Yeah. Sure did.

A "typo" is generally considered a one-off misspelling caused by a slip of a finger, typing too fast or carelessness.

Spelling "Houston", "Huston" six times in ~five paragraphs isn't a "typo", it's someone who clearly doesn't know how to spell the word.

Mmmmkayy?? :rolleyes:

Just a head up, nobody respects a typo nerd -- true story -- that's all you got, is a typo. :yes:

You mean I haven't earned the respect of a complete stranger on an Internet forum who I'll never meet in real life, and whose opinion(s) I couldn't care less about?

How will I live to see another day? :rolleyes:

You're the one focused on a typo. Lol. You got nothing else in the discussion, you must be proud!

Managed to find some stats for total college grads by metro area:

LA: 3.5 million
Dallas: 1.77 million
Houston: 1.55 million

That that isn't counting the additional 1.01 million additional graduates in the Inland Empire and Ventura County, many of whom commute into LA, but since I don't know enough about the Texan cities to determine if they also have far outlaying suburbs that should be included I'll leave that out.

In any case your anecdotal experience is correct. LA only has 2-3x the college graduate population of either Dallas or Houston, which tracks fairly close to the ratio of LA's size compared to each city. Dallas and LA have nearly identical degree attainment rates (39.8% vs 39.7%), with Houston falling slightly behind (37.8%). The only reasonable explanation for where these additional skilled workers are coming from is outside the metro.

Which, if we could finally bring this thread back to its original topic, is the central issue with the future of most major non-Cali metros in the sunbelt. Demographically and thus economically, their growth is extremely dependent on domestic migration. And that has historically been tied to their low cost of living, which itself is largely due to the low cost of land. But even in Texas land isn't an infinite resource. Or at least land within an acceptable commuting distance of the major job centers is limited. So the question becomes what does Texas and Florida's future look like after cheap new suburban residential development isn't feasible anymore in their current largest cities? Can Dallas, Houston, and Miami transition creating growth from within rather than taking growth from without? Or will we just build another set of western cities into metropolises?

I’m making this public on purpose: stop making antagonist posts. You read like an angry teenager whose attitude negatively affects every thread you post in. If you want to continue participating in this forum, you need to adjust your tone and you need to learn how to let things go. Just an Internet forum and you’ll never meet these people in real life? Then who cares if you score some internet argument points?

Some advice too: start showing us you can be an adult by not replying to my post here with some flippant rejoinder. Just let it go.

I just noticed the following: "City-versus-city activity is flat-out banned from being posted here in all its forms."

Therefore I have deleted the post.

Speaking of complexes, here goes that Houston inferiority complex. We don't need to pub ourselves, it's a great city that's grown a lot in ways other than population the last couple decades.

We could be New Orleans: celebrated cosmetically with lots of problems. So let's just enjoy Houston.

Hey, I also think it's ridiculous when San Antonio touts itself as being bigger than Dallas (which, of course, it technically is, but, I mean, get real!) and I dread the day Houston's population surpasses Chicago's because I fear Houston will just embarrass itself. I have a hard time imagining Houston ever surpassing Chicago in sheer grandness or grandeur.

I wonder if folks once said that around the time LA began creeping up on Chicago.

LA still isn't a grander city than Chicago. It's bigger, but not grander.

I did.

As far as economic development, I would definitely say that the Texas metros (esp. Dallas) have definitely stolen some of the thunder from Atlanta/Miami and taken the lead.

However, on the debate of universities....I'll post the US news rankings for each city. Please tell me if I miss any as I'm not terribly familiar with these areas.

DFW-
64. SMU
97. TCU
147. UT Dallas
281. Dallas Baptist
281. University of North Texas/Denton


Houston-
17. Rice
185. Univ. of Houston
281.Sam Houston State

Miami-
57. Univ. of Miami
218. Florida International
248. Nova Southeastern
272.Keiser Univ.

Atlanta-
21. Emory
29. Georgia Tech (The engineering program is top notch and in the same league as UC Berkley and CMU)
50. University of Gerogia
211. Georgia State

Contentious Colleges
70. TX A&M (Houston)
79. Baylor (DFW)
153. Mercer (Atlanta)

Out of all of these, I would definitely say that Atlanta is by far the clear winner of the pack with three universities in the top 50.

Second could go to either Dallas our Houston depending on what you value. It depends if you want an elite school (Rice) and some good schools in Houston, or good schools across the board but no elite university in Dallas.

Miami is by far the last place finisher.

You left out several DFW area schools. Most of them are unexceptional, but two of them, UT Arlington and University of North Texas/Denton, are quite large with over 25,000 students each.

University of Texas/Arlington ranked #293
University of North Texas/Denton ranked #281
University of Dallas (Catholic) ranked #7 Regional University West and #15 for Best Undergraduate Teaching. It is a fine little school.

I don't think Houston can lay claim to Texas A&M. College Station is in no way part of the Houston metro. It is almost as close to Austin as it is to Houston. Still Houston probably is the academic winner in Texas outside of Austin. Rice is first rate. University of Houston has some strong liberal arts programs and good professional schools. The presence of three medical schools in Houston is also impressive.

SMU and TCU are wealthy and decent enough schools, but neither of them have a strong brand outside of the region. UT/Dallas is getting a reputation as a school making a real name for itself, especially in business, computer sciences, and engineering. It might be a comer, but it's not quite there yet.

^

Correct, you'd have to add Baylor to Dallas, which it isn't. But College Station is its own thing, like Athens is to Atlanta.

I try to leave out universities once they go into the range of high 200s, but Atlanta has a few more universities that would fall into the categories of universities you listed (albeit lower down)...

293-381 (no specific ranking for these universities)-Clark Atlanta, Kennesaw State, Univ. of W GA. There's also Morehouse and Spellman.

I also find it crazy impressive how Houston supports 3 med schools. Just by looking at aerials of TMC it looks like its own proper business district. Atlanta has Emory and Morehouse (very small), but the sheer scale and caliber of medschools in Houston is blows Atlanta out of the water.

I would consider Athens to be a part of ATL which is why I grouped in UGA. It economically and politically connected to Atlanta... and it is the main public school besides GT that gets most of the academic talent from GA.

Houston is about to add its 4th medical school; University of Houston. In addition to Baylor College of Medicine, UTHealth (who poached their dean from Emory) and UTMB which is in Galveston.

Houston also has a few more universities that are probably not ranked; UH Downtown, UH Clear Lake, UH Victoria, U of St. Thomas and Houston Baptist.

I found total medical school graduates by state: https://www.kff.org/other/state-indi...:%22desc%22%7D

Here are the top 10 states (considering both MD and DO I guess since who am I to judge)

Texas has a lot of med students, but is still at a deficit as share of population (though not nearly as big of a deficit as California!). It seems like there is enough demand for additional med schools in Texas. I imagine CA is largely dependent on Filipino and Indian doctors.