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.
According to the Census Bureau, the Bay Area had 1,875,091 residents under the age of 18-that's 21% of the total population.
Ps the United States considers all persons under 18 to be children, not just ages 5-14, do Canadians consider under 5 to be penguins or something?
More dismissal of stats and facts that don't fit your narrow worldview.
Ages 5-14 is K-9. You have the lowest population of elementary and middle school children of any major metropolitan area in the US. Yet your GDP per capita is among the highest.
Not hard to see why given the costs and what you get for those costs. From a fellow family-oriented City-Dataer:
Quote:
Spent a year in the East Bay. Housing even in Concord was 2X I was used to paying for my mortgage in Phoenix, for 1/2 the house and 50 years older, and in a questionable area. A huge downside in my opinion. Schools where we lived were ranked 2/10. And this to rent a home...needing $100,000 year salary yet all the other houses in the neighborhood are occupied by low income families but who have been there since 1970 so they really have little housing expense. Think about that...it took me $100,000 to live in a community full of high crime, awful housing, and neighbors where you have nothing in common for work and lifestyle. Just a weird dynamic
By contrast, 10% of San Francisco children are part of poor households. FYI.
This is a great example of how stats on paper cannot be compared directly (GDP was another good example).
In Toronto, poverty is calculated based on an annual income of $16,546 for a single person and $39,912 for a family of four. This is in a city where a one bed apartment goes for $1,500/mo.
In San Francisco, poverty is calculated based on an annual income of $11,490 for a single person, or $23,550 for a family of four. This is in a city where a one bedroom apartment goes for $4000/mo.
Toronto, being Canadian, also offers a lot more social services for the poor such as free access to healthcare. Not in San Francisco.
"Poverty" in Toronto or Canada is a cake walk compared to poverty in San Francisco and there are A LOT of people in San Francisco living in poverty that are not taken into account in those stats given the ridiculous criteria.
Our children even in poverty are much better off staying here in Toronto than they would be in San Francisco.
Quote:
Yeah, the biggest migration of venture capital in the past 20 years BY FAR has been from Santa Clara County to San Francisco proper. I hate to break it to ya.
lol
Point is VC can migrate. It can just as easily migrate out of SF in the coming years, especially as costs continue to rise and it starts making less and less sense for investors and startups to move there.
Meanwhile here are some stats for you:
US Cities with most violent crime rates (per 100,000 people)
1 Detroit, MI 1,988.63
2 Memphis, TN 1,740.51 3 Oakland, CA 1,685.39 4 St. Louis, MO 1,678.73
5 Milwaukee, WI 1,476.41
In anticipation of the release of the 2016 Michelin Guides on October 13th, here is a post detailing its origination, its importance, and the impact it has on the reputation and services of the establishments it covers, in addition to the cities and market areas it covers. Then we'll delve into cities that have one already and the cities that are on the shortlist to get one sometime in the future.
Introduction to Michelin Guide and an explanation of what it is:
Quote:
Michelin Guides are a series of guide books published by the French company Michelin for more than a century. The term normally refers to the annually published Michelin Red Guide, the oldest European hotel and restaurant reference guide, which awards Michelin stars for excellence to a select few establishments.
An explanation of its importance, reputation, credibility, exclusivity, and level of prestige bestowed upon it:
Quote:
The term "Michelin Star" is a hallmark of fine dining quality and restaurants around the world proudly promote their Michelin Star status. Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay cried when the Michelin Guide stripped the stars from his New York restaurant, calling the food "erratic." Ramsay explained that losing the stars was like "losing a girlfriend."
Of course, the hilarious part of all this is that this prestigious restaurant rating is from a . . . tire company. Yes, the same Michelin that sells tires also hands out restaurant ratings.
Michelin's Anonymous Reviewers
Michelin has a long history of reviewing restaurants. In 1900, the Michelin tire company launched its first guidebook to encourage road tripping in France. In 1926, it started sending out anonymous restaurant reviewers to try restaurants.
To this day, Michelin relies entirely on its full-time staff of anonymous restaurant reviewers. The anonymous reviewers generally are very passionate about food, have a good eye for detail, and have a great taste memory to recall and compare types of foods.
A reviewer has said that they must be a "chameleon" who can blend in with all of their surroundings, to appear as if they are an ordinary consumer.
Each time a reviewer goes to a restaurant, they write a thorough memorandum about their experience and then all of the reviewers come together to discuss and decide on which restaurants will be awarded the stars.
In this way, the Michelin stars are very different than Zagat and Yelp, which rely on consumer feedback via the Internet. Zagat tallies restaurants anonymously based on surveyed reviews of diners and consumers while Yelp tallies stars based on user reviews provided online subjecting the company to a number of lawsuits associated with its filtering system. Michelin does not use any consumer reviews in making its restaurant determinations.
Michelin Stars Defined
Michelin awards 0 to 3 stars on the basis of the anonymous reviews. The reviewers concentrate on the quality, mastery of technique, personality and consistency of the food, in making the reviews. They do not look at interior decor, table setting, or service quality in awarding stars, though the guide shows forks and spoons which describes how fancy or casual a restaurant may be. (If you're interested in looking at a reviewing company that looks at ambience and decor, try the Forbes reviews which looks at over 800 criteria, such as whether the restaurant offers solid or hollow ice cubes, freshly squeezed or canned orange juice, and valet parking or self-parking.)
Michelin, on the other hand, focuses entirely on the food. The reviewers award the stars as follows:
One star: A good place to stop on your journey, indicating a very good restaurant in its category, offering cuisine prepared to a consistently high standard.
Two stars: A restaurant worth a detour, indicating excellent cuisine and skillfully and carefully crafted dishes of outstanding quality
Three stars: A restaurant worth a special journey, indicating exceptional cuisine where diners eat extremely well, often superbly. Distinctive dishes are precisely executed, using superlative ingredients.
Michelin also awards a "bib gourmand" for quality food at a value price. In New York, that would be two courses plus wine or dessert for $40 or less, excluding tax and tip.
Restaurants covet these stars because the vast majority of restaurants receive no stars at all. For example, the Michelin Guide to Chicago 2014 includes almost 500 restaurants. Only one restaurant received three stars; four restaurants received two stars; and 20 restaurants received one star.
One of the biggest criticisms for Michelin Guides is that they place too much emphasis on high-end dining and not as much on cheap eats, to which Michelin introduced the Bib Gourmand, which rates the quality of more affordable but stellar quality establishments:
Quote:
Bib Gourmand's are basically the Guide’s version of a “best cheap eats” list. In addition to quality food and experience, Bib Gourmand selections must have menu items that offer two courses and a glass of wine or dessert for $40 or less (tax and gratuity not included).
They are the choice eats for Michelin Guide Inspectors during their off the clock hours;
A Michelin news release states: “Most telling about the value of these selections is the fact that they are the restaurants that the Michelin inspectors themselves frequent when dining off the clock.”
The full effects of the impact from the reviews provided by Michelin Guide to any establishment or city are severe, in both positive and negative ways:
Quote:
The acquisition or loss of a star can have dramatic effects on the success of a restaurant. Michelin also publishes a series of general guides to countries.
I would post a list of all cities that have a Michelin Guide but it would take way too long with the several dozen European cities that have one. Instead, I opted to list all the cities in the world outside of Europe with a Michelin Guide (in alphabetical order):
01. Chicago
02. Hong Kong
03. Macao
04. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto
05. New York
06. San Francisco Bay Area
07. Shanghai
08. Singapore
09. Tokyo-Yokohama-Shonan
As of 2016, there is a new name to the list;
10. Washington, D.C.
Michelin has been angling for an expansion in Washington for some years now and they offer this explanation for their interest in Washington for their Michelin Guides:
Quote:
“D.C. was a logical choice. It’s a very cosmopolitan city. It has a growing and thriving food scene,” said Michael Ellis, international director for the Michelin Guides. Other criteria that contributed to the decision were the diversity of cuisines and the city’s stature — which Ellis said makes it “of interest to the Michelin group.”
The reception to a Michelin Guide by Washingtonian restaurant chefs and operators has been ecstatic to say the least:
Quote:
“I’m delighted about it,” said Ashok Bajaj, who owns Rasika, the Oval Room and other top-rated fine-dining restaurants. “I think it puts us on the map. The worldwide name recognition, I think it helps the city.”
D.C. chefs greeted the news with surprise and enthusiasm.
“Are you serious? That is crazy,” said Silverman, the James Beard Award-winning chef of Rose’s Luxury. Chefs “always talk about it. People ask me [when Michelin will come], and I’m like, ‘Maybe one day.’ ”
Earning Michelin stars is “something that a lot of people think about and dream about,” Silverman said.
Michelin CEO and director Michael Ellis has had his sights set on a Washington expansion for some years now, in 2012, he gave some insight on which cities Michelin Guide was looking into expanding in future years:
Quote:
The Michelin Guide might just be coming to Atlanta. Michelin's also looking to expand into Washington DC and Miami, as well as Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles.
These were the precise cities that Michael Ellis (CEO and director of Michelin) specifically stated were on the expansion boards for future years.
In addition to Washington D.C., residents, chefs, restaurant operators, and city dwellers alike can look forward to Michelin Guides expansion into more American cities. Michael Ellis in numerous interviews has been quite specific of which cities Michelin Guide is working on expanding to in future years; Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, Las Vegas, and Washington DC. The expansion to Washington D.C. is complete.
Yesterday Michelin released its ranking of the Bib Gourmand restaurants or eating establishments that it has ranked for Washington D.C. and its surrounding areas:
Quote:
Bad Saint
Bidwell
Boqueria
Chercher
China Chilcano
Das
Doi Moi
Jaleo
Kyirisan
Lapis
Maketto
Ottoman Taverna
Oyamel
Pearl Dive Oyster Palace
Red Hen
Royal
Thip Khao
2Amys
Zaytinya
While Michelin Guides don't overall determine whether a city is a great foodie town or not since a city's food scene is more than just a handful of restaurants or even a few hundred restaurants. It is larger than that. However, with that being said, the Michelin Guide does determine the best dining establishments in the country, those individual establishments that are superb in quality and experience. Also they do bestow a level of prestige and credibility to the establishments that they rate in their annual inspections, in addition to the host city as well. At minimum, the Michelin Guide establishes cities as culinary destinations by marking the establishments worth taking a trip to experience.
That was Michelin Guide's established goal in 1900 when they started evaluating restaurants and publishing guides for select cities, that is still their mission statement today.
In addition to the list that Michael Ellis (the CEO and director of Michelin) identified as a list of cities they are working on expanding into, I would also personally add Toronto, New Orleans, Montreal, Vancouver, and Boston's name in there too.
The Michelin Guide caps off Washington's 10 year long goal to vastly improving its foodie scene, which with increased diversification, striving for higher standards, and gaining more notoriety, Washington has successfully done its part.
A Washington D.C. chef was the recipient for best chef in the Mid-Atlantic in 2016 by the James Beard Awards (the Oscars of the Culinary World).
Greater Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area have had Michelin Guides for years now and have earned their distinction as culinary powerhouses in the United States. The positive change in Washington's culinary scene is complimentary to the established scenes already in place in Chicago and San Francisco.
I would love to see a Michelin Guide in Toronto in the future; I think its culinary scene is worthy of one.
2016 US News & World Report
National University Rankings
Top 100
Chicago CSA
#3 University of Chicago
#12 Northwestern University
#99 Loyola University Chicago
Bay Area CSA
#5 Stanford University
#20 University of California, Berkeley
#79 University of California, Santa Cruz
Washington CSA
#10 Johns Hopkins University
#20 Georgetown University
#56 George Washington University
#60 University of Maryland, College Park
#74 American University
These are different from the global rankings (and obviously excluding Toronto). The factors for this overall put more emphasis on factors underlying the quality of undergraduate education and all fields rather than STEMs in particular while the global rankings is a lot more emphasis on STEMs field work and research within the labs and graduate programs. This makes sense as the UC system's undergrad programs are generally pretty good, but not great but that has to be the case because part of its mission is to provide quality education to the residents of California.
Anyhow, higher top hitters for Chicago (but not public universities in the rankings) and larger range of schools for DC.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-08-2016 at 02:28 PM..
In anticipation of the release of the 2016 Michelin Guides on October 13th, here is a post detailing its origination, its importance, and the impact it has on the reputation and services of the establishments it covers, in addition to the cities and market areas it covers. Then we'll delve into cities that have one already and the cities that are on the shortlist to get one sometime in the future.
Introduction to Michelin Guide and an explanation of what it is:
An explanation of its importance, reputation, credibility, exclusivity, and level of prestige bestowed upon it:
One of the biggest criticisms for Michelin Guides is that they place too much emphasis on high-end dining and not as much on cheap eats, to which Michelin introduced the Bib Gourmand, which rates the quality of more affordable but stellar quality establishments:
The full effects of the impact from the reviews provided by Michelin Guide to any establishment or city are severe, in both positive and negative ways:
I would post a list of all cities that have a Michelin Guide but it would take way too long with the several dozen European cities that have one. Instead, I opted to list all the cities in the world outside of Europe with a Michelin Guide (in alphabetical order):
01. Chicago
02. Hong Kong
03. Macao
04. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto
05. New York
06. San Francisco Bay Area
07. Shanghai
08. Singapore
09. Tokyo-Yokohama-Shonan
As of 2016, there is a new name to the list;
10. Washington, D.C.
Michelin has been angling for an expansion in Washington for some years now and they offer this explanation for their interest in Washington for their Michelin Guides:
The reception to a Michelin Guide by Washingtonian restaurant chefs and operators has been ecstatic to say the least:
Michelin CEO and director Michael Ellis has had his sights set on a Washington expansion for some years now, in 2012, he gave some insight on which cities Michelin Guide was looking into expanding in future years:
In addition to Washington D.C., residents, chefs, restaurant operators, and city dwellers alike can look forward to Michelin Guides expansion into more American cities. Michael Ellis in numerous interviews has been quite specific of which cities Michelin Guide is working on expanding to in future years; Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, Las Vegas, and Washington DC. The expansion to Washington D.C. is complete.
Yesterday Michelin released its ranking of the Bib Gourmand restaurants or eating establishments that it has ranked for Washington D.C. and its surrounding areas:
While Michelin Guides don't overall determine whether a city is a great foodie town or not since a city's food scene is more than just a handful of restaurants or even a few hundred restaurants. It is larger than that. However, with that being said, the Michelin Guide does determine the best dining establishments in the country, those individual establishments that are superb in quality and experience. Also they do bestow a level of prestige and credibility to the establishments that they rate in their annual inspections, in addition to the host city as well. At minimum, the Michelin Guide establishes cities as culinary destinations by marking the establishments worth taking a trip to experience.
That was Michelin Guide's established goal in 1900 when they started evaluating restaurants and publishing guides for select cities, that is still their mission statement today.
In addition to the list that Michael Ellis (the CEO and director of Michelin) identified as a list of cities they are working on expanding into, I would also personally add Toronto, New Orleans, Montreal, Vancouver, and Boston's name in there too.
The Michelin Guide caps off Washington's 10 year long goal to vastly improving its foodie scene, which with increased diversification, striving for higher standards, and gaining more notoriety, Washington has successfully done its part.
A Washington D.C. chef was the recipient for best chef in the Mid-Atlantic in 2016 by the James Beard Awards (the Oscars of the Culinary World).
Greater Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area have had Michelin Guides for years now and have earned their distinction as culinary powerhouses in the United States. The positive change in Washington's culinary scene is complimentary to the established scenes already in place in Chicago and San Francisco.
I would love to see a Michelin Guide in Toronto in the future; I think its culinary scene is worthy of one.
It's interesting, but it's also a bit of a racket. Philadelphia has had and continues to have a much better culinary scene than DC does, but is unlikely to be a good market for the guides so it won't be added. Los Angeles does have a great culinary scene and also had a Michelin Guide for a bit but Michelin pulled out because no one seemed to care so much there.
I like the guides, but the presence or absence of them for a specific area doesn't quite mean so much. I think having a guide does mean there are great culinary things going on, but the absence of them does not mean there isn't. It's also really hard to compare the guides from one place to another because they almost certainly all the same pool of reviewers and I think different areas sort of provide a different kind of expectations and backdrop.
Also, the NYC guide seems kind of nonsensical sometimes with which category gets in which category and which ones are dropped or omitted as well as what parts of NYC it seems to be able to keep in its purview.
More dismissal of stats and facts that don't fit your narrow worldview
Haha what about 10th-12th grade? They dont count in your sophisticated world view?
THERE ARE 1.8 MILLION RESIDENTS OF THE BAY AREA UNDER AGE 18 AND THEY ACCOUNT FOR 21% OF THE POPULATION...PERIOD.
Haha Ive never understood Canadian snobbery about the US. Talk about casting stones from glass igloos.
Quote:
This is a great example of how stats on paper cannot be compared directly
No, its another great example of you being OWNED.
Your fake concern about the plight of children here is comical at best, especially since you have plenty of poor children in your own city to worry about.
Hahahahaha you mean your hoping and praying that this happens as a matter of comeuppance.
Yawns.
Quote:
Meanwhile here are some stats for you:
US Cities with most violent crime rates (per 100,000 people)
1 Detroit, MI 1,988.63
2 Memphis, TN 1,740.51 3 Oakland, CA 1,685.39 4 St. Louis, MO 1,678.73
5 Milwaukee, WI 1,476.41
Yes but this isnt news, its no smoking gun, no earth shattering game changer...yawns.
Techies, Hipsters, Artists etc are still flocking to Oakland and the city has lots of desirable areas, thousands of million-dollar homes and a higher college graduation rate than Chicago and Toronto-and Oakland is much more racially diverse than Toronto, so nice twy
Los Angeles does have a great culinary scene and also had a Michelin Guide for a bit but Michelin pulled out because no one seemed to care so much there.
Yes, but Michelin feels regret towards suspending the Michelin Guides of Los Angeles and Las Vegas, the director himself expressed enthusiasm (towards bringing them back) and looks forward to bringing both cities back and continuing further expansion of the Michelin Guides. Washington DC was just the start of those expansions.
Quote:
We’ve never been like a traditional publishing house, where it’s considered a profitable venture. We’re there to support mobility and support drivers where they want to go. But definitely, looking at the crisis of 2008, the bottom fell out of the economy. Ford, Chrysler, GM, the auto industry had to be bailed out. And we decided to cull two of our new guides, Las Vegas and Los Angeles.
Now, I’m committed to expansion. We’ve got to expand to more cities in the U.S. Three cities (San Francisco, New York and Chicago), is simply not enough. My goal is, sooner rather than later, to bring more guides to cities in the U.S. and around the world; into major gastronomic cities, whether its Sao Paolo, Singapore, or back to LA or Seattle.
[He's already since introduced a Michelin Guide for Singapore and will be launching Sao Paulo soon]
How would you characterize your vision in comparison to your predecessor?
Jean-Luc Naret launched the guides outside of Europe, and that's something that I want to continue working on. I really want to expand into more cities in the U.S.
What cities are you looking at?
We're looking at that now, but I'm considering places like DC, Miami, Atlanta. We used to have Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
I was going to ask you about L.A. and Vegas. You are reconsidering those?
Absolutely. Those are certainly on the drawing board. Seattle and Houston and Dallas are others as well, and we're thinking about it. Would it be exactly as in New York, with 900 restaurants in each? I'm not exactly sure.
In future years, Los Angeles is getting the Michelin Guide again. It is on Michelin's expansion radar, along with Miami, Houston, Seattle, Las Vegas, Dallas, and Atlanta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I like the guides, but the presence or absence of them for a specific area doesn't quite mean so much. I think having a guide does mean there are great culinary things going on, but the absence of them does not mean there isn't. It's also really hard to compare the guides from one place to another because they almost certainly all the same pool of reviewers and I think different areas sort of provide a different kind of expectations and backdrop.
That's why I said that having a guide does not make a city automatically an excellent culinary city overall. The guide covers a few dozen to a few hundred restaurants in metropolitan areas that have tens of thousands of restaurants. A food scene goes beyond just the guide. New Orleans, for example, doesn't have a guide nor is even mentioned to be on the shortlist for expansion of Michelin Guides, but I would say it is a great culinary scene and city. Easily Top 5-6 in the country, in my opinion.
What the Michelin Guides do, however, is make note of spectacular restaurants and eating establishments, especially for fine dining. Like their star system explanation states;
One star:A good place to stop on your journey, indicating a very good restaurant in its category, offering cuisine prepared to a consistently high standard.
Two stars:A restaurant worth a detour, indicating excellent cuisine and skillfully and carefully crafted dishes of outstanding quality
Three stars: A restaurant worth a special journey, indicating exceptional cuisine where diners eat extremely well, often superbly. Distinctive dishes are precisely executed, using superlative ingredients.
Michelin states that these are establishments worth taking a trip to experience. While food and taste is subjective, the level of preparation and quality of food (regardless of whether one likes it or not) is objective. At minimum one can expect a great deal at a Michelin star restaurant.
That does not mean that cities that do not have guides do not have comparable or exemplary dining experiences, it just means that their dining establishments haven't been rated or discovered yet by those with the authority to evaluate them.
Also, the Michelin Guides mean more to those directly involved in the culinary scene of these cities. It sort of adds acknowledgement and awards to substantiate their work and typically tends to mean a great deal to chefs and restaurant operators, in addition to adding value to a city's image. I think it does its job rather well.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-08-2016 at 03:17 PM..
Haha what about 10th-12th grade? They dont count in your sophisticated world view?
THERE ARE 1.8 MILLION RESIDENTS OF THE BAY AREA UNDER AGE 18 AND THEY ACCOUNT FOR 21% OF THE POPULATION...PERIOD.
Even this stat is lame!
By contrast in Houston
Quote:
Perhaps the biggest differences can be seen in families. Of the nation’s 52 largest metropolitan areas, the Bay Area has the lowest percentage, 11.5 percent, of people ages 5 to 14. In Houston, 23 percent of the population fits this age category. In particular San Francisco is notoriously inhospitable to families, with the lowest percentage of kids of any major city.
There is a higher percentage of people in Houston aged 5-14 than there are people in the Bay Area aged 18 and under!
None of that changes the fact that the Bay Area has the lowest percentage of children among any major metropolitan area in the US, yet your GDP per capita is arguably the highest! Why is this?!
The rest of your post is not even worth responding to, you ignored everything I said (because you have no response to it) and kept repeating the same broken record.
Haha Ive never understood Canadian snobbery about the US. Talk about casting stones from glass igloos.
Haha, this is a real thing. I've experienced this in person before a few times. In Canada and in the US. Those people are a monority though... I think.
The majority of Canadians that I've met are really cool people.
The thing is, most Americans don't think or know much about Canada. Canada is way more concerned with us than we are with them.
But it seems a lot of Canadians seem to be very opinionated about the US. I think we are just bigger, louder, and also a giant superpower right next door. They also don't have any other neighbors, and almost everyone in Canada lives right by the border, where in the US, the border is a lot less populated, since we have way more/better livable climates and cities than right by the border.
The thing is, we are really not that different at all. We are maybe two of the most similar nations on the planet to eachother. Places like Hawaii and Miami feel more foreign to me than Toronto.
I do agree that Canada is more peaceful and stable though. But I just think we are so much cooler and exciting, lol.
I like the US. I don't think I can get the lifestyle I want in Canada that I have in NYC. The only thing I would consider leaving NYC for would be a hot/tropical climate. Which I also cannot get anywhere in Canada (lol) but there are many places here in the US where I can. I see why some people prefer Canada though.
2016 US News & World Report
National University Rankings
Top 100
Chicago CSA
#3 University of Chicago
#12 Northwestern University
#99 Loyola University Chicago
Bay Area CSA
#5 Stanford University
#20 University of California, Berkeley
#79 University of California, Santa Cruz
Washington CSA
#10 Johns Hopkins University
#20 Georgetown University
#56 George Washington University
#60 University of Maryland, College Park
#74 American University
These are different from the global rankings (and obviously excluding Toronto). The factors for this overall put more emphasis on factors underlying the quality of undergraduate education and all fields rather than STEMs in particular while the global rankings is a lot more emphasis on STEMs field work and research within the labs and graduate programs. This makes sense as the UC system's undergrad programs are generally pretty good, but not great but that has to be the case because part of its mission is to provide quality education to the residents of California.
Anyhow, higher top hitters for Chicago (but not public universities in the rankings) and larger range of schools for DC.
For Chicago Public Universities, I would say that University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana (no. 41), although not technically in Chicago ( 2 hour drive ) is the public university attached to the city, and in the top 100.
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.
