You say 'dated' while others might say 'classic.' And thats how it tends to work across the board, does it not? Even for cities who embrace more traditional aspects of their history and identity, in many cases those aspects are mostly things of the past or not nearly as prominent in the life of the city as they used to be (e.g., Pittsburgh and steel). And with the homogenization of American culture and many demographic trends that used to be more regional becoming more of a national phenomenon , there are less and less modern characteristics that cities can truly capitalize on today to distinguish themselves. Dallas had better stick to the show and "America's team" because I'm not sure if building a new brand and identity simply on things like rapid Latino growth, expanding LRT, and amassing several corporate headquarters will go over too well.

It's clear metros like Dallas and Houston (and Portland, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc.) can grow without having a major top-tier university within their respective metros--as long as there is sufficient in-migration to provide the necessary talent to keep economies humming along. But what if domestic in-migration can't do that in the future? Metros that can grow their own talent are positioned better in general, IMO.

Well for one thing Dallas culture is nothing like it was in the 80s. If we are talking about it’s reputation, we should talk about its current reputation, not what it used to be.

I gotcha, but what needs to be kept in mind here is that universities are city-based and not really metro-based, at least when you consider the time when they were founded. Metro Houston truly does dominate its metro whereas the Metroplex has a handful of smaller cities besides Dallas and Fort Worth. But at least things are somewhat balanced out with Houston having Rice and the states's two public four-year HBCUs. It could be closer to the situation between Charlotte and the Triangle where the latter gets the most, the best, and the most variety in institutions of higher learning.

I'm wondering if Houston's coastal location versus DFW's inland location played some sort of role there.

The military seems to be more consequential for San Antonio and the smaller Texas cities and truthfully, most cities whose economies are dominated/defined by the military don't tend to be the most dynamic or prosperous. While San Antonio is indeed growing at a rapid clip, it's not getting the same types of tech/corporate office development as the other large Texas cities. You can see a somewhat similar dynamic at work in places like Hampton Roads and Fayetteville, NC. I think Houston is a lot better off with NASA and the port being its recipients of government largesse.

Now that truly does suck, especially with Houston having a respectable higher education profile as well as the behemoth that is TMC. It's not uncommon for states to play favorites at times with its metropolitan areas for the purposes of economic development unfortunately, and a lot of times that's tied to a state's political history and the regions that traditionally held power. It sucks even more when you consider that Houston is arguably the critically most important city in the state due to its coastal location. It's impressive that it still continues to do relatively well considering the cyclical economic fluctuations it usually undergoes as well as the recent weather events it has experienced.

Plus UH Clear Lake and UH Downtown. MD Anderson has four year degrees in health sciences and UTHealth offers BSN degrees. Plus UT Austin and Texas A&M have MBA f2f programs here in Houston.

We're talking about cultural prominence and identity, and yes, old stuff usually plays a big role in defining and shaping those things. I don't understand why some find this to be so debatable when it's damn near a principle. I didn't write the rule book and Dallas isn't an exception. Hell aren't we still calling Austin the "Live Music Capital of the World" when a crap ton of the live music venues it had when the nickname was initially coined have since met the wrecking ball? I mean we could be at this all day.

Well Austin is still the live music capital of the world and I think the real principle is that when things change you recognize it.

Thanks for adding to my list jmanc

Is it though?

https://www.kvue.com/article/enterta.../269-556797289
https://www.dailytexanonline.com/201...d-by-musicians

No that's not the real principle in this context, which, again, is cultural prominence/identity; we're not having this discussion in a vacuum. Of course things always change but that doesn't erase the cultural impact or contribution a city made in the past which put it on the map and gave it an identity nationally. Cities build upon those things and those bygone eras become notable chapters in their histories and important additions in their cultural profiles.

At this point, I'm not sure if you were unaware of the context of this particular side discussion or if you're disagreeing for its own sake.

All and all, Houston offers less traditionally higher education offerings (4-year colleges where "anything" can be taken) than its peers.

It's not really balanced out when UT-Dallas and UT-Arlington both have over 25k+ undergraduates compared to two HBCUs under 10k students each.

Like I mentioned earlier, the presence of the military has spurred economic growth. Like San Antonio is big in cyber security due to the military. You'd rather have it as part of your city's economic diversity than not. The other Texas cities luckily have it (and in Austin's case the state government too), while Houston does not. San Antonio may not be getting as many namebrand relocations as DFW and Austin, but quite a few companies have expanded operations there (Microsoft, Hulu, etc.). Touting the Port is no different than DFW touting it's airport. Speaking of which, a bill was proposed by Texas lawmakers to limit cargo ships into the Port of Houston. Luckily that didn't pass.

Yeah I agree. It's impressive the city has gotten as large as it has without the assistance the I-35 Corridor has received (and continues to) from the state.

A&M is 90-something miles from downtown. Outside the metro area but still fairly close. I had a friend who commuted to College Station a few times a week from Houston for her masters. Sam Houston State is about 70 miles from Houston.

Well 90 or 70 miles is a lot different than just a handful of miles. Imagine if you placed College Station inside Loop 610 in Houston? Satellite campuses are different than a campus being inside the city. Besides, if we start counting A&M for Houston, then DFW can just as easily count Baylor and Tarleton State.

List universities and colleges for Metro Houston versus its peer cities, and unfortunately Houston comes up a few steps short.

After doing some searching I finally found a listing of US metros by total college enrollments, and the results are a bit shocking:

https://i.imgur.com/pkrT4T1.jpg

LA has a larger population of college student than Dallas, Huston, and Austin combined. Of all the metros with more than 1 million residents, at 7.34% LA has the highest fraction of college students compared to total population. Austin is at 5th with 7.13%, and no other Texan city falls in the top 10.

Houston being in the top 10 fares pretty well.

Ellington Field doesn’t count?

Not in terms of numbers, but in terms of prominence and variety of institutions.

Eh, we'll agree to disagree concerning the military. It seems to play a rather minor role in DFW's economy (and the same is pretty much true for Miami and Atlanta also). I actually think that having a rather large military sector can lead to a sort of complacency since the military tends to be a reliable economic fixture and that could be at least partially to blame for the lack of a local dynamic economy in many military-dependent cities. I think Houston benefits more from NASA's presence than it would from a DFW-sized military presence myself.

And come on, you know very well that DFW airport and the Port of Houston are two different types of assets. If you want to talk about entities in the state that are public or receive large amounts of government financial support, you've gotta mention Houston's port which is one of the largest and busiest in the world. It's also directly tied to the region's petrochemical industry.

I don't see what's shocking. The number of college students is basically a function of the overall population. LA is larger than Houston, Dallas and Austin combined, so, not surprisingly, has more college students. Something like 70% of high school grads attend college these days.

Again, I don't understand what's so important about where people attend college. In most cases it has limited impact on a metro's economic prospects. The best "Wall Street" business school isn't in NYC, the best "innovation" university is nowhere near Silicon Valley, etc. People just move to jobs after college.

The biggest concentration of Harvard grads isn't in Boston. If Harvard moved to rural Maine, it probably wouldn't change things too much, both for the metro and the institution.

Not too surprising regarding Texas.... Austin has the state's flagship university which is by far the largest while we don't take higher education as seriously as we should as an overall state.

Even though Texas A&M (the state's second flagship university) is ~90 miles from downtown Houston, it should get at least half the enrollment counted towards it.

I’m just impressed with Miami being that high. Of course the big dogs will always be up there, but it’s nice to see that we got a lot of college students in South Florida, even if they only chose it for the beaches and weather :haha:


But I got family and friends still in that system and had I not been bothered by the amount of loans I would have had to take out, I would have been an UM alumni.

What's the "best 'Wall Street' business school"? UPenn (Wharton)?

"Innovation"? I think Stanford is definitely #1.

Pretty sure it is, but I get your point.

Dallas-Fort Worth's defense contracting industry is one of the largest in the country. Several industry giants including Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE: LMT), Raytheon Co. (NYSE: RTN), L3 Technologies, Inc.

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/n...nse-deals.html

Wharton likely has closer ties to Wall Street than any other institution. Harvard and Columbia would be close behind.

And it depends how you define innovation, but I would put MIT science up against any institution worldwide. Stanford obviously generates more startups and wealth, though. MIT is more about creating, say, a new polymer, rather than, say, a disruptive drycleaning startup.