BusinessWeek: Best Places to Raise Your Kids, 2007... (low crime, good schools)

[kamoshika]

I always take these lists w/ a grain of salt, but FWIW...

The 50 most kid-friendly small towns and suburbs in the U.S.—where crime rates and cost of living are low, and schools, test scores, and cultural activities are high.

The results spanned the country: 11 places in Nebraska, seven in both Illinois and Ohio; six in New York; four in Tennessee; three in Michigan; two apiece in Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas; and one each in Alabama, Mississippi, and Oregon.
Best Places to Raise Your Kids, 2007 - BusinessWeek

[gemkeeper]

Very interesting, kamoshika. Some were not surprising, like all of the Illinois towns close to Chicago. But, others, particularly Nebraska, I would never have figured.

I think that enough research goes into these surveys and reports that they do earn some credibility. But, as you said, you must take them with a grain of salt.

[jsherman9901]

Originally Posted by kamoshika

I always take these lists w/ a grain of salt, but FWIW...

The 50 most kid-friendly small towns and suburbs in the U.S.—where crime rates and cost of living are low, and schools, test scores, and cultural activities are high.

The results spanned the country: 11 places in Nebraska, seven in both Illinois and Ohio; six in New York; four in Tennessee; three in Michigan; two apiece in Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas; and one each in Alabama, Mississippi, and Oregon.

These lists are about as useful as teats on a boar hog. There is an obvious bias toward Nebraska (wonder if the writer is from there) and, to have Ackerman, MS on the list ....... has anyone ever been to Ackerman???? I have. About the only thing Ackerman has going for it is the cost of living; but *cultural* activities, hahahahaha!!!!!

And why put some of these little bitty towns on a list like this if there are no JOBS for the parents???? It's not like anyone can up and move to some of these places unless they are retired or independently wealthy. Sheesh!!!

[Steve_W]

It is measuring population and income versus the cities cost of living, test scores, recreation/culture, schools and crime.

Kind of simple numbers if you ask me...I don't think the numbers are going to change depending on where the writer is from.

I'm not saying I agree with the rankings, but I think they are accurate from what they take into account.

Low crime, great cost of living and good schools... why is that so bad? Is it because there is no black people or mountains nearby?

[jsherman9901]

Originally Posted by Steve_W

Low crime, great cost of living and good schools... why is that so bad? Is it because there is no black people or mountains nearby?

That is a pretty ridiculous statement. Are you a racist?

These lists are totally meaningless, except for making the residents of the named towns beat their chests and proclaim how wonderful they are. If these publications listed places where people could actually go and make a living, then that might be somewhat helpful (at least until so many people moved there that it was no longer pleasant).

My brother has used lists like these for years to wander around the country searching for utopia. Funny thing is, when he would get to a new town, after living there a year or two, he would discover that it was not at all what it was represented to be; statistics had been skewed or fudged, things that weren't even measured for the survey began rearing their ugly heads, and so forth.

If people would stop searching for heaven on earth, and instead concentrate on improving the place they live now (by getting involved), now that would be something worth writing about.

[gemkeeper]

Originally Posted by jsherman9901

That is a pretty ridiculous statement. Are you a racist?

These lists are totally meaningless, except for making the residents of the named towns beat their chests and proclaim how wonderful they are. If these publications listed places where people could actually go and make a living, then that might be somewhat helpful (at least until so many people moved there that it was no longer pleasant).

If people would stop searching for heaven on earth, and instead concentrate on improving the place they live now (by getting involved), now that would be something worth writing about.

These lists do serve a purpose. They inform people of the value of an area based on the explicit criteria. If there is some criteria that you feel is lacking - go read another report or don't check them at all.

To imply that someone is racist based on a sarcastic remark is a bit unfair.

If you want to know where the jobs are and where you can make a good living, then go to an economic review survey to tell you the best place to live.

The article is interesting, it was good of kamoshika to share it with us, and we are not out to hang someone because we don't like what the survey shows!!

[jsherman9901]

Originally Posted by gemthornton

These lists do serve a purpose. They inform people of the value of an area based on the explicit criteria. If there is some criteria that you feel is lacking - go read another report or don't check them at all.

To imply that someone is racist based on a sarcastic remark is a bit unfair.

If you want to know where the jobs are and where you can make a good living, then go to an economic review survey to tell you the best place to live.

The article is interesting, it was good of kamoshika to share it with us, and we are not out to hang someone because we don't like what the survey shows!!

Sure, the lists serve a purpose; they sell magazines and newspapers and give jobs to a handful of people.

Why do you think I'm out to hang someone? Don't you think *that* is a bit "unfair"? I personally couldn't give two bits about what towns are glorified by some so-called "study"; I'm not jealous, my children are long out of the nest.

My entire point is that these articles are misleading and relatively useless. The information contained in them is of little practical value, not unlike college football rankings. The title "best places to raise kids" is both misleading and subjective; the "statisticians" left out some key elements --- drug usage, teen pregnancy rate, percentage of two-parent households, percentage of kids going on to college, and so forth.

If you want to hang on every word that you read in the survey, be my guest. If you also decide to up and move to Whistlestop, Nebraska, then all I can say is, "best of luck"

[Steve_W]

Originally Posted by jsherman9901

That is a pretty ridiculous statement. Are you a racist?

These lists are totally meaningless, except for making the residents of the named towns beat their chests and proclaim how wonderful they are. If these publications listed places where people could actually go and make a living, then that might be somewhat helpful (at least until so many people moved there that it was no longer pleasant).

My brother has used lists like these for years to wander around the country searching for utopia. Funny thing is, when he would get to a new town, after living there a year or two, he would discover that it was not at all what it was represented to be; statistics had been skewed or fudged, things that weren't even measured for the survey began rearing their ugly heads, and so forth.

If people would stop searching for heaven on earth, and instead concentrate on improving the place they live now (by getting involved), now that would be something worth writing about.

Racist? I was being sarcastic regarding many peoples views of "culture". Many people feel to have culture you have to be diverse. They also label communities which aren't diverse as racist. I think you need to look up the definition if culture. Being white doesn’t mean someone has no culture or is uncultured.

I'm going to go out on a limb here; you are probably one of the "many"?

By the way, I can point out many absurd statements you made but I’m just too choked up about your brother's heart wrenching story about his search for utopia. Was he looking for a land of rainbows and purple Teletubies?

One more thing, were you using a Tarzan reference? lol...good one =-/

[Steve_W]

Originally Posted by jsherman9901

Sure, the lists serve a purpose; they sell magazines and newspapers and give jobs to a handful of people.

Why do you think I'm out to hang someone? Don't you think *that* is a bit "unfair"? I personally couldn't give two bits about what towns are glorified by some so-called "study"; I'm not jealous, my children are long out of the nest.

My entire point is that these articles are misleading and relatively useless. The information contained in them is of little practical value, not unlike college football rankings. The title "best places to raise kids" is both misleading and subjective; the "statisticians" left out some key elements --- drug usage, teen pregnancy rate, percentage of two-parent households, percentage of kids going on to college, and so forth.

If you want to hang on every word that you read in the survey, be my guest. If you also decide to up and move to Whistlestop, Nebraska, then all I can say is, "best of luck"

I'm guessing students with top notch grades aren't the ones who are pregnant smoking crack.

Also, I am failing to draw a link between the best place to raise my kids and a community with one parent households. Oh, I get it, one parent households are a sign of low class dirtbags? That would make 51% of the US population low class.

You are struggling here dude.

Now I will agree with you slightly, I would never raise a family in a tiny little town just because crime is low and schools are good. If you want a valid argument you should be using the word ‘opportunity’. Many of those towns in that article do lack career opportunity. Your Welcome!

[LauraC]

The issue with many rankings (not just where to live) is 2000 census data. Because the census is only taken every 10 years, the closer it gets to the next census the greater the chances of the results being out of date.

Examples: Think about the growth that has occurred in East Tennessee since the 2000 census. Think of the impact of illegal immigration since the 2000 census.