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.
I was not referring specifically to Harvard. Moreover I am well aware that on average 25% of tenure track professors do not make it. At the same point I would not say simply being smart assures tenure.
I know a professor that is a publishing machine. He is quoted or published every three months. His CV is probably eight if not ten pages and he isn't even 40 yet��
I have no doubts he'll get tenure. But I know others that don't publish. Maybe they work on clubs and internships but I'd argue that publishing (and research) still is what tenure committies want.
Keep in mind tenure doesn't exactly change budgets, student ratios, pay, benefits etc. I think we're seeing a pull back in academia starting with private for profits in humanities, especially business. Ivy's can be fine, public can be ok but I'd be very wary of any tenure offer from a private for profit.
If you go for it make sure it is in a subject that isn't a trend. Russian for example made sense during the cold War but not now. Hard sciences will have more stability.
If you go for it make sure it is in a subject that isn't a trend. Russian for example made sense during the cold War but not now. Hard sciences will have more stability.
But what about for when Trump defunds ALL science? Then we will all one day HAVE to speak Russian and nobody will know anything about the hard sciences.
A common theme in these City-Data Massachusetts threads are BJimmy and Timberline taking them totally off track with debates that are only vaguely related to the topic at hand.
Though I think with regards to Arlington, there seems to be a general trend towards urban neighborhoods being more desirable. It seems like while the average boomer would rather live in places like Wellesley, Weston, Wayland, Sudbury, Lynnfield, etc and commute to their jobs closer to the city. Millennials for the most part would rather live in a place like Cambridge, in the center action, and the reverse commute is becoming more popular. For those Urbanites, a place like Arlington is an easier transition compared to more spread out suburbs like Lexington, Concord, etc. Wealthy millennials having kids still want top notch schools, but they don't want to live in a place with acre and a half lots and lots of trees. They want walk-able neighborhoods.
I believe that's why places like Arlington are doing so well. It's dense and walk-able compared to most top notch school districts, and it's also very close to job centers of Cambridge or 128 and the bars/restaurants in Cambridge.
Of course this all very generalized, but I think the general statements hold true. Overall the areas inside of 128 are doing better then the areas outside of it.
Last edited by tysmith95; 03-14-2018 at 04:08 PM..
A common theme in these City-Data Massachusetts threads are BJimmy and Timberline taking them totally off track with debates that are only vaguely related to the topic at hand.
Though I think with regards to Arlington, there seems to be a general trend towards urban neighborhoods being more desirable. It seems like while the average boomer would rather live in places like Wellesley, Weston, Wayland, Sudbury, Lynnfield, etc and commute to their jobs closer to the city. Millennials for the most part would rather live in a place like Cambridge, in the center action, and the reverse commute is becoming more popular. For those Urbanites, a place like Arlington is an easier transition compared to more spread out suburbs like Lexington, Concord, etc. Wealthy millennials having kids still want top notch schools, but they don't want to live in a place with acre and a half lots and lots of trees. They want walk-able neighborhoods.
I believe that's why places like Arlington are doing so well (nationwide). It's dense and walk-able compared to most top notch school districts, and it's also very close to job centers of Cambridge or 128 and the bars/restaurants in Cambridge.
Of course this all very generalized, but I think the general statements hold true. Overall the areas inside of 128 are doing better then the areas outside of it.
Nobody would ever contribute to these boards if they stopped as soon as the OP got a few answers. How dull. Actually in this case Timberline and I both shared our inside information on a topic that came up. Then I made a joke. Big deal.
By the way, millennials are suburbanizing at a high clip now. The inability of urban centers to keep up with housing and the resulting explosion in rental prices is making people turn more and more to the suburbs. Meanwhile, the boomers are filling into cities since they are the wealthiest generation in the history of the country and have no kids at home anymore.
Nobody would ever contribute to these boards if they stopped as soon as the OP got a few answers. How dull. Actually in this case Timberline and I both shared our inside information on a topic that came up. Then I made a joke. Big deal.
By the way, millennials are suburbanizing at a high clip now. The inability of urban centers to keep up with housing and the resulting explosion in rental prices is making people turn more and more to the suburbs. Meanwhile, the boomers are filling into cities since they are the wealthiest generation in the history of the country and have no kids at home anymore.
Huge shout out to Boomers for being the wealthiest generation in the history of the country while simultaneously screwing up the world in parallel.
Side note, the tech boom and the continued youthfulness of this metro is very muh accountable for the jump in inbound gentrification. Downtown? I’d agree with you. But, everyone wants a piece of the inner ring. It’s not at all specific to a generation, unless median ages of inner ring cities/suburbs are going up.. or are you specifically and only talking about Boston proper? Otherwise, I doubt it. I’d say milkenials are very much responsible for the huge costs associated with cities like Somerville, Medford, Malden, etc.
When boomers were coming to age, in the 70s-80s, white flight and the residental drain of cities was in full bloom. Boston fared better then most cities at this time, but it was still a problem. Bostons population dropped from a high of over 800k in the 50s to a low of 560k in the 80s. Now the opposite trend is occuring, and the population has risen back up to an estimated 687k.
Post great recession, property values in Boston and the inner burbs have done a good bit better compared to the outer ones. Development is definitely stronger in the inner core. Not saying it dosn't occur outside the inner core, I'm just saying that it tends to be more robust there.
And there will always be millenials who perfer the suburban or rural life and boomers who perfer the urban one. But I'd say as a whole millenials are attracted to the city more so then their parents and are slower to move out when they have kids.
I wouldn't be surprised if the school districts in places like Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, and the like start to improve to the point where they rival the triditional suburban top districts.
But with regards to millenials sub-urbanizing, I believe that much of that is out of necessity more then desire. Some of them are suburbanizing because they can't afford the city, not because they want to move out of the city. The boomer generation moved out of the city because they wanted to, not as much for financial reasons.
Of course i'm really generalizing.
Last edited by tysmith95; 03-14-2018 at 09:58 PM..
When boomers were coming to age, in the 70s-80s, white flight and the residental drain of cities was in full bloom. Boston fared better then most cities at this time, but it was still a problem. Bostons population dropped from a high of over 800k in the 50s to a low of 560k in the 80s. Now the opposite trend is occurring, and the population has risen back up to an estimated 687k.
Post great recession, property values in Boston and the inner burbs have done a good bit better compared to the outer ones. Development is definitely stronger in the inner core. Not saying it doesn't occur outside the inner core, I'm just saying that it tends to be more robust there.
And there will always be millenials who prefer the suburban or rural life and boomers who perfer the urban one. But I'd say as a whole millenials are attracted to the city more so then their parents and are slower to move out when they have kids.
I wouldn't be surprised if the school districts in places like Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, and the like start to improve to the point where they rival the traditional suburban top districts.
But with regards to millenials sub-urbanizing, I believe that much of that is out of necessity more then desire. Some of them are suburbanizing because they can't afford the city, not because they want to move out of the city. The boomer generation moved out of the city because they wanted to, not as much for financial reasons.
Of course i'm really generalizing.
I agree...kinda sorta. Much of this deals with life cycles. It is usually easier to move when you are younger as you might not be married or have kids or own property. If you have kids the public school system becomes a major factor. Unless you can afford private school which can be an option but again that varies.
The internet does make connections easier but that also assumes access. There's still places in the Berkshires without high speed access.
There are those that can't afford Boston but still want to live in urban areas. It can be intimidating being a minority if there's really only a few of you. I can provide a fair amount of evidence that by design towns are just not diversifying. Mass Municipal Association even has had presentations on this. Governing boards are often made of people that live there. They have power over hiring and selectboards that are elected in with little if any competition etc. Boston is U shaped. You have units for poor people but it gets to be a poverty trap. Middle class living has moved out. I'd argue it's pretty hard to make some leap of 30K salary to 70-80K at least alone and staying in the same area. This is why you see some moving to Brockton, Lowell and Worcester. The rail lines still allow them to go to boston for work but not live there. Potentially it can extend further. There's discussions to make it more of a subway from Boston to Worcester. CT and MassDOT are talking about more of extending the CT line further more to Greenfield. Ultimately Springfield and Worcester will be connected as it would mean establishing a second line between NYC and Boston.
When boomers were coming to age, in the 70s-80s, white flight and the residental drain of cities was in full bloom. Boston fared better then most cities at this time, but it was still a problem. Bostons population dropped from a high of over 800k in the 50s to a low of 560k in the 80s. Now the opposite trend is occuring, and the population has risen back up to an estimated 687k.
Post great recession, property values in Boston and the inner burbs have done a good bit better compared to the outer ones. Development is definitely stronger in the inner core. Not saying it dosn't occur outside the inner core, I'm just saying that it tends to be more robust there.
And there will always be millenials who perfer the suburban or rural life and boomers who perfer the urban one. But I'd say as a whole millenials are attracted to the city more so then their parents and are slower to move out when they have kids.
I wouldn't be surprised if the school districts in places like Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, and the like start to improve to the point where they rival the triditional suburban top districts.
But with regards to millenials sub-urbanizing, I believe that much of that is out of necessity more then desire. Some of them are suburbanizing because they can't afford the city, not because they want to move out of the city. The boomer generation moved out of the city because they wanted to, not as much for financial reasons.
Of course i'm really generalizing.
Agreed on all fronts.
Cambridge schools are already there, btw. R&L is one of the best public high schools in Massachusetts.
Yeah, I agree. I think the south shore- Quincy, Hingham, Scituate- has seen a good uptick as they're predominantly commuter towns to Boston proper. For those communities inland, around Rt. 24 and 95 South, things seem to be a bit slower. Again, I think it's a result of location to Waltham-Burlington.
I've always been told that Franklin is a major boomtown. This data would show that it's more of a traditional, steady-as-she-goes 495 community.
These towns are going to become extra affordable as there schools system may fall behind those to the east and west of them...It's just much harder to access Boston and the housing stock is less attractive along a few of the main drags. The landscape overall is just not as pretty as many of the towns metro west and north shore suburbs. The market remains healthy due to the tendency of people in southeastern Massachusetts to hop from town to town, as well as an influx of Boston residents, as well as physical proximity to Boston and a more healthy balance of retail and residential than many parts of the Boston metro.
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.
