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.
Ultimately, my tolerance for traffic in a large region like San Diego (3.4M) is a lot higher than one that is just above 2M.
So we're focusing a lot on traffic...but I much prefer commuting by transit (it's actually a requirement for me). I think Sacramento has a slight edge in this regard, although I think Austin has more momentum in improving its system.
Neither hold a candle to San Diego.
You enjoy taking transit, good for you. I have taken the subway or light rail in Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Paris, Munich, Vienna, NYC, Boston, DC, SF, San Diego, LA, Atlanta, Sacramento, and DFW. Mass transit works very well in the dense cities of Asia, Europe, and the Northeast. In sprawling San Diego or Sacramento? Not so much.
San Diego Trolley? Sacramento Light Rail? Honestly, both are slow and the stations are not conveniently located, not to mention most of the metro areas in either city have no rail system. Taking the bus is even slower. For the overwhelming majority of San Diego and Sacramento residents it's faster to drive across town on the freeways than to take the train, even during rush hour. They couldn't care less about the San Diego Trolley or Sacramento Light Rail or the bus systems.
But your other points are accepted. I can see why, even if San Diego traffic was truly as bad as Austin's, you would still prefer San Diego because it has a bigger population and you expect the traffic to go up with a bigger population. But face it, IF San Diego or Sacramento grew as fast as Austin, the infrastructure would struggle to catch up, and the traffic would be even worse than Austin today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego
You can find decent schools in both regions. But I'd rather have California curriculum than Texas curriculum.
Why? What makes the Texas curriculum bad? Because they didn't accept Common Core?
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego
Grade school students can take community college classes at basically $0 cost. The caliber of competition amongst CA schoolchildren for the best public universities is much higher. And the school system is more diverse, which matters to my family.
OK, you're saying that the top universities in CA are more competitive the top universities in Texas. Making it harder to get into a university is a good thing? Just because a university is harder to get into doesn't mean it offers a superior education.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,407 posts, read 6,537,276 times
Reputation: 6671
Good point....what seemingly were decent, but not the best or considered great, SUNY schools (NY state public universities) have become more difficult to get into than the Ivy's in recent years. Driving that decision for many, however, is cost.
My ultimate grade for a university is based on job placement, including a strong alumni connection....isn't that a reason many try to get in a better school in the first place--to increase one's job prospects and income (though some go to party and get laid, others for sports, others for scholarships etc etc). My highly touted school landed me my first job cross country, 2500 miles away, in part because my resume managed to find its way to the desk of a VP in my division who was an alumnus who eventually hired me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester
Making it harder to get into a university is a good thing? Just because a university is harder to get into doesn't mean it offers a superior education.
Texas has tried to rewrite school curriculum to be "postive" about the US instead of being truthful. I don't know where the religion-in-schools thing is right now, but the state is risky at best from that perspective.
You enjoy taking transit, good for you. I have taken the subway or light rail in Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Paris, Munich, Vienna, NYC, Boston, DC, SF, San Diego, LA, Atlanta, Sacramento, and DFW. Mass transit works very well in the dense cities of Asia, Europe, and the Northeast. In sprawling San Diego or Sacramento? Not so much.
San Diego Trolley? Sacramento Light Rail? Honestly, both are slow and the stations are not conveniently located, not to mention most of the metro areas in either city have no rail system. Taking the bus is even slower. For the overwhelming majority of San Diego and Sacramento residents it's faster to drive across town on the freeways than to take the train, even during rush hour. They couldn't care less about the San Diego Trolley or Sacramento Light Rail or the bus systems.
In fairness, unless you’re going a very short distance during the height of rush hour it’s always takes longer on a subway/light rail than it to drive no matter what city you’re in, even during rush hour. San Diego (and Sacramento) certainly isn’t unique in that department.
OK, you're saying that the top universities in CA are more competitive the top universities in Texas. Making it harder to get into a university is a good thing? Just because a university is harder to get into doesn't mean it offers a superior education.
Education is often secondary to getting into many of the popular schools - it is often more about "connections," "reputation," "value" (ie the starting salary of graduates), or "the experience" than the actual education part.
I suspect that for most undergraduate programs the actual "education" part is nearly identical.
Texas has tried to rewrite school curriculum to be "postive" about the US instead of being truthful. I don't know where the religion-in-schools thing is right now, but the state is risky at best from that perspective.
How could anybody like the Texas school curriculum? I mean, Lee Harvey Oswald worked at the Texas school Book Depository, for cryin' out loud!
Education is often secondary to getting into many of the popular schools - it is often more about "connections," "reputation," "value" (ie the starting salary of graduates), or "the experience" than the actual education part.
I suspect that for most undergraduate programs the actual "education" part is nearly identical.
I was an electrical engineering major, but my CS buddies tell me that at a less prestigious school, you'll be learning a lot more practical, hands-on skills, while at the more prestigious schools it's a lot of theory and math that prepares you for research. After all, academic "prestige" is mostly just another name for "highly research-oriented school."
So if your goal is going into industry rather than academia, the less prestigious school is often a better option.
But enough straying from the topic. I maintain that the most pretentious cities are the cities that have an inferiority complex--those cities that are in reality underwhelming but have an inflated ego of themselves and promote themselves because they think they're constantly in the shadow of another city.
There are cities that are huge and filled with world class amenities, like Dallas and Atlanta. There are cities that have a great hipster culture as well as a booming economy, like Denver and Seattle. These cities are understandably very proud of themselves. That's not pretentiousness, that's pride.
There are cities that are plain and quiet, nice places to live but not exactly a tourist destination and are happy to be just that, nice and low key (like Oklahoma City). These cities aren't pretentious at all--they're honest with themselves, that they're of a smaller size and therefore won't be a world class business/tourist destination city like Dallas, or even a national-class hipster city like Austin and Portland. Nor are they trying to be like Austin, Portland, or Dallas. They're comfortable in their own skin--they don't want to be an international destination city like Dallas or a hipster city like Portland. They want to be a small, low-key, affordable, family-friendly city.
Then there are cities that are even more lackluster than OKC despite being larger than OKC--and still try to sell themselves as a peer with Austin, Portland, Charlotte, etc. They keep griping about being overshadowed by a city that is three times as big as them. Now that's pretentiousness.
I was an electrical engineering major, but my CS buddies tell me that at a less prestigious school, you'll be learning a lot more practical, hands-on skills, while at the more prestigious schools it's a lot of theory and math that prepares you for research. After all, academic "prestige" is mostly just another name for "highly research-oriented school."
So if your goal is going into industry rather than academia, the less prestigious school is often a better option.
But enough straying from the topic. I maintain that the most pretentious cities are the cities that have an inferiority complex--those cities that are in reality underwhelming but have an inflated ego of themselves and promote themselves because they think they're constantly in the shadow of another city.
There are cities that are huge and filled with world class amenities, like Dallas and Atlanta. There are cities that have a great hipster culture as well as a booming economy, like Denver and Seattle. These cities are understandably very proud of themselves. That's not pretentiousness, that's pride.
There are cities that are plain and quiet, nice places to live but not exactly a tourist destination and are happy to be just that, nice and low key (like Oklahoma City). These cities aren't pretentious at all--they're honest with themselves, that they're of a smaller size and therefore won't be a world class business/tourist destination city like Dallas, or even a national-class hipster city like Austin and Portland. Nor are they trying to be like Austin, Portland, or Dallas. They're comfortable in their own skin--they don't want to be an international destination city like Dallas or a hipster city like Portland. They want to be a small, low-key, affordable, family-friendly city.
Then there are cities that are even more lackluster than OKC despite being larger than OKC--and still try to sell themselves as a peer with Austin, Portland, Charlotte, etc. They keep griping about being overshadowed by a city that is three times as big as them. Now that's pretentiousness.
So your argument is that Sacramento is the only pretentious city in the country--an assessment seemingly based solely on the posts of some folks from Sacramento here on C-D? Yeah that won't fly...and who from Sacramento hurt you?
So your argument is that Sacramento is the only pretentious city in the country--an assessment seemingly based solely on the posts of some folks from Sacramento here on C-D? Yeah that won't fly...and who from Sacramento hurt you?
No, I am simply saying Sacramento IS a pretentious city, but not the ONLY pretentious city. I'm sure that there are plenty of other cities out there that have an inferiority complex deep inside, are really nothing much, but then blindly promote themselves as being equal or even superior to bigger, more exciting cities.
I'm simply saying that pretentiousness is when you pretend to be something you're not. Usually, when you're nothing much but you pretend to be great.
And yes, I have lived in the Sacramento suburbs. I now live in OKC. OKC simply has a much more realistic and modest civic image of itself than Sacramento does.
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.
