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.
That said, the last time I looked at the research, cross-racial friendships become vanishingly rare at the high school level (admittedly, as much hasn't been done in the last decade, and my perception is things have improved somewhat, but not enough).
As I recall there is evidence this is subject to school policy (meaning things like extracurricular mixing, grade segregation, and so on can increase the rate of cross-racial friendships).
In any event, I think all the points I made above about imperfect correlations still apply, and on top of that of course there are non-white students who can have positive behavioral affects on other non-white students. A policy focused on achieving economic mixing in schools (more on this below) will likely have the incidental affect of increasing economic diversity within same-race populations within schools.
Quote:
then functionally you wouldn't expect performance in a 20% black school to be much better than a 90% black one as long as most black kids are either shunned or ignored by white social circles.
As I previously noted, I know the research supports the existence of threshold and compounding academic effects with respect to disadvantaged students in the economic sense (usually measured by qualifying for free or subsidized lunches).
I also know that the research supports improvements in interracial relations in racially mixed schools (versus ones with very high percentages of one race). That is another sort of benefit we could be talking about, although not one I have specifically had in mind to this point.
As I recall, the research on the possible academic effects of racial composition has been inconclusive so far.
In any event, in the 2007 Seattle et al case, the Supreme Court outlawed directly targeting the racial composition of schools (although the necessary fifth vote was provided by Justice Kennedy, who would allow "race conscious" policies). So whether or not targeting specific racial mixing goals would be a good idea, that Supreme Court decision is one of the reasons I have focused on "disadvantaged" students in my proposal, to be defined in strictly non-racial terms.
If you look at cities within 10% of Pittsburgh in population (~270,000 to 333,000), you find a lot of cities around the same geographic size as Pitttsburgh, or smaller.
We've been through this many times before. You actually started a whole thread about it.
The question worth asking is why the central city of metro area that is ranked #22 by population is itself only ranked #61 by population. Looking at other cities with a similar population won't answer that question--you need to compare it to the central cities of other similarly large metros.
If you do that, it turns out that Pittsburgh is one of the smallest (although not the smallest) central cities among the central cities of comparably large metros. That explains the #22/#61 discrepancy.
And of course there isn't really an alternative explanation for the #22/#61 discrepancy. The only other notable possibility would be that Pittsburgh was somehow radically less dense than other comparable central cities. But that isn't true.
Take Denver and Portland (the central cities of metros #21 and #23, and #23 and #29 by population themselves). Pittsburgh is actually considerably denser than Denver or Portland.
So the reason Denver and Portland are ranked closer to the same as their respective metro areas is because they are a fairly typical size for central cities of such metros. Pittsburgh, in contrast, is relatively small.
We've been through this many times before. You actually started a whole thread about it.
The question worth asking is why the central city of metro area that is ranked #22 by population is itself only ranked #61 by population. Looking at other cities with a similar population won't answer that question--you need to compare it to the central cities of other similarly large metros.
If you do that, it turns out that Pittsburgh is one of the smallest (although not the smallest) central cities among the central cities of comparably large metros. That explains the #22/#61 discrepancy.
And of course there isn't really an alternative explanation for the #22/#61 discrepancy. The only other notable possibility would be that Pittsburgh was somehow radically less dense than other comparable central cities. But that isn't true.
Take Denver and Portland (the central cities of metros #21 and #23, and #23 and #29 by population themselves). Pittsburgh is actually considerably denser than Denver or Portland.
So the reason Denver and Portland are ranked closer to the same as their respective metro areas is because they are a fairly typical size for central cities of such metros. Pittsburgh, in contrast, is relatively small.
And that should be that.
Well I guess!
I'm sorry, I don't see it as Pittsburgh getting such a bad deal. I have put much thought into this issue as these threads, including one of God knows how many started by me, keep popping up. People are always looking at ways to "improve" Pittsburgh's standing in these lists. I do not see Pittsburgh getting such a bum deal in the way these stats are kept. If you included Pittsburgh's "inner ring" suburb's you'd have to include every city's inner ring burbs, etc. I posted that one time years ago.
There are some cities with no county. St. Louis is one of them. It's roughly the size of Pittsburgh and it is ranked #58 in population. San Francisco has a city/county government, with contiguous boundaries, smaller than Pittsburgh, and with hills (which for some reason is significant), and it is ranked #14. Minneapolis and St. Paul are both geographically smaller than Pittsburgh, and they are ranked #48 and 66, respectively. Even with two largish cities, one bigger than Pittsburgh and one smaller, they are only ranked 16 in MSA size, just a few places above Pittsburgh. Some people complain in these threads that some of California's suburban cities shouldn't "count" for some reason. The issue is not (or so I thought) population density, it is that Pittsburgh is supposedly "artificially" small. The OP has not explained what "aritificially" means. Annexation laws in many states prevent cities from annexing other cities in 2012, and for a long time prior. Colorado has an amendment to its constitution that has special, stricter requirements for Denver than even for the rest of the state. The OP accuses Oklahoma City and Los Angeles of "cheating". (I don't think it's true that LA is annexing much of anything; most of the area surrounding it is incorporated, and has no desire to be annexed by LA, meaning such a plan wouldn't survive a public vote.)
Every city is differnt and every city has its own unique issues.
Minneapolis and St. Paul are both geographically smaller than Pittsburgh, and they are ranked #48 and 66, respectively. Even with two largish cities, one bigger than Pittsburgh and one smaller, they are only ranked 16 in MSA size, just a few places above Pittsburgh.
Minneapolis is ranked 13th with 3.6 million.
Pittsburgh is ranked 19th with 2.4 million.
As Pittsburgh was a mere 8,000 in front of Charlotte in 2010, Pitt has certainly lost that spot and dropped to 20th.
Just know that arguing about which table works out best for your argument doesn't change what's happening in the country. The truly big cities don't worry much about any of these tables.
I hear you. Your argument is stupid. Somehow you imagine that attributing success of students to the genes they inherit from their parents rather than from their parent's behavioral influence supports your contention that peers are more important than parents in edcuational outcomes. That you can't see how ridiculous this train of thought is supports the contention that liberalism is a genuine cognitive disorder in its own right. It would also account for your inability to understand a point of view opposed to the one you've been brainwashed for.
Two different points entirely. As I said, some studies showed, when comparing biological children to adopted children, that heredity plays a big role in child development. For IQ it's around 80%, and for basic personality traits 50%. That doesn't mean it's all genetic, as certain "epigenetic" effects, like poor nutrition during pregnancy, can last for several generations.
However, other studies have shown that biological siblings reared in the same household only have a 25% similarity in terms of personality traits. Even identical twins reared in the same household only share 50% of personality traits. Basically, they are only similar enough to be explained by heredity, with the shared environment of the household accounting for very little. Either kids have totally random reactions to parenting (some becoming like their parents, and others deciding to do the exact opposite), or the normal range of parenting styles has very little effect on the adult personality of children.
Up until around a decade ago, the assumption was the 50% of someone's personality which wasn't attributable to "nature" must be attributable to "nurture" - parenting choices. But data doesn't bear this out. Indeed, it seems that, on average, nurture only makes a 10% contribution to how children turn out. The remaining 40% has been hypothesized to be due to peer effects - essentially the desire of children to conform to the norms of their social network.
To give an example, think about how the upper class traditionally raised sons in Britain (and to a lesser extent here). Both the mother and father were uninvolved in parenting. They hired a lower-middle class nanny to watch their son until eight, and then sent them away to boarding school, only to come home during holidays. At boarding school they were taught by middle-class instructors and watched over by a middle-class governess. Despite all this, they generally not only turned out fine, but they ended up talking and acting upper class, not middle class, despite having little exposure to their parents and a lot of exposure to adults from other social strata. The reason is simple - they sought to conform to the norms of the older children at the school, who learned those norms from slightly older children, and so on back through the centuries.
Or to think more in terms of the modern day. Imagine two kids from humble working-class backgrounds. Who will be more driven to succeed? The kid with parents who constantly pester him to do well and become a doctor when he grows up, or the kid who gets a scholarship into an elite private school, whose peers are all talking about their own social and economic ambitions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011
I lived during the white flight eras in Pittsburgh, though it was more of an urban flight than a racial fllight here.
In some areas it was related to black migration into neighborhoods that had been traditionally white. Belzhoover was one example which became predominantly black by the mid 1960's. White people left early in the process to avoid the further erosion of their property value and to escape higher crime rates, some of which was directed at them for being white. I had a few elderly relatives in this situation in Belzhoover in the early 1960's.
More often, it was a desire by people to have bigger lots and more modern homes, plus better schools for their kids. Again, the parents wanted to be around other parents who influenced their children to achieve.
Exactly. White flight was a mixture of two issues - a general desire for the suburbs (which initially black people were barred from), and an active desire to escape racially transforming neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011
As for Detroit, the race riots of 1967 and 68 certainly motivated white people to leave the cities. But the process of depopulation wasn't really complete until the last 10 years. The more recent flight has been due to high crime and taxes for anyone working, ridiculously bad schools, corrupt public officials and laws making rental investment impossible. 'Working the system' is an art form among the underclass in Detroit and is aided and abetted by the local government.
Detroit's population did drop dramatically in the last decade. However, in 2000 it was 82% black and 12% white, and in 2010 it was 83% black and 11% white. The racial breakdown didn't change much at all - those that fled were of both colors. In addition, more people left the city in the 1970s (311,000) than the last decade (237,000).
I hate to sound so pessimistic, but Detroit was probably already at the point of no return in 2000, although the brief rally of the auto industry in the early part of the last decade gave it some zombie-like life. Without a huge change to the local economy (housing prices rising, forcing people to stay in the city, and new immigrants filling up the old housing stock), it was pretty much doomed. Instead the easy credit of the housing boom allowed many lower-middle class black people to flee to Southfield and other adjacent communities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011
My parents moved to Mt. Lebanon for the schools when I was a kid. They continued to live there after we graduated and moved away, but that didn't last forever. When my Dad retired, they moved away to a place with far lower taxes. I suppose there are dummies around who don't take their own financial self-interest into consideration, but I don't know any of them.
There have been threads here with people who say they are moving to Fox Chapel, but want to send their kids to private school, and ask for recs! So yes, there are dummies.
As I recall there is evidence this is subject to school policy (meaning things like extracurricular mixing, grade segregation, and so on can increase the rate of cross-racial friendships).
In any event, I think all the points I made above about imperfect correlations still apply, and on top of that of course there are non-white students who can have positive behavioral affects on other non-white students. A policy focused on achieving economic mixing in schools (more on this below) will likely have the incidental affect of increasing economic diversity within same-race populations within schools.
As I previously noted, I know the research supports the existence of threshold and compounding academic effects with respect to disadvantaged students in the economic sense (usually measured by qualifying for free or subsidized lunches).
I also know that the research supports improvements in interracial relations in racially mixed schools (versus ones with very high percentages of one race). That is another sort of benefit we could be talking about, although not one I have specifically had in mind to this point.
Interestingly, a book I have been reading last night just cited studies of black children and delinquency. Although black children overall are more likely to get in trouble for conduct than white children, the difference does vanish once schools are taken into account. E.G., black kids in predominantly white schools are just as well-behaved, on average, as white kids. So at least on general behavior, there's no question that racial mixing improves black student outcomes considerably.
Interesting, GregHenry. Your link is for the CSAs, mine is for the MSAs. The ordering is somewhat different. However, for our people who feel Pittsburgh is somehow getting "cheated", I will use both lists plus the table of city populations, and point out the following:
***************CSA rank**********MSA Rank***********City rank
Salt Lake City------ 28------------------- 48------------------- 123 (189,899)
Omaha------------- 46--------------------58 -------------------- 43 (415,068)
Colorado Springs---- Not Ranked---------- 81 ------------------- 41 (425, 388)
So Pittsburgh, with a population of ~300K, gets a higher ranking than Omaha or Colorado Springs, both of which are larger. In fact, COS is the largest of all these cities, and doesn't even have a CSA ranking. Salt Lake City is a considerably smaller city, yet its CSA is bigger than some larger cities, just like Pittsburgh. Every city is different.
My previous post inspired me to do a whole chart comparing MSAs and population. I had to do this manually, so there may be some errors, though I tried my hardest.
Please note:
1. There are many cities that have a large discrepancy between their population rank and their MSA rank. Pittsburgh is NOT alone in this regard.
2. These discrepencies start with city # 7, San Antonio, which is ranked 24 by MSA (17 places difference). There are 8 cities with a 30-39 place discrepancy, like Pittsburgh (39), 3 with a 40-49 point discrepancy, and one with a 54 place discrepancy (Corpus Christi, TX).
City by Population Rank MSA Rank of City MSA Rank by Population Notes
1.New York 1 New York
2.LA 2 Los Angeles
3.Chicago 3 Chicago
4.Houston 5 Dallas-Ft. Worth
5.Philadelphia 6 Houston
6.Phoenix 14 Philadelphia
7.San Antonio 24 Washington, DC *
8.San Diego 17 Miami
9.Dallas 4 Atlanta
10.San Jose 31 Boston **
11.Jacksonville 40 San Franciso **
12.Indianapolis 35 Riverside, San Bernadino, CA **
13.Austin 34 Detroit **
14.San Francisco 11 Phoenix
15.Columbus, OH 32 Seattle
16.Ft. Worth, TX Part of DFW Minneapolis
17.Charlotte, NC 33 San Diego
18.Detroit 13 Tampa, FL
19.El Paso, TX 65 St. Louis ****
20.Memphis 41 Baltimore **
21.Boston 10 Denver *
22.Seattle 15 Pittsburgh ***
23.Denver 21 Portland, OR
24.Baltimore 20 San Antonio
25.Washington, DC 7 Sacramento, CA *
26.Nashville 37 Orlando, FL *
27.Louisville, KY 42 Cincinnati *
28.Milwaukee 39 Cleveland *
29.Portland, OR 23 Kansas City
30.Oklahoma City, OK 43 Las Vegas *
31.Las Vegas, NV 30 San Jose
32.Albuquerque 57 Columbus **
33.Tucson 52 Charlotte *
34.Fresno, CA 55 Austin **
35.Sacramento, CA 25 Indianapolis
36.Long Beach, CA Part of LA Virginia Beach, VA
37.Kansas City, MO 29 Nashville
38.Mesa, AZ Part of Phoenix Providence, RI
39.Virginia Beach, VA 36 Milwaukee
40.Atlanta 9 Jacksonville, FL ***
41.Colorado Springs, CO 81 (Chandler, AZ) Memphis ****
42.Raleigh, NC 47 Louisville, KY
43.Omaha, NE 58 Oklahoma City *
44.Miami 8 Richmond, VA ***
45.Tulsa, OK 54 Hartford, CT
46.Oakland, CA Part of San Fran New Orleans
47.Cleveland 28 Raleigh *
48.Minneapolis, MN 16 Salt Lake City (123) ***
49.Wichita, KS 86 (Garland TX) Buffalo, NY ***
50.Arlington, TX Part of Dallas Birmingham, AL
51.New Orleans 46 Rochester, NY
52.Bakersfield, CA 61 Tucson
53.Tampa 18 Honolulu ***
54.Anaheim, CA Part of LA Tulsa
55.Honolulu 53 Fresno
56.Aurora, CO Part of Denver Bridgeport, CT (169)
57.Santa Ana, CA Part of LA Albuquerque
58.St. Louis 19 Omaha ***
59.Riverside, CA 12 Albuquerque ****
60.Corpus Christi, TX 114 (Moreno Valley, CA) New Haven, CT *****
61.Pittsburgh 22 Bakersfield, CA ***
City in ( ) indicates the city that is that population rank if past 61
Number in ( ) indicates that city's poulation rank if past 61
* indicates 10-19 places difference; ** indicates 20-29, etc
As usual per CD software, it didn't copy correctly. My apologies.
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.
