Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Did they ask the children?
In fairness to Detroit, there are a lot more than 100 cities to choose from in the United States.
This list makes no sense to me. San Francisco is ranked #14. San Diego, which has nicer weather, lower costs, less crime, and a lot fewer insane homeless people, is ranked #24. Say what?I can't think of a single reason to prefer raising children in San Francisco to raising them in San Diego, unless "not having a Republican within 200 miles" counts as a reason. :)
so do most people not care if the city/town/schools are ethnically homogenous ? there are more important factors; but still ....
DC was as high as 17. Ha ha that's funny. Of course, it's all about the criteria. I'm an atheist but I still noticed in Family Life they include "performing arts companies" (how many) but nothing about religion or church. In fact, it's based simply on the Northeastern magazine editor value system.
I heard Detroit has a new slogan....If the bullets don't kill you, a marathon will.
danielle said... "so do most people not care if the city/town/schools are ethnically homogenous ?"Not everyone's bought into the diversity scam...
I see there is a definite bias toward the urban areas. Even the smaller cities on the list are fairly large.As for D.C., they obviously do not mean the real District, like Northeast D.C. and Anacostia, as is obvious by the fact that neither the Obamas nor Clintons dared send their kids to D.C. schools. Clearly, they mean the white areas of Georgetown and the Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenue corridors, as well as some of the surrounding areas to the west in Virginia and to the north in Maryland (but certainly not P.G. County).
Hmmm, they didn't say how far out they measured. The Philadelphia area (ranked 76) is generally viewed as the 5 counties in SE PA, South Jersey, and Delaware. Granted, I left about a dozen years ago, but there were many nice communities to live and raise kids; there are some nice areas in the city itself (Northeast Philly, Society Hill). I see something like this and am reminded that there is nothing like going there and seeing for yourself.WV "outelett" An outlet with pretensions
My guess is there are hundreds of small towns that beat them all.
Oakland is higher than Tampa and Salt Lake City? Are these people insane?
LOL Little Rock is near the top.
I have a friend whose husband was offered a huge raise contingent on them moving to Little Rock. They did not move.
Odd. Thursday last was talking to a fellow from Madison about a job. He was working from home, and his dog started whimpering. Kids were walking home from school past his place. He said it's a great place to live.Derek
Fremont? SF? Kids? They're nuts. No credibility at all. Not even going to bother with the rest of the list.
I agree with Revenant, I've lived in San Diego and there is plain no rational reason that San Francisco (which has entire malls without toy stores) would be preferred. I would think that D.C. scored highly because of the questionable use of school spending per child as a proxy for good schools.
Trailways bus (Paul Simon) has a nice mention of Little Rock. (real audio, may need to fetch old codec)
thesse lists are all bullshit--cities dont raise children, parents do HIllary notwithstanding
Orlando is 98th, just two cities ahead of Detroit? Huh? I thought Orlando was a Magic Kingdom.Nice to see Milwaukee is 87th. Sheesh. Salt Lake City is 79th? Can't be. Did they actually ever visit SLC? It should be in the top twenty, at least, especially for the excellent public school system. A lot of these rankings make no sense. NYC is ranked as one entity. Okay, how is life for a kid in the South Bronx the same as for another kid in the Upper East Side? As for Madison, it's a nice place to live. But second? Not if the kid attends one of the gang-infested high schools, and is taught by moonbeam liberal faculty members. Besides, what do kids know? They don't pay property taxes.
It’s tough to find a woodshed in the city.
Any special reason you posted on this topic, Althouse? (nudge, nudge)
How the hell did Little Rock make number 16? I mean, I don't hate it or anything, but that surprises me a lot.
Ha didn't see Freeman beat me to it on the Little Rock thing. I live here and I like it, but I would have put Fayetteville higher on the list in a heartbeat.And DC? I adore DC but I wouldn't have put it on the kids list. Maybe Alexandria.Hmmm, they didn't say how far out they measured. The Philadelphia area (ranked 76) is generally viewed as the 5 counties in SE PA, South Jersey, and Delaware. They have Dallas, Arlington and Fort Worth all listed as different cities.
How could Jersey City NJ be up there in the top twenty? That's one of the cities which the pro-gun crowd uses to argue that gun control doesn't work. I disagree with that of course, but not with the fact that you wouldn't want to walk the streets at night there. Here was an interesting report in it.
Weather was not a factor in the list-making. If it was, I think San Diego, with its very boring weather, would be lower on the list. The midwest sure rocks, apparently -3 of the top 4!
Burlington, VT? Yeah if you want your daughter to stop shaving her legs and insist that you have a composting toilet. All of the cities at the top are full of leftists. Yeah, Burlington is a pretty city and kind of neat. But if you live there, you have to interact with any number of brain dead aging hippies and G20 protestors. No way am I letting those people anywhere near my children.
Yonkers at no. 10? Sure, it has some nice parts, but much of the city is run-down and quite poor.Peter
Burlington, VT? Yeah if you want your daughter to stop shaving her legsSounds nice to me. If she stops shaving her legs, that also means she'll stop shaving ... oh, never mind.Peter
Hawaii is ranked #7 - in spite of the fact that Hawaii public schools suck big time. Few parents will send their kids there if they can afford a private school.This poll is worthless.
(OT: Why are there so many lesbian goat farmers in Vermont? I have no idea.)
Jersey City at 13? Yonkers at 10? I am suspicious.
A look at the list tells you exactly what the criteria was for creating it: where liberal indoctrination of children is the strongest.Even the cities located in "red states" are the places where the Leftists gather.The fact that places like Detroit and Oakland even made the list AT ALL tells you that this has nothing to do with the place actually being good for children. How can cities that are best known for their violence even receive serious consideration? Is growing up with a serious risk of being a random victim of a drive-by shooting now a requirement of a good childhood?Just another example of Leftist politics masquerading as news. The problem is that it's not even a good costume: more like just using a marker on a paper bag and putting over your head.
Hey there, from the Detroit metro area. It's not so bad.Okay, yes, it really is.*sigh*Can I get a bailout? :)
I'll add one more thought: my guess is that this list was put together by the teachers' union, NEA. It wasn't journalism: it was a repackaged press release.I'm going to guess that they ranked the cities based on their own judgment of the strength of the teachers' unions in those cities.After all, if those are the "best places to raise a child" then it must be because of the teachers' unions, right?Most of the cities on that list have declining populations - as parents flee the cities for the safety of the suburbs. So how do you maintain the power of the teachers' unions? You have to encourage the taxpayers who were paying their salaries to return. So you get a sympathetic "news" organization to publish a bogus "Best Places to Raise a Child" article that will likely be picked up and linked to by gullible bloggers oblivious to the obvious political agenda being pushed.
Jim, thank goodness you are intelligent enough to see through it all.If you click on the link, you can see the criteria used to create the list, although not the weights assigned to each of the factors.
Burlington is a very nice town. So is Madison. But I have to question a list that says Jersey City (13) and Neward (46) as best cities to raise children. Did they even bother to go check those places out? And NYC? Maybe if you make $500,000+ a year. Otherwise it is a sucky place to raise kids.
This list is completly BOGUS.Fremont, Ca! San Francsico !!San Francisco has to be one of the most unfriendly to children cities in the world. Fremont is a pigstye.
This is not a "list of the 100 best places to raise children". They started with a list of 100 cities and then ranked them based on criteria that parents said were desirable. It does not imply that Detroit is the 100th most desirable place to raise kids, but rather that Detroit is the worst among the cities they ranked.
Ann and Meade,It is a waste that you live in Madison without kids to raise. I would like you to adopt me and Lindsey Lohan and raise us right, we both need it. We can babysit each other while you go bowling, so don't think it will screw up your lives. We will be good. We promise. C'mon, pleeeeeese.
Note that the first two criteria for education are student/teacher ratio and spending per pupil. Neither are well correlated with educational outcomes. Hence the number of cites with bloated, expensive bad school systems. Try percentage of public school teachers with children in private schools if you want a better measure of quality.
Chickenlittle, in the Nichols post, wrote: Now wait just one gosh-darned minute- I thought Madison was the second best place on earth to bring up kids?Oh wait! I guess you have to have them in the first place.That's the missing criteria: the density of other kids. The best place to raise children is where there are a lot of children.
I would use drop out rate as the educational measure. The worse thing for your kids is to live in a city with a lot of drop outs.
Salt Lake City # 79. Ooh, those scary Mormons.
Madison schools are crowded. At least the schools my kids attend are crowded. So the criteria to raise kids around other kids is certainly being met.
Oh, my god, this is a leftist magazine!!!!! Please, people, grow up. I give no credence to the article because they left out the best city in the US, Pasadena. Wonderful.
Haven't you heard? Cities are are a better option in a country intent on energy independence. We need to get our people back to building high speed rail so that we can leave the highways and the big cars behind for the bicycles and bullit trains.
San Diego, with its very boring weather, would be lower on the listThe weather is pretty one-note, but it is a nice note. :)However, from a kid-raising perspective, San Diego has a huge advantage in weather: kids can play outside basically every day of the year.
Post a Comment