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.
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.
Right, and it's also a type of a percentage still because it normalizes data across dissimilar sizes. Saying that raw numbers come in handy because you can calculate other things is avoiding the entire reason of why a percentage is better than a raw number for cities of dissimilar sizes. It's stating the obvious. It's like the next step up in math from stating that 2 + 2 = 4.
Last edited by marothisu; 05-06-2014 at 03:34 PM..
Right, and it's also a type of a percentage still because it normalizes data across dissimilar sizes. Saying that raw numbers come in handy because you can calculate other things is avoiding the entire reason of why a percentage is better than a raw number for cities of dissimilar sizes. It's stating the obvious. It's like the next step up in math from stating that 2 + 2 = 4.
Ughh...I hate city-data sometimes. The bias can be very strong here.
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
That's absolutely small numbers for NYC being there are 8 million people living in NYC. No wonder the percentages are low
That's absolutely small numbers for NYC being there are 8 million people living in NYC. No wonder the percentages are low
It's for people aged 25+ - so the sample size is NOT 8 million. It's out of 5.5 million people. I really wish the government counted by people aged 22+. NYC has 34% of its 25+ population at Bachelor's or above which puts it in the top 25 for cities with at least a population of 250,000.
Right, and it's also a type of a percentage still because it normalizes data across dissimilar sizes. Saying that raw numbers come in handy because you can calculate other things is avoiding the entire reason of why a percentage is better than a raw number for cities of dissimilar sizes. It's stating the obvious. It's like the next step up in math from stating that 2 + 2 = 4.
The problem I'm facing is the geographer in me sees another problem.
We can normalize the data to adjust for population size, but without looking at metro-area totals we aren't normalizing other patterns of human behavior to how cities are settled and function.
1) Where educated people choose to live in various regions will be different. (within a larger metro area)
2) The city size (and shape) relative to the whole region might reflect different groups of people.
If we made an exactly replica of the same city... City A and City B.
Let one have city limits in a 5 mile circle and city B have a 10 mile circle.
City B might include more blue collar workers further from the CBD.... or from a late 70s-early 90s logic City B would have less of the evil 'inner city' and be more educated.
Shape can cause the same issue. One problem Atlanta commonly has is when people try to use statistics from the 'core county' of a city. Fulton County is long and narrow. There is another county just a couple miles from Downtown Atlanta, yet go in another direction it can go for about 20 miles into rural areas. This makes it very hard to compare to a squared off county of similar size with the CBD in the very center
so Yimby is getting close to pointing out something real. They just quite aren't explaining it correctly or for the right reasons and would do good to be careful in this particular situation, because metro Atlanta is fairly well educated as a whole...although not the most in the country.
I still like the stats for explaining some things... It is showing more educated people are moving back into core cities and perhaps where this trend is more successful.
I'm not actually sure I understand how the OP got his numbers, at least not when he says the calculation is the difference between total population growth and growth in higher education. Difference with what?? If we used what he said: Population % change less education change, Columbus would be 19th, with +59.5%.
From a straight growth in population, aged 25+, with a bachelor's or higher, here are the actual 3-C numbers 1990-2012:
Cincinnati: 49,783 to 57,129. This is a growth of 14.8%.
Cleveland: 26,651 to 38,471. This is a growth of 44.4%.
Columbus: 94,664 to 177,354. This is a growht of 87.4%.
So yeah, the OP's numbers don't seem correct to me.
I'm not actually sure I understand how the OP got his numbers, at least not when he says the calculation is the difference between total population growth and growth in higher education. Difference with what?? If we used what he said: Population % change less education change, Columbus would be 19th, with +59.5%.
From a straight growth in population, aged 25+, with a bachelor's or higher, here are the actual 3-C numbers 1990-2012:
Cincinnati: 49,783 to 57,129. This is a growth of 14.8%.
Cleveland: 26,651 to 38,471. This is a growth of 44.4%.
Columbus: 94,664 to 177,354. This is a growht of 87.4%.
So yeah, the OP's numbers don't seem correct to me.
What you're calculating isn't exactly the same thing as what the OP is counting.
His numbers are catching something valuable, so long as it is taken in context.
Cleveland as a city overall shrunk during this period... a good bit.
The catch is, from your numbers the raw number of people 25+ with a bachelors degree increased. This means that a huge amount of people without a bachelor's degree left the city.
The important trend is the city is growing far more educated in the people it has. It isn't just that people with degree's are moving in, but they are outpacing the growth (or lack thereof) of other groups.
This is a part of the Renaissance happening to core cities across the US.
His statistics show how more likely you are to walk up to someone's door and find someone with a bachelor's degree, compared to if all groups grew equally.
What you're calculating isn't exactly the same thing as what the OP is counting.
His numbers are catching something valuable, so long as it is taken in context.
Cleveland as a city overall shrunk during this period... a good bit.
The catch is, from your numbers the raw number of people 25+ with a bachelors degree increased. This means that a huge amount of people without a bachelor's degree left the city.
The important trend is the city is growing far more educated in the people it has. It isn't just that people with degree's are moving in, but they are outpacing the growth (or lack thereof) of other groups.
This is a part of the Renaissance happening to core cities across the US.
His statistics show how more likely you are to walk up to someone's door and find someone with a bachelor's degree, compared to if all groups grew equally.
Yep, you understand the point...it's how fast the number of people with a bachelors or higher is outpacing the actual population growth because the number of people with bachelors or higher can be people who lived there in 1990. Hence getting more educated. With Chicago for example, the city's population is almost the same as it was in 1990 as 2012, but there's something like 250,000 more people in the city with a bachelors or higher today than in 1990. The question would be for any city - why? Were there a lot of younger people who now have bachelors? Did people move in? Did the industries shift to allow more for this? Was there a larger immigrant class in 1990 that wasn't educated but now their kids are? etc. It opens up a lot of questions. Also things like "What has the impact been of this?"
And to the poster not understanding where the data came from - it's simple census data. Take 1990s numbers for number of people with a bachelor's or higher and 2012's. Then take their overall populations - this is for the 5 year ACS. Then calculate both percent changes and subtract. Columbus on the list is 34th, not 19th.
Yep, you understand the point...it's how fast the number of people with a bachelors or higher is outpacing the actual population growth because the number of people with bachelors or higher can be people who lived there in 1990. Hence getting more educated. With Chicago for example, the city's population is almost the same as it was in 1990 as 2012, but there's something like 250,000 more people in the city with a bachelors or higher today than in 1990. The question would be for any city - why? Were there a lot of younger people who now have bachelors? Did people move in? Did the industries shift to allow more for this? Was there a larger immigrant class in 1990 that wasn't educated but now their kids are? etc. It opens up a lot of questions. Also things like "What has the impact been of this?"
And to the poster not understanding where the data came from - it's simple census data. Take 1990s numbers for number of people with a bachelor's or higher and 2012's. Then take their overall populations - this is for the 5 year ACS. Then calculate both percent changes and subtract. Columbus on the list is 34th, not 19th.
For Columbus using the formula you just gave:
1990 with bachelor's, 25+: 94,664
2012: 177,354
Total growth rate 1990-2012: +87.4%
Overall city population 1990: 632,910
2012: 809,798
Total growth rate: +27.9%
87.4-27.9= 59.5
59.5% is 19th on the list you provided.
These numbers were all taken directly from the census, and the 2012 from the ACS. So what numbers do you actually have?
Also curious why you used 5-year estimates rather than 1-year, which would only be for 2012.
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.
