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.
So, this list celebrates cities whose growth in college educated adults was fastest? That's an interesting metric but it discounts many metros whose %'s of such adults were already high in 1990. I see that DC and Boston didn't make the top 20 but they clearly at the top of the list of the most educated cities in that nation. The same is true for Raleigh, which isn't reported on any of your lists here.
No, it's not "celebrating" anything. It's merely showing data and it's about fastest growing relative to population change. It doesn't even matter how high something was to begin with. It doesn't have to do with new residents being added that have bachelor's. It's anybody. That's the important part. If you were 10 years old in DC and lived there, got your bachelor's, then while you specifically did not cause the population to change, you did contribute to an increase in the number of people with Bachelor's or higher.
Also, how's it not showing cities that were already high to begin with? Austin is in the top 10 and has a population with almost 45% bachelor's or higher, which is higher than Boston's. 3 of the top 10 cities on the list are above 40% and another 3 in the 11-20 range are too. San Francisco and Seattle are both in the top 20 and both have over 50% bachelors or higher. DC is barely outside of the top 20. Austin, Seattle, and San Francisco all had higher bachelors or higher percentages in 1990 than both Boston and DC and are still in the top 20.
obviously it doesn't take into account people who are already in the cities, and obviously will be skewed in favor smaller cities
Actually it does take that into account. It's percent change in people with a bachelor's degree or higher from 1990 to 2012 minus population percent change from 1990 to 2012. If you were 10 years old in 1990, you wouldn't be counted in the bachelor's or higher realm, but you would be counted for population. However, in 2012 if you did have a bachelor's or higher, you'd still be counted in population, but you'd newly be counted in the bachelor's or higher crowd.
It takes into account everyone who has a bachelor's degree whether they lived there in 1990 or they didn't. It's measuring the change relative to population change. So if the increase of your "educated class" was slower than that of your overall population change, then you'd see a negative number which only happened in one city. It's really showing which cities are outpacing population growth with that "educated class."
Quote:
Marothisu can correct me if I'm wrong but I think he was trying to measure how sharply cities were shifting from blue collar to white collar. Cities that are already mostly white collar really don't have that much room to grow.
Well, I wasn't originally trying to show anything other than "this is interesting...look at these cities that are changing," but after looking at the data, you could say that it's a good indicator of that possibly..or a shift in industries the economy relies most on in each city or a particular industry possibly getting a lot larger.
Also similarly, you could take the raw difference in number of people with bachelors (2012 versus 1990) and divide by total population change (absolute value of everything) and you'd get this which may be a better indicator now that I think of it
1. Washington DC - 67.93
2. Newark, NJ - 6.196
3. Chicago, IL - 3.177
4. Minneapolis, MN - 2.438
5. Atlanta, GA - 2.024
6. Oakland, CA - 1.793
7. San Francisco, CA - 1.636
8. St. Paul, MN - 1.455
9. Boston, MA - 1.385
10. Kansas City, MO - 1.279
11. Philadelphia, PA - 1.202
12. Seattle, WA - 1.162
13. New York, NY - 0.878
14. Los Angeles, CA - 0.843
15. Little Rock, AR - 0.82
16. San Diego, CA - 0.749
17. Memphis, TN - 0.722
18. Virginia Beach, VA - 0.714
19. Portland, OR - 0.691
20. Nashville, TN - 0.664
People underestimate how educated Atlanta is as a city...If I can recall from the 2010 census, 47% of Atlanta had bachelor degrees or higher. For context, Boston was at 43% and is known as an educated city. SF and D.C. are around 55% and 52% respectievly and NYC is at 34%.
People underestimate how educated Atlanta is as a city...If I can recall from the 2010 census, 47% of Atlanta had bachelor degrees or higher. For context, Boston was at 43% and is known as an educated city. SF and D.C. are around 55% and 52% respectievly and NYC is at 34%.
Well, obviously the city of Atlanta is going to have the higher percentage - it's quite a bit smaller than the other cities you mention. Furthermore, the fact that it's the core of a major metropolitan area helps.
If you look at the actual number of people with a bachelor degree or higher, it would look a bit different:
New York City - 1,976,589
San Francisco - 345,608
Washington D.C. - 232,791
Boston - 179,975
Atlanta - 140,232
People underestimate how educated Atlanta is as a city...If I can recall from the 2010 census, 47% of Atlanta had bachelor degrees or higher. For context, Boston was at 43% and is known as an educated city. SF and D.C. are around 55% and 52% respectievly and NYC is at 34%.
Yeah, I know I did until I was collecting this data. Even back in 1990 it was more educated than you'd think. In the end though, Atlanta has some great universities in the area including Emory, which is one of the tops in the entire country.
Well, obviously the city of Atlanta is going to have the higher percentage - it's quite a bit smaller than the other cities you mention. Furthermore, the fact that it's the core of a major metropolitan area helps.
If you look at the actual number of people with a bachelor degree or higher, it would look a bit different:
New York City - 1,976,589
San Francisco - 345,608
Washington D.C. - 232,791
Boston - 179,975
Atlanta - 140,232
source: 2012 ACS
Well, stats don't go by raw numbers...they generally go by percentage due to different city populations and municipal city limits.
I don't see NYC as being more educated than D.C. or SF because it has higher raw numbers(when it's population is much much higher).
Well, obviously the city of Atlanta is going to have the higher percentage - it's quite a bit smaller than the other cities you mention. Furthermore, the fact that it's the core of a major metropolitan area helps.
If you look at the actual number of people with a bachelor degree or higher, it would look a bit different:
New York City - 1,976,589
San Francisco - 345,608
Washington D.C. - 232,791
Boston - 179,975
Atlanta - 140,232
source: 2012 ACS
* Los Angeles - 770,427
* Chicago - 598,780
* Houston - 384,308
* San Diego - 355,125
* Phoenix - 232,619
* Philadelphia - 227,799
* Dallas - 220,939
* San Antonio - 199,288
Regardless, percentages are more important than raw numbers. It's like saying yes, there's a lot of ____ people here, but where are you more likely to run into those people?
I don't see NYC as being more educated than D.C. or SF because it has higher raw numbers(when it's population is much much higher).
It's pretty much a given that NYC is more educated than the vast majority of US cities, including SF and DC. After all, a city can't hit the status of an NYC, London, etc... by being full of people with high school diplomas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
Regardless, percentages are more important than raw numbers. It's like saying yes, there's a lot of ____ people here, but where are you more likely to run into those people?
Right, but raw numbers come in handy too. For instance, one can use them to find out how many people with a bachelor's degree or higher there are per square mile.
Using the above cities:
San Francisco: 7,374
New York City: 6,485
Washington D.C.: 3,791
Boston: 3,717
Atlanta: 1,064
Right, but raw numbers come in handy too. For instance, one can use them to find out how many people with a bachelor's degree or higher there are per square mile.
Using the above cities:
San Francisco: 7,374
New York City: 6,485
Washington D.C.: 3,791
Boston: 3,717
Atlanta: 1,064
This would give an edge to dense cities. You can easily just as much as say that there are a lot of uneducated people per square mile in NYC too.
Stop trying to twist everything into an anti-Atlanta bias.
Even if 100% of Atlanta city population were educated, it would still be less than NYC simply due to a lower population.
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.
