Interesting new study on college-age migration to cities...

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by lurtsman

Interesting article, flawed methodology.

By making the magnet classification trump the sunbelt classification, they were able to redefine the most appealing sunbelt cities as magnet cities, which in turns skews the results. Both Austin, TX, and Denver, CO are properly sunbelt cities, though they might ALSO be magnet cities. To remove them from the list of sunbelt cities creates an unfair juxtaposition.

Further, by looking at growth in terms of the city compared to the state, they have absurdly removed the individuals preference for a certain state. Thus even if a city is growing rapidly, it must be outpacing the rest of the state in order to score higher in this report. This is a dramatic failure compared to using the country as a whole or the other cities as reference points. Comparing each city to the state in which it is located has caused each city to be graded on a different curve.

The people preparing this study should have gone back to school to learn more about proper research methods. I was very interested in the topic, but their poor organization and misrepresentation of the data has created a study that is entirely useless for analysis.

It's true that Austin, and to a lesser extent Denver, are Sun Belt cities. But many of the "Magnet Cities" had a past history as part of the Rust Belt (e.g., Chicago, Brooklyn, even Boston). I think the categories in general were problematic. They should not have started out with lists, but just picked all cities over a certain size and applied the same metrics to them.

I also agree that the statewide comparison was unwieldy. Perhaps a better way to do it would have been to:

1. Measure the percentage of the city population which is college-educated within each of the age brackets for 2000 and 2012. Report back the change.

2. Come up with a ratio which compares growth in these college-educated demographics to the overall growth (or decline) for a given city over the same time period.

[BradPiff]

Originally Posted by s1alker

Big cities are where the good jobs are. A college degree is practically useless if you're going to live in a rural area or small town. Also, millennial generally don't want long commutes and they like the amenities that the big city provides. There are a lot more things to do, more socialization options with a diverse population of people, etc. I hated living in a small town. There was only one "track" of people, in which if you didn't fit in forget about making friends. If you weren't an outdoors type there wasn't anything to do, nothing but lousy chain stores and restaurants, etc.

Pretty much this

[Attrill]

While I wish this study was useful, sadly I don't think it is. It is comparing areas that are as small as 50 square miles to areas as large as 500 square miles. It is comparing growth to state numbers instead of national numbers, which would allow for a true head to head comparison.

[BradPiff]

Milennials dont care for the 3 kids, white picket fence, suburban life their parents and grandparents had. They want to live in the big cities were the well paying jobs and nightlife are. If they can't live in the city they'll go to those rapidly gentrifying areas outside it with easy commute. Harlem and brooklyn in NYC are perfect examples

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by BradPiff

Milennials dont care for the 3 kids, white picket fence, suburban life their parents and grandparents had. They want to live in the big cities were the well paying jobs and nightlife are. If they can't live in the city they'll go to those rapidly gentrifying areas outside it with easy commute. Harlem and brooklyn in NYC are perfect examples

I'm a millennial and I disagree (and reside in a bedroom community with my 3 kids)-- but we are (rightfully so) the self-absorbed/selfie generation so not surprising. Most of "us" will grow up someday though.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by BradPiff

Milennials dont care for the 3 kids, white picket fence, suburban life their parents and grandparents had. They want to live in the big cities were the well paying jobs and nightlife are. If they can't live in the city they'll go to those rapidly gentrifying areas outside it with easy commute. Harlem and brooklyn in NYC are perfect examples

A more accurate thing to say is:

"Fewer Milennials want the 3 kids, white picket fence, suburban life that their parents and grandparents had"

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

we are (rightfully so) the self-absorbed/selfie generation so not surprising. Most of "us" will grow up someday though.

I don't see living in an urban setting as having anything at all to do with selfishness or immaturity. It's convenience and wanting to have more opportunities of all sorts for both yourself and your kids.

[BradPiff]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

I'm a millennial and I disagree (and reside in a bedroom community with my 3 kids)-- but we are (rightfully so) the self-absorbed/selfie generation so not surprising. Most of "us" will grow up someday though.

Are you implying that if you're not married with kids you are somehow immature?

[Malloric]

It's kind of nonsensical though, isn't it.

San Francisco has a 400% over-representation of 25-34, 250% over-representation of 35-44, 150% of 45-65+. That's kind of interesting seeing as how it's completely impossible.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Malloric

It's kind of nonsensical though, isn't it.

San Francisco has a 400% over-representation of 25-34, 250% over-representation of 35-44, 150% of 45-65+. That's kind of interesting seeing as how it's completely impossible.

Yeah, it's pretty crazy. I think it may be possible because of how they are comparing city numbers to state numbers. Using state numbers is a bad idea to begin with, but becomes ludicrous when you consider that Phoenix accounts for over 20% of the population of AZ, and SF accounts for about 2-3% of the population of CA.