After New York, which city has the most prestige? (live, largest, America)
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.
haha it has no buyer sweetie, LA has had a ton of $100M home listings but only 1 has ever sold for that much. The rest only sold after they chopped the price by tens of millions. LMAO.
Anyway, back to this:
Nobel Laureates by University Affiliation
Harvard 157
Columbia 101
Cambridge(UK) 91
Chicago 91
MIT 85 UC Berkeley 70
Oxford 64 Stanford 60
Yale 52
University of Paris 51
Cornell 50
Georg August University of Gottingen 47
Heidelberg 42
Princeton 41
Humboldt(Germany) 40
NYU 36
Johns Hopkins 36
Ludwig Maxmilians U. Munich 35 Cal Tech 35
U College London 32
ETH Zurich 32
U Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 30
Pennsylvania 28
Manchester 25
Rockefeller 24
Minnesota 23
Washington U St Louis 23
Michigan 22
Carnegie Mellon 21
Zurich 21
UC San Diego 21
Wisconsin 20
Edinburgh 20
Technical U of Munich 20
Alright let's just look at the big picture. The Bay Area, post The Great Recession, has definitely been the leading driver in CA's economic health. LA was late to the game when it came to recovery and still has a ways to go before catching up. A tech burst is inevitable given the current status of the industry and time will tell how big of an impact it will have. Luckily for the stock market, most of these big "Unicorns" (Start ups valued at $1B or more, such as Uber and Snapchat), have not been made public and it will likely only affect the companies themselves rather than creating a big enough worldwide economic downturn. Regardless, it will come with the loss of thousands of high paying jobs the Bay Area has recently become well known for.
This is where 18Montclair is right, regardless of how bratty his comments are. Now let's see where he is wrong. He says that LA has been on a steady decline for 40 years. Gimme a break. In the 80's, LA was a boomtown recieving huge federal and privatized funding for its defense industry. Hollywood, since we just love talking about it, peaked in the late 90's just before the first tech bubble burst.
In reality, the Bay Area has done a great job at leading CA's recovery since 2008. But it's a very recent trend, no matter how big it's become so quickly. Montclair is correct about present times but his view of the future is extremely overconfident and a little delusional.
Please gtfoh with this nonsense. Cal Tech only has 2,000 students.(LMAO), only 1,000 are undergrad.
Berkeley has 37,000 students and Stanford has 15,000 students.
It's somewhat embarrassing that you would try to pass off this 'per capita' ranking as if Cal Tech were a big school and thus a per capita ranking would actually be impressive.
In reality, the Bay Area has done a great job at leading CA's recovery since 2008. But it's a very recent trend, no matter how big it's become so quickly. Montclair is correct about present times but his view of the future is extremely overconfident and a little delusional.
Absolutely Incorrect.
The Bay Area has been in the economic driver's seat of this state for 40 years, while Los Angeles has actually lost it's competitive edge and today is just lumbering along expanding almost solely due to the natural affects of population growth, but NOT due to actual innovation or growth in industry.
This is not a new phenomenon and DEFINITELY didnt just happen post-recession. LOL, No Señor.
The Bay Area has been in the economic driver's seat of this state for 40 years, while Los Angeles has actually lost it's competitive edge and today is just lumbering along expanding almost solely due to the natural affects of population growth, but NOT due to actual innovation or growth in industry.
This is not a new phenomenon and DEFINITELY didnt just happen post-recession. LOL, No Señor.
Mmmmm. No. Show me a non-opinionated, factual article that serves this point of yours that it goes back that far.
Please gtfoh with this nonsense. Cal Tech only has 2,000 students.(LMAO), only 1,000 are undergrad.
Berkeley has 37,000 students and Stanford has 15,000 students.
It's somewhat embarrassing that you would try to pass off this 'per capita' ranking as if Cal Tech were a big school and thus a per capita ranking would actually be impressive.
You, of all people, are suddenly discounting per capita analysis? Particularly when it's offered to interpret something as subjective as "prestige"?
Mmmmm. No. Show me a non-opinionated, factual article that serves this point of yours that it goes back that far.
Hello?
This article is called: "Why the Bay Area Prospered and Los Angeles Stagnated" and takes a look at LA's 40 year spiral into the low skilled, low wage megalopolis it has devolved into. This story has been reported on in dozens of major news publications including the Los Angeles Times.
All in all, the Bay Area is an example of how a region successfully enters the New Economy, while LA—the star economy among U.S. regions for nearly 70 years in the 20th century—did much worse than its northern neighbor.
So about 40 years ago, Los Angeles' economic movers and shakers lost sight of the future and let it slip away in favor of outdated business models that eventually led to LA losing it's once gigantic aerospace and defense industry(which was far more important than Hollywood) and in return LA has 'gained' low wage, low skilled jobs.
On the other hand, the Bay Area boomed due to thinking outside the box.
Quote:
n contrast, the Bay Area had cross-fertilization mechanisms that allowed new skills and practices to emerge rapidly. The IT world blended older engineering communities with young “hippie” technologists and “appropriate technology” environmentalists, and both were mixed in with academic researchers. This created the unique user-friendly approach to new technologies that the Bay Area captured, while LA’s tech firms remained oriented to their traditional clients in mass production and the military.
I already knew this:
Quote:
Hollywood was, and continues to be, LA’s success story, the undisputed world capital of entertainment. Hollywood became a New Economy industry even before IT, by reshaping itself in the 1970s.
But Hollywood is too small to carry the whole Southern California economy on its shoulders, and it is too isolated from the rest of the region’s activities.
Dear, you've been in economic turmoil for a very long time. This is what 40 years of stagnation means, your people arent really earning up to their actual potential because the region is bleeding the highly skilled industries that keep incomes high and creates other new high paying jobs/careers as a result.
Also, why are we using Kim K as the face of an entire industry? I get that she's a good scapegoat to make arguments about the industry being less prestigious, but did you all forget about studio executives, producers, media moguls, etc?
Kim K ain't the only one living in these affluent areas of Los Angeles.
The entertainment business isn't considered "prestigious"
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.
