Chicago vs The Bay Area (living, best, state, better)

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

There isn't data because its untrue. Chicagoland is simply not as diverse as the Bay area. Big whoop, there are other more important things to discuss IMO

Who in their right mind even said that? Clearly must have been some crazy who forgot to take his medication.

[EastSideMKE]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

First of all, learn how to spell. It's Berkeley.

Get over it. I mistakenly left off the 'e' in the name. If you want to play this little game, I'll just go out of my way to point out any spelling or grammar mistakes in your posts from now on.

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Northwestern isn't Northwest university.

When did I ever refer to Northwestern as "Northwest University"? Please show this, would you?

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Second, the majority of the UG student body at Berkeley are from in-state, and almost half of Stanford's is from California. And the state of CA has some of the best public high schools in the nation (coincidentally around the bay area) . Moreover, Berkeley has a lower UG acceptance rate than both UChicago and Northwestern, in other words, Berkeley is more selective than UChic/NWU, and Stanford's is even lower than that of UChic/NWU. You can see the USNews individual college data for yourself. And graduate studies-wise, the two bay area schools >>> Chic/NWU overall. Chic/NWU may have a couple top five departments (Chic law, Booth/Kellogg, etc., if you even know what I'm talking about), but Berkeley/Stanford ranks at the very top in practically every academic field.

I don't think it would be possible for me to care less about this issue. I haven't attended any of these institutions we're discussing, and I probably never will. I'm also willing to bet that YOU haven't attended any of them either, so why beat your chest so hard over the matter? My point, and I believe grapico's point, was to demonstrate that SF isn't as far above CHI in education as you guys like to tell yourselves you are.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

If you haven't read my previous post, they have actually been in criticism of USNews; that particular list factors in several non-academic factors, such as alumni donation rate, etc, that have long been known to skew the data in favor of private institutions. USNews should go mainly by selectivity, the acceptance rate is arguably a better judge of quality than who donates more.

I would rather it be based on what is produced there, quality of faculty, publications, sucess of graduates, etc. Who is let in and who is not is often based on population factors as well, overseas applicants, etc; but definitely better than donations. There are some other schools with even lower or higher but their quality is not stacked up the same as any of these schools. Leiter reports is pretty good, but only for law and philosophy.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

If you haven't read my previous post, they have actually been in criticism of USNews; that particular list factors in several non-academic factors, such as alumni donation rate, etc, that have long been known to skew the data in favor of private institutions. USNews should go mainly by selectivity, the acceptance rate is arguably a better judge of quality than who donates more.

Absolutely.

Yes, the first USNWR University Ranking came out in 1983 or 1984(cant remember) to the dismay of Ivy League Schools, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, UVA and I believe U. of Washington(Seattle) and North Carolina and possibly Wisconsin were ranked in the top 20. Berkeley was in the Top 5, Michigan, UCLA and UVA were between 6-10. It caused a huge uproar in the halls of prestigious privates.

I think there is even a copy of the first edition at UC Berkeley's library.

Anyway, the Ivies lobbied super hard to have alumni-giving weigh heavily-enough to permanently shut out the public elites from the Top 20. Its actually quite scandalous.

Because based on actual academics, it doesnt make sense that schools with such stellar graduate programs are somehow going to be sub-par at the undergrad level.

They are probably foaming at the mouth trying to manipulate the graduate school rankings as well. Its all hilarious.

Even the President of Princeton said in an interview once that Berkeley is easily among the 5 best Universities in the United States.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Absolutely.

Yes, the first USNWR University Ranking came out in 1983 or 1984(cant remember) to the dismay of Ivy League Schools, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, UVA and I believe U. of Washington(Seattle) and North Carolina and possibly Wisconsin were ranked in the top 20. Berkeley was in the Top 5, Michigan, UCLA and UVA were between 6-10. It caused a huge uproar in the halls of prestigious privates.

I think there is even a copy of the first edition at UC Berkeley's library.

Anyway, the Ivies lobbied super hard to have alumni-giving weigh heavily-enough to permanently shut out the public elites from the Top 20. Its actually quite scandalous.

Because based on actual academics, it doesnt make sense that schools with such stellar graduate programs are somehow going to be sub-par at the undergrad level.

They are probably foaming at the mouth trying to manipulate the graduate school rankings as well. Its all hilarious.

Even the President of Princeton said in an interview once that Berkeley is easily among the 5 best Universities in the United States.

If you think USNews is bad, should check out the hate on how the UK biased Times ranking is...

AWRU is pretty decent, but they have an extremely heavy engineering and science slant....(comes out of China)

There are too many variables, often quality of dept comes down to 1 or 2 leaders in the field on faculty.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by grapico

If you think USNews is bad, should check out the hate on how the UK biased Times ranking is...

AWRU is pretty decent, but they have a heavy engineering and science slant....(comes out of China)

Okay, I was wrong about Cal being in the Top 5:

Dynamics of Public Universities in the top 25 using Rank1980s, Rank1990s, and Rank2000s

1. Y1980s: 6 in total. One in the top 10 and three in the top20
Berkeley (10), Michigan (12), UNC (14), UVA (18), UIUC (24), and Wisconsin (25)

2. Y1990s: 3 in total. Two in the top20
Berkeley (19), UVA (20), and Michigan (24)

3. Y2000s: 3 in total. None in the top20
Berkeley (21), UVA (23), and Michigan (25)

Okay, schools of this caliber do not just deteriorate like this.

Berkeley, Michigan, UNC, UVA, Illinois Urbana-Champaign and Wisconsin were all in the original Top 25.

USNWR Rank1980s
Universities 1983-1989
1 Yale University 2.25
1 Stanford University 2.25
3 Harvard University 2.5
4 Princeton University 3.5
5 University of Chicago 7.25
5 Duke University 7.75
7 Dartmouth College 8.25
8 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 9
9 Brown University 9.25
10 University of California at Berkeley 10.25
11 Cornell University 10.75
12 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor 12
13 Rice University 12.75
14 California Institute of Technology 13
14 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 13
16 Johns Hopkins University 14.75
17 Columbia University 15.5
18 University of Virginia 16.25
19 Northwestern University 16.75
19 Carnegie Mellon University 16.75
21 Georgetown University 17
22 University of Pennsylvania 18
22 University of Notre Dame 18
24 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 18.75<<<how far is this from Chicago?
25 University of Wisconsin at Madison 20.5
26 University of California at Los Angeles 21
27 Washington University in St. Louis 22
28 College of William and Mary 23.5
29 Emory University 24.25

Anyway, its all interesting.

[grapico]

^^ University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign, University of Wisconsin @ Madison, and Notre Dame are all within a 2 hour drive from Chicago and all send the majority of their graduates to Chicago. I wouldn't want to expand it out that far though. Notre Dame has business campus in Chicago.
22 University of Notre Dame 18
24 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 18.75<<<how far is this from Chicago?
25 University of Wisconsin at Madison 20.5

If you are a parent in Chicago and want your kids to have the "college town" experience those 3 are usually where they go...

[BayAreaNightmare]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

I hate to agree with Moderator cut: orphaned, but your numbers you keep posting are pretty meaningless. ThePR just posted that housing calculator that showed an $800,000 home in SF would only fetch $300,000 in Chicago. So, I guess all those $1 million houses in SF would be equivalent to $500,000 houses in Chicago. Conversely, $1 million home in Chicago would probably go for over $2 million in SF.

Thats the thing... people are willing to pay that amount to live in SF ... they arent to live in Chicawwwgo,..and definetely not to live in some hokey state like wisconsin

to put it in perspective... say someone goes to the louis v store and buys a pair of 2000 dollar shoes. theres a guy outside selling the exact same ones..look/feel/material everything same , except it had a different brand name on it for 20 dollars. would they be "equivalent"? yes in terms of looks and feel...no in terms of brand image.

same way with chic and the greater midwest, it doesnt have that "brand" that attracts a certain $ crowd..

it is what it is...you may "like it to keep them outsiders out" ..but frankly no one really cares or wants to be there in the first place

[grapico]

Originally Posted by BayAreaNightmare

Thats the thing... people are willing to pay that amount to live in SF ... they arent to live in Chicawwwgo,..and definetely not to live in some hokey state like wisconsin

to put it in perspective... say someone goes to the louis v store and buys a pair of 2000 dollar shoes. theres a guy outside selling the exact same ones..look/feel/material everything same , except it had a different brand name on it for 20 dollars. would they be "equivalent"? yes in terms of looks and feel...no in terms of brand image.

same way with chic and the greater midwest, it doesnt have that "brand" that attracts a certain $ crowd..

it is what it is...you may "like it to keep them outsiders out" ..but frankly no one really cares or wants to be there in the first place

That certain $ crowd moving in or owning a 2nd home they bought from Sotheby's doesn't add much to SF though, it actually has been displacing a lot of the culture in SF for a long time. You are right it definitely attracts that more than Chicago, no doubt.The rest of your post is trolling.
The CA real estate bubble is not exactly a good thing and a lot of people are dealing with foreclosures now.
Basically how it goes is a town or neighborhood has a great vibe, rich yuppies find out about it, then move in and ruin it, then wonder where that vibe went. Hint, you priced them out.
This happens in Chicago too but not to the extent to what has gone on in SF since the early 90s. Most people I have met that are actually SF natives do not like this element and are definitely concerned about rising costs, but many made a huge amount in real estate also.
Why do you think places like Portland/Seattle/Austin suddenly became so hip? B/C people from California, a large amount from SF have been moving there.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by BayAreaNightmare

Thats the thing... people are willing to pay that amount to live in SF ... they arent to live in Chicawwwgo,..and definetely not to live in some hokey state like wisconsin

to put it in perspective... say someone goes to the louis v store and buys a pair of 2000 dollar shoes. theres a guy outside selling the exact same ones..look/feel/material everything same , except it had a different brand name on it for 20 dollars. would they be "equivalent"? yes in terms of looks and feel...no in terms of brand image.

same way with chic and the greater midwest, it doesnt have that "brand" that attracts a certain $ crowd..

it is what it is...you may "like it to keep them outsiders out" ..but frankly no one really cares or wants to be there in the first place

You would have been smarter to keep this to yourself......

...