Samuel J. Abrams writes in an op-ed in the
New York Times, headlined, "
Hey College Graduates: Don't Dismiss Rural America" (and sub-headed: "You don’t have to live in a big city to succeed economically and socially"):
When I talk to undergraduate students about their postgraduate plans, they typically tell me about something that involves moving to a large city. They are often sure of the city even before they know what they want to do there. When I ask why they are moving to San Francisco — or Denver, or Nashville or New York — the answer inevitably reveals a common assumption: Big cities are where highly educated people must go to succeed economically and socially.
He analyzed data from a
national survey conducted by the American Enterprise Institute, and part of his analysis follows:
Let’s start with the idea that urban areas are overwhelmingly progressive and rural areas overwhelmingly conservative. This is simply wrong. It is true that ideological differences by urbanization level exist, but they are smaller than you might think. In large cities, 39 percent of the population identifies as liberal in some form, 23 percent as conservative and 38 percent as moderate. The inverse is true for rural areas, where 20 percent of residents are liberal, compared with 42 percent conservative and 37 percent moderate.
Other data points Abrams highlights include these:
- Twenty-one percent of educated urbanites reported that there were plenty of good jobs available in their communities, a figure that actually increased to 24 percent for rural areas.
- Ninety-five percent of college graduate urban residents said they anticipated that their finances would be better or the same in a year.
Abrams is a political scientist who teaches at Sarah Lawrence College.
No comments:
Post a Comment