Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, some of those liberal arts colleges, in both states, have a student body of about 10 students. That is an exaggeration, of course, but many of them are very small.
but highly prestigious; most are between 1,000 and 5,000; PA is a hot bed of exclusive and storied liberal arts and major universities
This also excludes many other quality insitutions in PA like Villanova, Duquense, Temple, Widener (A decent Law School), St Josephs, La Salle, etc. (I know there are additional schools in IL as well)
But on the college/university aspect PA is actually among the top in the US, honestly- that is no slight to IL but is another area where PA has strong roots, history, and a vast selection of very good schools
A year or 2 ago, US News and World Report's annual college publication included sections on different parts of the country, with sections like "Northeast," "West Coast," Midwest," and "Pennsylvania." I believe PA was the only state with its own dedicated section.
The city has sucked the rest of the state dry economically, and has a history of corruption. When people think of Illinois, they AUTOMATICALLY think of Chicago, and are quick to correlate all of it's problems with the rest of Illinois.
In all technicality, outside of the Chicago Metropolitan Area, Illinois is a completely different world. Without Chicago, Illinois would be a much less-populated place, true. But the other cities in the state would have had a much better chance at expanding without Chicago hogging all of the attention, jobs, and financing.
My point is, Chicago has a monopoly in Illinois, and the other cities never had a fighting chance.
People will probably say, "Without Chicago, Illinois would be nothing, being we hold the largest population, and economically carry the rest of the state."
My response? Given time, the situation would correct itself, and cities like Peoria, Springfield, and Champaign would eventually pick up the slack. Leaving a much more competitive environment. We never had a say in the matter, and never ASKED for Chicago to "carry us" like the other cities are freeloaders. Chicago took on that roll, and sucked the rest of the state dry.
The city has sucked the rest of the state dry economically, and has a history of corruption. When people think of Illinois, they AUTOMATICALLY think of Chicago, and are quick to correlate all of it's problems with the rest of Illinois.
In all technicality, outside of the Chicago Metropolitan Area, Illinois is a completely different world. Without Chicago, Illinois would be a much less-populated place, true. But the other cities in the state would have had a much better chance at expanding without Chicago hogging all of the attention, jobs, and financing.
My point is, Chicago has a monopoly in Illinois, and the other cities never had a fighting chance.
People will probably say, "Without Chicago, Illinois would be nothing, being we hold the largest population, and economically carry the rest of the state."
My response? Given time, the situation would correct itself, and cities like Peoria, Springfield, and Champaign would eventually pick up the slack. Leaving a much more competitive environment. We never had a say in the matter, and never ASKED for Chicago to "carry us" like the other cities are freeloaders. Chicago took on that roll, and sucked the rest of the state dry.
Yeah and we don't want you either.
But its not like we can split apart.
We care more about hammond, gary, racine, milwuakee then we do about peoria, springfield, or champaign.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,519,366 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhj867
The city has sucked the rest of the state dry economically, and has a history of corruption. When people think of Illinois, they AUTOMATICALLY think of Chicago, and are quick to correlate all of it's problems with the rest of Illinois.
In all technicality, outside of the Chicago Metropolitan Area, Illinois is a completely different world. Without Chicago, Illinois would be a much less-populated place, true. But the other cities in the state would have had a much better chance at expanding without Chicago hogging all of the attention, jobs, and financing.
My point is, Chicago has a monopoly in Illinois, and the other cities never had a fighting chance.
People will probably say, "Without Chicago, Illinois would be nothing, being we hold the largest population, and economically carry the rest of the state."
My response? Given time, the situation would correct itself, and cities like Peoria, Springfield, and Champaign would eventually pick up the slack. Leaving a much more competitive environment. We never had a say in the matter, and never ASKED for Chicago to "carry us" like the other cities are freeloaders. Chicago took on that roll, and sucked the rest of the state dry.
Can't you say the same about NYC and upstate NY? How about St. Louis or Seattle with their respective states? There are a lot of states with one major city that dwarfs the rest in the state.
Can't you say the same about NYC and upstate NY? How about St. Louis or Seattle with their respective states? There are a lot of states with one major city that dwarfs the rest in the state.
Missouri has Kansas City in the western part which has more population than the city of St. Louis.
Yeah and we don't want you either.
But its not like we can split apart.
We care more about hammond, gary, racine, milwuakee then we do about peoria, springfield, or champaign.
bye. We care more about St. Louis, Evansville, Nashville, and Indianapolis more than we care about Chicago.
And there is something that can be done about it. This is the United States, we live in a democracy. vote for it. If enough people vote for it. I'm sure there would be a way to split the state in two.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,519,366 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradjl2009
Missouri has Kansas City in the western part which has more population than the city of St. Louis.
but certainly STL hogs the attention. I'm just confused as to why you think Chicago brings down Illinois, when I (and most people I would assume) think the absolute opposite.
but certainly STL hogs the attention. I'm just confused as to why you think Chicago brings down Illinois, when I (and most people I would assume) think the absolute opposite.
Have you ever been to the rest of the state? It's depressing really. Economically. Chicago is NOT an asset. More like a giant zit, that feeds us money, and won't go away.
It's like living at home with your parents because you have no other choice. Given the opportunity I'm sure we would tell Chicago to go take a hike. (Or we would take the hike) Either way, we want no affiliation with the place.
Residents of southern Illinois feel ignored politically and economically, which is the drawback to having the third largest city in the nation in the northern end of your state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
bye. We care more about St. Louis, Evansville, Nashville, and Indianapolis more than we care about Chicago.
