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.
IMO, LA gets shorted on the wealth statistics. I'm going to do a little digging myself for this info, but I'm sure there are many wealthy people with second/vacation homes in LA that don't get counted in the wealth statistics. Secondly, prestige is high status, and high status can be either social or professional. LA has a higher social status and SF has higher professional status. It really comes down to ones personal view of prestige. Is social status more important than professional status or vice versa? Are celebrities, who are God like to many people, more prestigious than the rich tech and finance people?
i'm an east coaster so i have no idea where cal-tech/stanford are in relation to la or san fran.
cal tech seems to be the mit of the west coast. and stanford seems to be the duke blue devils of the west coast since they are good at basketball/football as well as academics.
also, thousands of hours of silly cat videos and millions of followers of obnoxious celebrity tweets is not prestigious.
Lol somehow Hollywood has transformed into cat videos and tweets and nothing else.
This forum is nuts.
IMO, LA gets shorted on the wealth statistics. I'm going to do a little digging myself for this info, but I'm sure there are many wealthy people with second/vacation homes in LA that don't get counted in the wealth statistics. Secondly, prestige is high status, and high status can be either social or professional. LA has a higher social status and SF has higher professional status. It really comes down to ones personal view of prestige. Is social status more important than professional status or vice versa? Are celebrities, who are God like to many people, more prestigious than the rich tech and finance people?
Well I don't really care deeply about the answer to that question or anything and doesn't matter to me if people pick one or the other. But I find the bolded part to be pretty pathetic though. Not to say I feel much better about people who keep track of tech billionaires living close to their city...
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.
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.
Maybe because that's the stuff nobody cares about?
If we are going that route, why are the rich tech geeks in SF a bad argument then? You can't have it both ways, sorry.
Correct in that MIT graduates 5x the number of students. Which makes Cal Tech's per capita academic distinction all the more staggering. If you know nothing else about two people other than one went to Cal Tech and the other MIT, you will also know the former has a much higher likelihood of having won a Nobel prize.
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.
Because they dont know what they're talking about. The Kim K thing is just a lazy way to justify bad opinions.
Montclair understands Hollywood like most people understand rocket science. He proves time and time again he has zero knowledge of anything.
Correct in that MIT graduates 5x the number of students. Which makes Cal Tech's per capita academic distinction all the more staggering. If you know nothing else about two people other than one went to Cal Tech and the other MIT, you will also know the former has a much higher likelihood of having won a Nobel prize.
right... Well you and that website based in London are the only ones who think Cal Tech is the best University in the world. In the United States, the US News and World Report is basically the definitive ranking. Stanford accepts only 5.5% of applicants. Cal Tech? 8.8%. There are a handful of other schools in the US that are more rounded and more prestigious schools. Cal Tech's claim to fame is 33 Nobel Prize winners. So what? Those 33 people outweigh thousands upon thousands of other world class researchers? I think not.
Last edited by thedirtypirate; 11-08-2015 at 12:24 PM..
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.
