I've seen so many different people already that I no longer believe in so called talent, gift or stupidity. All I know now is people have brains, then self-confidence and conditioning make the rest. That's what we liberals have been fighting against. We deeply hate social determinism, and love self-made entrepreneurs.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That's definitely not true. DC, Boston and SF are the most educated of the top 10, with DC probably #1, given that govt. jobs usually require bachelors. Seattle is also extremely high, though I think outside top 10.

Chicago is highest of the ten largest *cities*, not *metro areas*. None of DC, Boston, nor SF are among the ten largest *cities*. The person claiming "ten largest" was incorrect anyway, it's not highest of the ten largest, but of the five largest, although I think in the five largest listed in the story he linked to, they must have been ranking per the 2010 census since they had Philly as fifth largest instead of Phoenix (not that it much matters, I don't think Phoenix is especially college-educated). If it were ten largest, I think San Jose would probably beat out Chicago.

Ten Largest Cities as of 2016 (per Wikipedia):
1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Houston
5. Phoenix

6. Philadelphia
7. San Antonio
8. San Diego
9. Dallas
10. San Jose
...
13. San Francisco
...
18. Seattle
...
21. Washington
22. Boston

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 10023

In my experience, most of them.

That doesn't sound too objective

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 10023

This is completely false.

Well of course, I'd hear that from you. I work in academia and have three degrees of my own. You're going to have to do a bit better than tell me I'm "completely false". Someone who went to a local state school and didn't fuck around and actually gained something from their education is as every bit "educated" as someone who did the same with a Harvard degree. The difference being the Harvard grad will have more options as well more prestigious opportunities...particularly in areas like law where it's super competitive.

[10023]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That doesn't sound too objective

Show me a more objective data set.

Originally Posted by JManc

Well of course, I'd hear that from you. I work in academia and have three degrees of my own. You're going to have to do a bit better than tell me I'm "completely false". Someone who went to a local state school and didn't fuck around and actually gained something from their education is as every bit "educated" as someone who did the same with a Harvard degree. The difference being the Harvard grad will have more options as well more prestigious opportunities...particularly in areas like law where it's super competitive.

You're in academia. That's not what I'm arguing - Crawford was talking about the perspective of employers. At any firm I've worked for, a SW Kentucky State grad isn't going to get an interview (at least not early in their career... later, when education matters much less than experience, that's not necessarily the case). The perception that you describe is how my Wisconsin degree (with a high GPA and test scores) was viewed.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 10023

Show me a more objective data set.


You're in academia. That's not what I'm arguing - Crawford was talking about the perspective of employers. At any firm I've worked for, a SW Kentucky State grad isn't going to get an interview (at least not early in their career... later, when education matters much less than experience, that's not necessarily the case). The perception that you describe is how my Wisconsin degree (with a high GPA and test scores) was viewed.

No. Crawford dismissed someone from SW Kentucky (I don't think this is a real school, btw) right off the bat as not being equally educated without any references to young graduates in search for work. They are even if they are not has sought after as someone with an Ivy league degree. The rest of your point, I agree...that is the point after all of going to Harvard, it's the prestige and connections afterwards more so than the education itself.

[the urban politician]

^ Thats my take as well.

I don't doubt that the average Harvard student is more intelligent and talented than the average "southwestern Kentucky" grad, but I also think that a hell of a lot of Harvard students got in by means other than just great grades and exceptional talent.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Thats my take as well.

I don't doubt that the average Harvard student is more intelligent and talented than the average "southwestern Kentucky" grad, but I also think that a hell of a lot of Harvard students got in by means other than just great grades and exceptional talent.

Even today, about 30% of Harvard College admits are "legacy" students. They all still have great grades and such, but historical ties play a large role in who gets admitted. Of course, part of that is likely donations, too. Of legacy students, 46% come from families with incomes of a half-million or higher. 69% come from families of incomes greater than a quarter-million and only 4.3% come from families earning less than $80k/yr. Of the non-legacy students, only 2.2% come from families with incomes over a quarter-million. Perhaps the strangest statistic is that despite Harvard College effectively being a global school, nearly 40% of its student body come from the Northeastern US.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

All things equal, small city limits will favor higher college attainment and higher immigrant levels will favor lower college attainment.

Tell that to Hartford.

No, seriously, I don't think there's much of a relationship between small city limits and educational attainment. A "small" city can be mostly comprised of ghetto, or mostly comprised of middle-class neighborhoods.

The major advantage of Pittsburgh and Boston is the large number of universities within the core cities, meaning lots of graduate students live there who have already completed four-year degrees. In the case of Pittsburgh there really isn't even a true "college town" in the MSA, aside from some small towns with second-tier state colleges and private Christian colleges. If you go to college in the Pittsburgh MSA, you go to school in the city most likely, meaning you live in the city.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also not entirely certain if college attainment is the best proxy for comparative education levels, given that "college" in the U.S. is such a broad category. Harvard isn't the same as SW Kentucky State.

It's important to remember the dropout rate at lower-tier universities is often quite high. Therefore while there is a big gap between an Ivy and State U, it's not quite as wide as the gap in skill between incoming freshmen.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's a national database of adults linked to institutions, but it isn't public data and I think a few states have opted out. It's frequently used by researchers, though.

And I'm not objecting to the data as presented; think it's very interesting and useful. I just think it would be even more helpful to see where people attended, given that American universities, unlike other countries, tend to be highly variable in quality.

If I were an employer considering a locale, I would probably be less interested in % credentialed and more interested in the where and what. Are they engineering grads, did they attend a rigorous university, etc.

Yeah, I certainly get the distinction between a Harvard classics major and say someone who studied Criminal Justice or Hotel Management at some obscure college. You won't find many of the latter in Scarsdale or Chevy Chase or Winnetka.

[jtown,man]

I have a disabled professor friend who moved down to Norfolk to be closer to family and teach at the local community college. She came from teaching at Princeton. I've asked her what the biggest differences between the students were, without hesitation, she said " not intelligence, but confidence."

[Docere]

Originally Posted by emathias

Even today, about 30% of Harvard College admits are "legacy" students. They all still have great grades and such, but historical ties play a large role in who gets admitted. Of course, part of that is likely donations, too. Of legacy students, 46% come from families with incomes of a half-million or higher. 69% come from families of incomes greater than a quarter-million and only 4.3% come from families earning less than $80k/yr. Of the non-legacy students, only 2.2% come from families with incomes over a quarter-million. Perhaps the strangest statistic is that despite Harvard College effectively being a global school, nearly 40% of its student body come from the Northeastern US.

The 2.2% figure you cite is First Generation students (i.e. students whose parents didn't go to college or didn't graduate from college), not all non-legacy students. Only 16% of Harvard students are in this category.

The Northeast is the region most obsessed with "pedigree" and public universities aren't as strong as other parts of the country. The University of California system or flagship schools at Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas etc. are able to "capture" a lot of top students that wouldn't be going to state schools in New York and Massachusetts.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Docere

The 2.2% figure you cite is First Generation students (i.e. students whose parents didn't go to college or didn't graduate from college), not all non-legacy students. Only 16% of Harvard students are in this category.

The Northeast is the region most obsessed with "pedigree" and public universities aren't as strong as other parts of the country. The University of California system or flagship schools at Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas etc. are able to "capture" a lot of top students that wouldn't be going to state schools in New York and Massachusetts.

Ross Douthat, a columnist for the NY Times wrote a book on the subject of Ivy League connections. Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class. He takes his Alma Mater for a little spin.

[10023]

Yes. Even conservative intellectuals like to engage in a bit of anti-intellectualism under the guise of anti-elitism.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by emathias

Even today, about 30% of Harvard College admits are "legacy" students. They all still have great grades and such, but historical ties play a large role in who gets admitted.

Legacy preferences aren't really a Harvard or Ivy League thing; they're the norm in most competitive institutions. State universities generally make a big deal over legacies too. I think MIT and CalTech are the only elite U.S. universities that don't officially favor legacies.

Originally Posted by emathias

Perhaps the strangest statistic is that despite Harvard College effectively being a global school, nearly 40% of its student body come from the Northeastern US.

This is probably less of a legacy issue, and more than the the Northeast generally tends to have the highest concentration of top K-12 schools (which is tied to higher socioeconomics). The top school for Harvard admits, basically every year, is Stuyvesant, which is a public school in Manhattan that is definitely not high-income or filled with legacies. And most of the elite boarding schools (which are now global) are in the Northeast, so you have a lot of intl admits that may be counted as Northeast.

But, yeah, the Ivy League is more of a "thing" in the Northeast. Stanford is a million miles away, the local publics are generally less prestigious and a huge proportion of Ivy League admits are local.

And most stay. In my first job out of college, I would say the analyst class based in NYC was 70% or so Ivy League (with most of the remainder Ivy equivalents like Duke, Stanford or Amherst). The analyst class based in London was almost entirely Oxbridge, LSE or UCL, so the focus on certain institutions it isn't just a Northeast U.S. thing.

France is, I think, even more stratified than the U.S. or UK in terms of institutions and employment.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Ross Douthat, a columnist for the NY Times wrote a book on the subject of Ivy League connections. Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class. He takes his Alma Mater for a little spin.

You mean the "I think people who get laid in College are gross and immoral because I got friendzoned and someone on the sailing team stole my fake girlfriend, and now the best memory in my life is skinny dipping with William F. Buckley" memoir? Ross has to be one of the biggest dorks in the increasingly awful op-ed section of the NYT. And is 100% a member of the intellectual elite.

[Docere]

I've taught and studied at both elite and nonelite institutions and I do find "school snobbery" offputting and ignorant in many cases.

But in "defense" of Harvard et. al. let's note that the legacy admits are not the "gentlemen's Cs" of the past. Ivies weren't really that hard to get into until about half a century ago. Today's legacy admits are the often the high performing offspring of the "mertitocratic elite." They have good stats, though obviously they've enjoyed significant societal advantages as well.

[Docere]

Two cities known for the high educational attainment, Minneapolis-St. Paul and Seattle.

College graduates (city):

Seattle 57.9%
Minneapolis 47%
St. Paul 38.6%

College graduates (rest of MSA):

Minneapolis-St. Paul 37.9%
Seattle 33.8%

Share of college grads in city:

Seattle 28.9%
Minneapolis-St. Paul 21.5%

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Docere

Ivies weren't really that hard to get into until about half a century ago.

If you were a white male Protestant.

The last Ivy didn't admit women until the 70's, and there were informal and formal limits on Catholics and Jews until relatively recently. And racial minorities were barely present.

Jews, especially, were known to have hard quotas, as the schools feared being overwhelmed by the high-achieving children of first generation Jewish Americans.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If you were a white male Protestant.

The last Ivy didn't admit women until the 70's, and there were informal and formal limits on Catholics and Jews until relatively recently. And racial minorities were barely present.

Jews, especially, were known to have hard quotas, as the schools feared being overwhelmed by the high-achieving children of first generation Jewish Americans.

You're right, it was easy if you were a WASP male whose father had also gone to Harvard.

I should have been more specific: academics didn't matter much until the 1960s. It was all about having the right ethnicity, gender, class and connections!