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.
But I see that rank depends on what you're counting.
If you're counting the crème de la crème - the top 100 universities in the world - LA ties with London for top honors, with four apiece.
Expand this list to encompass the top 500, and it ties for 13th (or 7th, if you assign each tied city the same ranking) with eight other cities, including Philadelphia, each of which has four. London, with which LA tied for first in the top-100 ranking, remains first, but has 11 more top-500 schools.
On the top-500-schools-per-capita metric, it doesn't even rank in the top 12. Boston, the city that most consider America's premier college town, is the top US city on this score, outranked only by Stockholm and Melbourne.
LA's four top-100 schools are indeed world-class, but it seems to me that the higher-ed infrastructure is greater in other cities. I'd still say that Boston is our "world capital" of higher ed, based on the school-density metric. (Besides, this list only covers the elite global universities; it doesn't cover all higher-ed institutions, and the small colleges IMO matter too. LA has several top-ranked ones, granted, but other regions have even more.)
The smaller schools do matter. But even with that, LA’s education infrastructure is still formidable. I would argue even more so that its national universities because it has the consortium of Claremont colleges (Pomona #5, Claremont-McKenna #9, Harvey Mudd #18, Scripps #30, Pitzer #41: US News national liberal arts rankings), some more elite than UCLA. LA’s lot of dedicated fine art schools are also arguably the best in the country like Otis and CalArts, one thing lacking in Boston.
I'm not concerned with whether LA can outrank Boston or London, or how you interpret the rankings. (Expanding to total top 500, Boston isn’t even ranked. That doesn’t disprove Boston ). The point is that LA is a dominant globally recognized top-tier capital of knowledge/education, regardless of whether you make the case for Boston being #1. It disproves the “Hollywood” dominance argument any which way when seeing the wealth of great institutions that exist in LA.
LA has almost 1 million total students in higher education, 2nd largest only to NYC, so the higher-ed infrastructure is not greater in other cities. (Per capita, it’s higher than Boston as well).
The smaller schools do matter. But even with that, LA’s education infrastructure is still formidable. I would argue even more so that its national universities because it has the consortium of Claremont colleges (Pomona #5, Claremont-McKenna #9, Harvey Mudd #18, Scripps #30, Pitzer #41: US News national liberal arts rankings), some more elite than UCLA. LA’s lot of dedicated fine art schools are also arguably the best in the country like Otis and CalArts, one thing lacking in Boston.
I'm not concerned with whether LA can outrank Boston or London, or how you interpret the rankings. (Expanding to total top 500, Boston isn’t even ranked. That doesn’t disprove Boston ). The point is that LA is a dominant globally recognized top-tier capital of knowledge/education, regardless of whether you make the case for Boston being #1. It disproves the “Hollywood” dominance argument any which way when seeing the wealth of great institutions that exist in LA.
LA has almost 1 million total students in higher education, 2nd largest only to NYC, so the higher-ed infrastructure is not greater in other cities. (Per capita, it’s higher than Boston as well).
Your URL embeds aren't working. (Or they don't until they show up in quotes like the one above.)
But yes, the numbers make it clear that LA is one of the "world capitals" for higher ed.
However: Boston does have an art school, Massachusetts College of Art and Design (MassArt). It also has one of the few music schools in the country devoted to jazz education, Berklee College of Music.
Your URL embeds aren't working. (Or they don't until they show up in quotes like the one above.)
But yes, the numbers make it clear that LA is one of the "world capitals" for higher ed.
However: Boston does have an art school, Massachusetts College of Art and Design (MassArt). It also has one of the few music schools in the country devoted to jazz education, Berklee College of Music.
Postwar NYC and Chicago were essentially unrivaled in the world and the US back in 1950. Their influence, along with Boston and Philadelphia peaked around 1950 or before. Nowadays, places like Tokyo, London, Paris, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, etc. easily rival these cities. Postwar, most of these places were in ruins and rebuilding. Even American cities like LA and or SF/bay area rival NYC and Chicago.
So no, it isn't "garbage" just because you struggle to understand these cities in the context of the 1950s.
I think its more than safe to say that no other American city "rivals" New York, the only cities in the world that come close are London and Hong Kong...
And I do believe Chicagos general influence has decreased in the 21st century, but its still 100% a truly global city, but probably 3rd to LA at this point.
Your URL embeds aren't working. (Or they don't until they show up in quotes like the one above.)
But yes, the numbers make it clear that LA is one of the "world capitals" for higher ed.
However: Boston does have an art school, Massachusetts College of Art and Design (MassArt). It also has one of the few music schools in the country devoted to jazz education, Berklee College of Music.
Don’t forget Emerson! RISD isn’t far away either. In fact Boston and Providence are only a little farther away than Sun Valley and Long Beach, so PVD-area schools might as well be counted here.
Re: the conversation earlier about Philly and LA outranking Boston in terms of “top tier” schools - I’m assuming Harvard and MIT were the only ones put in that category? Are BU, BC, NU, and Tufts really so far below the top schools in LA and Philly? If so, then by what metrics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego
Chicago was not singled out. I specifically mentioned Philly, Boston, and NYC. And guess what? No crazy, delusional posters from the other three cities!
I wouldn’t call myself “crazy” or “delusional” but I did dispute your inclusion of Boston on that list, and you never responded.
And, heck, while I’m at it I’ll also dispute Philadelphia’s inclusion. The 50s may not have been as bad for Philly as they were for Boston since steel remained a viable industry longer than textiles. However, the city was declining or heading towards decline in the 50s and is now officially thriving again.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 04-22-2019 at 08:02 AM..
Huh, what are you talking about? I suggest you examine my previous posts. I joined the conversation by challenging why it may be [un]reasonable to have NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston on this list, in response to this post:
Again, not arguing that they are anywhere near the top, just saying that they are definitely worth considering/discussing. So no, I wasn't singling out Chicago.
I love Chicago. Easily in my top 3 American cities. But I'm not under the delusion that it somehow hasn't lost prominence as a global or national center.
No one is arguing Chicago isn't a high tiered, global city. If you actual read my argument, I mention that in the postwar era, NYC and Chicago were effectively unmatched in prominence as Europe, Asia, and Africa were struggling to rebuild and Latin America was going through revolutions. That is not the case today. It no longer has unrivaled status, domestically or globally.
No it absolutely was not "key" to my claim. A previous person added in a sidenote of "well Chicago also gained 4 million" since 1950, so I clarified that cities in Asia gained over 20 million (not that that matters per se).
Chicago was not singled out. I specifically mentioned Philly, Boston, and NYC. And guess what? No crazy, delusional posters from the other three cities!
You can call me crazy delusional. But NEVER that other Chicago defender. So case closed. I will merely defend that other poster now. Glad you say good things now. In a list of so many other cities. But few will rise past the rising Asian cities. Hopefully "The Big One" never hits LA to set things back. But a loooong time till the mid to later 21st century.
None of us knows the future that far. They still debate Climate change by then. Also we do not know if as one noted ..... the Great Lakes region will again be a migration region of the US by then?
I like this post recently posted in another CvC thread. Says a lot on so called stagnant very slow growth cities currently being lessened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
The thing about Philly is, similar to cities like Boston, NYC, and Chicago, it's a pretty slow population growth (or in the apparent case of Chicago and NYC, no or negative growth) region; however, like the other three, it continues to have a remarkably productive and diverse economy.
Consider that metro areas like Charlotte, Phoenix and Nashville are all seeing much faster population growth than the Philadelphia area, yet Philly's economic growth (as measured by raw GDP numbers) continues to eclipse all of them: https://www.bea.gov/system/files/201...etro0918_0.pdf
That's definitely not a characteristic of a major urban area that will become less influential/consequential. Philly is a "dark horse" when it comes to life sciences, higher education, and continues to gain traction with a critical mass of tech.
Admittedly, it's a city that almost epitomizes the expression "always the bride's maid, but never the bride" in industry "dominance" terms, but the fact that hasn't put all its eggs in one basket, has massively diversified and de-industrialized, and maintained a pretty significant population standing since the beginning of the country, demonstrates impressive staying power that greatly speaks to its resiliency as a city that very few other places truly possess.
It just still had to hit rock-bottom of every city service drastically cut. It still holding so much relevance then, had it clearly to bounce. But it took planning and investment back. Chicago was the fastest growing city in the world .... a very short time. NYC took over, over a century ago. But Chicago can THANK NYC for SENDING IT AL CAPONE......
...
From what I've heard Al Capone chose to live in Chicago himself because it fitted his ambitions for growing a criminal empire better than New York. To be fair, Chicago is improving a lot these days, just like New York has compared to the 70's. Chicago has been doing really well in crime statistics in recent years. There was an uptick in violent crime in 2016 and 2017 but overall Chicago is much safer now compared to the Cabrini green days from the late 90's.
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.
