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.
Don't you think it's a bit pretentious to outright pat yourself on the back. There is a divide...people are lumping DC/SF in one prestige bucket and others are lumping LA in the other. Me calling that out is not outright calling people dumb or pretentious for doing so. I'm with some posters that seem to define prestige a little differently and therefore believe that SF/DC are more prestigious cities. You're clearly in the other camp.
How very binary of you. Other possibilities exist and you know it. Or at least you should.
See the problem with this thread is that there's so subjectivity behind the idea of "prestige" that almost everyone is arguing in circles in what they consider prestigious.
The dictionary definition of prestige "widespread respect and admiration felt for someone or something on the basis of a perception of their achievements or quality" is LOADED with subjective terms.
Pretending there's some universal quality behind it, when there clearly isn't, is dumb.
But then again, this is City vs. City, and anyone will argue over anything. I didn't realize, for example, that a big airport was that big of a deal. To me, when I travel, I don't even think about what airport I'm in. I'm just there to get in and get out.
Exactly. Someone mentioned Firefighters/Cops as prestigious jobs which stuck out as odd to me.
Well respected/admired in society? Sure, but not "prestigious". Most Cops/Firefighters are very blue collar, and whether good or bad "prestigious" to me connotes exclusivity, which civil service jobs are not.
Some seem to be bending the common definition to make it less superficial than it is. It is what it is. Money helps create exclusivity.
See the problem with this thread is that there's so subjectivity behind the idea of "prestige" that almost everyone is arguing in circles in what they consider prestigious.
The dictionary definition of prestige "widespread respect and admiration felt for someone or something on the basis of a perception of their achievements or quality" is LOADED with subjective terms.
Pretending there's some universal quality behind it, when there clearly isn't, is dumb.
But then again, this is City vs. City, and anyone will argue over anything. I didn't realize, for example, that a big airport was that big of a deal. To me, when I travel, I don't even think about what airport I'm in. I'm just there to get in and get out.
So it’s your contention “elites”, as only you define them, are drawn almost exclusively to that classic model and generally eschew the other. That requires a couple leaps.
The amount of energy people are dedicating toward justifying their subjective conceptions of something as ambiguous as “prestige” is staggering. Assume you know nothing about a cardiologist other than he/she owns a home in Malibu. Do you have any less regard for that person’s professional expertise than if he/she were to live in any place in the Bay Area?
Elites only live in compact, boutique cities. Didn't you know? They avoid places like London and Tokyo like the plague. Nothing but plebes in those places.
He's also really stretching the truth (to put it kindly) about the distance between places in LA. The "weekend trip" as he calls it from DTLA to Santa Monica is a commute that my wife makes every day in 35 minutes during rush hour. Off-peak its 15-20 minutes, and in a few months when they Expo line opens you'll be able to do it by train in 30.
City-Data is majority Non-Hispanic White, City-versus-City section of the forum has even more scarce diversity among its posters as there are barely any women, barely any Pacific Islanders, barely any Latinos, barely any Asians, almost close to zero people actually from Africa (not saying none but very very few). City-versus-City actually skews just as much LGBT as it does straight, so there is that as a diversity component at least, otherwise it has almost next to nothing going for it in regards to diversity.
So my thing is, if you've ever been one of those "look at the poll results" or "we feel confident this is what people think in the real world because City-Data skews that way" types, then I am sorry, you're basing your thoughts off something incomplete in every thread.
You cannot really have a world opinion on something when only a small subset of the world's composition is present to even voice their opinions on here and that subset doesn't add up to a microcosm of the world's variety and diversity of people. I am just saying.
To put it another way: do you think the same non-New York/London/Paris/Tokyo cities will automatically win polls if we just threw in 100 more women than currently exist? 100 more Latinos, 100 more Asians, 100 more Africans, so on and so forth? No.
Elites only live in compact, boutique cities. Didn't you know? They avoid places like London and Tokyo like the plague. Nothing but plebes in those places.
He's also really stretching the truth (to put it kindly) about the distance between places in LA. The "weekend trip" as he calls it from DTLA to Santa Monica is a commute that my wife makes every day in 35 minutes during rush hour. Off-peak its 15-20 minutes, and in a few months when they Expo line opens you'll be able to do it by train in 30.
Yeah, that sherpa to SaMo comment was revealing. Squeeze all into 2 buckets, by any means necessary.
So it’s your contention “elites”, as only you define them, are drawn almost exclusively to that classic model and generally eschew the other.
Well, based on the habits of Ivy League Graduates and other top schools, YES actually.
Top 3 City Concentrations of Alumni
As a permanent residence, they clearly prefer fabulous urban environment they can walk around in and ENJOY, over spread out megalopolises that require one to sit in hours of traffic just to go to the beach and back home.
Quote:
The amount of energy people are dedicating toward justifying their subjective conceptions of something as ambiguous as “prestige” is staggering.
To put it another way: do you think the same non-New York/London/Paris/Tokyo cities will automatically win polls if we just threw in 100 more women than currently exist? 100 more Latinos, 100 more Asians, 100 more Africans, so on and so forth? No.
Obviously yes, they would come to the same conclusions.
To assume otherwise is to assume that women or nonwhites are somehow less objective than others.
I don't know where this chart came from, but it's wrong.
I attended one of these universities, and that isn't the order for that university. I think it can be safely discarded as nonsense.
Montclair, did you just fabricate that list? I suspect you did.
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.
They avoid places like London and Tokyo like the plague. Nothing but plebes in those places.
