humble question from a slightly average kid regarding nyc and so cal

[tum]

---

Members don't see this ad.

🙂

 

[PairODocs]

Are you going to be AOA? Anything else going in your favor?

 

[hans19]

220 and nothing else? Your location says New York. You have a chance in NYC, but So Cal is unrealistic. There is definitely a regional bias at a lot of programs.

Just apply and see what happens. Your chances are zero if you don't apply.

Only YOU know what is important to YOU. If you have family reasons for staying in a particular area fine. HOWEVER, would you really want to sacrifice quality training just to stay in a big city? There is a VAST amount of knowledge to be covered in 4 years. Though a lot of learning is done on your own, you need to get into the 'best' program that you can get into (even if its not in Manhattan, Beverly Hills or La Jolla). As radiology is becoming one of the most often sued specialties, you had better get the best training you can get and know your stuff COLD. (Though that won't necessarily protect you from getting sued). The training you get in your 4 years of radiology residency will set the tone for the rest of your rads career.

If you really wanna be in a big city, apply to a transitional or prelim in a big city, then apply broadly for rads, and get into the best program you can get into in a city you think you can tolerate for 4 years. The 4 years will be up before you know it.

Just my two cents. Good luck.
Hans.

 

[hans19]

Think twice about going to a 'crappiest of the crappiest most borderline almost probation program' ...

http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?sec=dsc&sub=res&pag=dis&messageID=39976

 

[ginger_flower]

Well, I was told by several private radiologists that I should aim for the highest univeristy program that I could get, and only after that, rank for the community programs.

I am also sorta in the OP's situation. I have mediocre step 1 scores, around what OP had. And, I doubt if I'll get AOA. However, I have been involved in research over the last year and anticipate submitting a paper for publication, although not in radiology. However, I have serious reservations about whether it will be published. I have 2 other projects (non-rads) in the works, but I don't know if they or that paper will ever get published. Does that research count for anything?

 

[tigershark]

Well, I was told by several private radiologists that I should aim for the highest univeristy program that I could get, and only after that, rank for the community programs.

I am also sorta in the OP's situation. I have mediocre step 1 scores, around what OP had. And, I doubt if I'll get AOA. However, I have been involved in research over the last year and anticipate submitting a paper for publication, although not in radiology. However, I have serious reservations about whether it will be published. I have 2 other projects (non-rads) in the works, but I don't know if they or that paper will ever get published. Does that research count for anything?

Of course that research counts. PD's want to see a serious commitment to research for it to make a difference in your app, it doesn't matter what field it is in. You are way ahead of the curve if you have had a large role in the design/conduct of several studies and have written a manuscript.

It's easy for them to pick out the people who did "research" just for the sake of having it on their application. Case reports and 1-2 month "research" electives are crap and really dont do much to help you. I've seen so many other students come through our lab for 1-2 months then never to be heard from again, that kind of research doesn't count for much even if it is in radiology.

 

[jhadow]

i'm an allopathic med student in the united states with a 220/90 on step I.. if i was willing to take the crappiest of the crappiest most borderline almost probation program, would there be a chance for me to be anywhere in nyc or southern california?

Did you mean by 220/90 that you got a 220 on step I and that is 90th percentile? I took step I this year and scored about the same as you, but didn't know what percentile I was. How did you figure 90?

J.

 

[SoCalRULES!!!!!]

220 is just slightly above average. (215-217 being average) so it is at best like the 52 percentile.

Personally, I think the LA metro and the Bay Area are by far the hardest metros to match in. They are such kick-ass place to live due to the hip lifestyle, culture and weather and the programs are typically very good. Especially LA. There are just not that many programs relative to the number of applications down here.

Next in difficulty I would say would be Manhattan/Boston.

I think you could match in a big city like Chicago, though a small city relative to the megalopolis of LA, it has more programs than LA, but frankly, who the hell would want to live in the Midwest if they didn't have to.

 

[scootad.]

actually manhattan aint so difficult to match in. there are tons of programs

 

[SoCalRULES!!!!!]

actually manhattan aint so difficult to match in. there are tons of programs

That could be true, but it has to be way tougher than Chicago which has horrible weather and that whole "Midwest thing" holding it back.

The Bay is harder than LA. Though not as many programs as NY and Chicago, it still has quite a few. But still LA is tough. Even average programs, like Cedars Sinai or UCI get amazing "top shelf" candidates as this is LA.

 

[scootad.]

nah chicago has much fewer programs than manhattan and are much more selective. you dont need as good stats to match at a place like st vinnies or harlem hospital as you would at u of chic or northwestern or even loyola for instance

 

[SoCalRULES!!!!!]

Dude, you just picked the top two programs in Chicago, I bet there are ****loads more like cook county and small community programs.

I bet it is a lot harder to match at Columbia, Cornell and NYU then it is at some suck balls community program in Chicago. NY for sure has more programs, but way way way more people would want to live in Manhattan than Chicago. No way is Manhattan easier to match into than Chicago. Who would pick Chicago over NY unless you had family there or were from like Iowa or some place like that where you crave the Midwest vibe?

 

[ktat72]

Anything in Chicago is tough. I would have thought Cook County would have been the easiest Chicago interview to get and they even rejected me, although I did receive an interview offer at Loyola - my only Chicago interview. I am also from the Midwest.

 

[awdc]

Did you mean by 220/90 that you got a 220 on step I and that is 90th percentile? I took step I this year and scored about the same as you, but didn't know what percentile I was. How did you figure 90?

J.

The two-digit score isn't a percentile. Check the USMLE website on interpreting your score.

 

[ears]

The two-digit score isn't a percentile. Check the USMLE website on interpreting your score.

I've often wondered what percentage of medical students getting their grade back think the two-digit number is a percentile. I think it's probably greater than 50%. Maybe it's a self-esteem thing on the part of NBME. All those students who can say, "Well, I got a 200, but I'm in the 80th percentile!" and feel better about themselves...

Later: I realized on reading what I wrote this morning that it came out condescending. Rather than withdrawing it, and pretending it didn't happen, I append this apology: I'm sorry.

 

[scootad.]

Its not only med students confusing the 2 digit score with percentile. I cant even count how many times I've heard PD's confuse them. I've heard them say at my interviews, "rads is such a hot field right now, what are we supposed to do when most of our applicants are in the 99th percentile these days." haha. You would think radiologists (who should be comfortable with math would be able to discern the difference or at least think something was a bit "off" with so many 99th percentiles all applying rads)

 

[SoCalRULES!!!!!]

What, you mean like friendly, unpretentious people within an extremely hip, urban, and low-cost lifestyle? You mean a place where people aren't superficial and there aren't droves of wannabes who move there simply "to be cool?" You mean a place that isn't cut-off from the rest of the country?

Count me in. The OP should know better than to take advice about Chicago and the Midwest on "experts" from SoCal.

California is one of only two states who has negative domestic migration. More people are moving OUT of California than IN. It ain't "the place to be" anymore, I'll tell ya.

As far as a feeling "big city," heck, SoCal doesn't even have street lights on the freeways or crowds of pedestrian traffic--where is that big city vibe you speak of? It exists only in the Northeast or Midwest.... or the imaginations of people from coastal California who haven't spent much time in these areas. Cities like LA are all sprawled out with above ground wires like the rural South, no street lights on the freeways, and practically no one walking around on the streets. Very un-urban. It's easy to think highly of your cities when the closest things to compare are places like Vegas and Phoenix--those bastians of urbanity. 😴

Chicago is a much, much more impressive city than LA. Ask anyone who isn't from SoCal and they'll tell you the same. If you saw the city view from my 49th floor apartment, I gaurantee you'd **** yourself because there is NOTHING like it in California. Just take a few looks at the skyline, greenery, street level retail, streetscaping, architecture, parks, pedestrian traffic, and a rapid transit map and it's quite obvious even on the surface which will give you the more hip, urban lifestyle, if that's what this guy is seeking.

Whatever dude,

There's a reason why Chicago's population dropped from nearly 3.6 million in 1950 to 2.6 million in 1980 and actually has continued to plummet with domestic whites and african-americans, but has risen slightly due to latino immigration, while LA's population increased by nearly 2,000,000 in that same era and is still rising.

The coasts are where its at now. I just saw my skyline and architecture and greenery featured over and over in national commercials tonight, including numerous skyscrapers in the downtown metropolis of LA with America's greatest piece of urban architecture, The Disney Music Hall. LA, NY, SF are the places to be for hip urban lifestyle, not the middle of red america! Also academic institutions are better out here or out on the other coast for medicine.

 

[stoleyerscrubz]

Why didn't Sinatra ever get around to singing about LA?

just kidding.

 

[SoCalRULES!!!!!]

Why didn't Sinatra ever get around to singing about LA?

just kidding.

Hate New York City
It's cold and it's damp
And all the people dressed like monkeys
Let's leave Chicago to the Eskimos
That town's a little (bit) too rugged
For you and me, you bad girl
Rollin' down the Imperial Highway
With a big nasty redhead at my side
Santa Ana wind blowin' hot from the north
And we was born to ride
Roll down the window, put down the top
Crank up the Beach Boys, baby
Don't let the music stop
We're gonna ride it till we just can't ride it no more
From the South Bay to the Valley
From the West Side to the East Side
Everybody's very happy
'Cause the sun is shining all the time
Looks like another perfect day
I love L.A. (We love it)
I love L.A. (We love it)
Look at that mountain
Look at those trees
Look at that bum over there, man
He's down on his knees
Look at these women
There ain't nothin' like em nowhere
Century Boulevard (We love it)
Victory Boulevard (We love it)
Santa Monica Boulevard (We love it)
Sixth Street (We love it, we love it)
I love L.A.
(We Love It)
I Love L.A.
(We Love It)
I Love L.A.
(We Love It)

 

[tsj]

^ "big nasty readhead"????? 😱

 

[Shaz]

I Love L.A.
(We Love It)

all of the following have, literally or symbolically, atleast one reference to LA:

Led Zeppelin: "Going to California"
Tupac: "Live and Die in LA," "California Love"
Beach Boys: "California Girls"
Beatles: "Blue Jay Way"
Red Hot Chili Peppers: "Californication"
Ramones (who are from NYC): "California Sun"
Rentals: "California"
Mama's and Papa's: "California Dreamin'"

and a bunch more I can't think of right now

 

[novacek88]

Anyone who tries to label LA as hip and urban is an idiot. For one thing, urban places have a sophistacted mode of transport other than a bus system. LA svcks and this is coming from someone who grew up in Anaheim Hills which is a nice area of LA. LA has no downtown for one thing. People work there and that's it. No one parties or dines in downtown LA. It's like Phoenix' downtown in that people go there for work and leave at night. It's just a bigger version of Phoenix with Hollywood. Sunset BLVD is overrated. It takes you an hour to drive any place ON A GOOD DAY. The traffic alone in LA will cause you to look elsewhere. On Saturday afternoons, it will still take you 45 minute to an hour just to drive someplace.

The problem with LA is that you can't enjoy the LA lifestyle unless you earn a lot of money. As a physician, you are not going to earn 400K like you would in Dallas. And a 2000 square foot home costs at least half a million dollars in a decent area. So you won't be living the OC life if that's what you are thinking. It's a lot of hype and that's what continues to bring people to the city because they have no idea what it's really like. Outside of the entertainment industry, it's offers very little industry. Law firms, Investment Banks, corporations, they don't compare to the sheer volume that exists in cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, SF and Washington D.C.

San Francisco is much better. It has a downtown and culture as opposed to LA is which is just one large suburb and strip malls. SF has better schools, companies, restaraunts, you name it.

Chicago is a great city. Midwest people are genuine and intelligent. In LA, it seems like nearly everyone there has not ever left southern california unless they went to Vegas or SF for a weekend. LA natives are some of the most ignorant and poorly traveled people you will ever meet.

The truth is if you want the best LA has to offer without it's worst, move to Phoenix. Phoenix has a midwest mentality with the luxury, weather and west coast attitude of LA. A lot of people from Chicago move to Phoenix because they got sick of the cold. It's a clean city with well designed freeways. Even Phoenix is adding a light rail system which LA hasn't figured out for decades and it has nearly triple the population. It's not a "hip and urban city" but as the nation's 6th largest city, I would say it is big enough. And it's soon to overtake Philly as the 5th largest city next year because of the growth. Phoenix has all the 4 major sports teams. Corporations are moving their headquarters there because of the inexpensive rents and the tax shelters. Their downtown is adding a major biotech hub there. And it's affordable. I guess this explains why it's the second fastest growing city in the U.S. which trails only Las Vegas. As far as hip and urban is concerned, yeah, that's cool when you are 25 years old but when you are purchasing a home, setting up your practice and raising a family; hip and urban is the last thing you want.

 

[bigfrank]

Well said.

 

[Shaz]

The problem with LA is that you can't enjoy the LA lifestyle unless you earn a lot of money.

Sorry to break it to you, but life in any city sucks if you don't earn a lot of money. That's the nature of existance in today's world.

 

[Filter]

i know posts like this show up here all the time, but i haven't come across one that matched my situation so i was curious as to what you guys would say.

i'm an allopathic med student in the united states with a 220/90 on step I.. if i was willing to take the crappiest of the crappiest most borderline almost probation program, would there be a chance for me to be anywhere in nyc or southern california? i noticed some pretty borderline programs on scutwork/auntminnie.

we have a fairly strong program at our school, but i'm very much about the larger cities. i plan to talk to our residency director about this, but i've found you guys have often insights that those higher up in academia might have forgotten. also, what's your guys' take on taking a year off to do research or applying after your pgy-1?

lemme know

Ummmm, although i hate to break up the LA/Chicago/NYC hate/lovefest, In response to the original poster, u definitiely have a shot. My fiance is applying and she has the same board score, and has gotten about 10 interviews (she also applied late as sort of a hail mary, had no significant research, and went for comm. programs). You should look at programs in the outer borough's...Brooklyn programs in particular if you want to be near the bridges or even live in the city. Also, since i assume you are a third year, try to do some research and take some rads rotations to get strong letters. Best of luck, and feel free to PM me to solicit advice from my fiance .....im going into medicine so im basically useless to u =).

 

[deleted50478]

If LA were in Texas it would be just another sprawled, congested, car-slaved Southern city like Houston or Atlanta, only with greater sprawl and more people.

Actually Houston is converting the downtown area to the sort of urban living you've been talking about. They're building trains and street level shops, and old buildings are being converted into high rise lofts that are both beautiful and affordable. Obviously a younger city like Houston isn't as pedestrian as Chicago, but it's on it's way. The best thing is that those lofts cost 10-20% of what they would in NY or Chicago. Plus they don't have the miserable winter of Chicago or all the materialistic nonconformist in a totally conformist way / BS nonsense that you'll find in LA. Is it just me or does it seem like people from LA seem to be desperately trying to impersonate the idea of what it is to be cool that they got off a bad TV show or a jeans commercial?

I actually live in New Orleans though which is about as cool a city as you could find in my opinion though it is a little run down and has relatively high crime. You can walk most anywhere from my apartment and there are tons of great bars and even better restaurants. You shouldn't just lump the South into one big category because there's a lot of variety here too.

 

[DrRads101]

That's good news about Houston... but as far as weather goes I am willing to bet that our winters are more tolerable than your summers. 🙂 I lived in North Carolina for a bit and the summers their are OPPRESIVE to say the least---it's the humidity that's the killer.

With the heat and humidity it is a real toll on your body and there is only so much you can take off. But up here you just put on a thick jacket and a hat and you can pretty much walk anywhere in comfort, and cold weather unlike hot/humid weather is actually invigorating to the body.

But I'm glad places like Houston are becoming more urban!

 

[azcomdiddy]

Sorry to break it to you, but life in any city sucks if you don't earn a lot of money. That's the nature of existance in today's world.

Sorry to break to you but look at the median home prices in LA versus other cities in the top 10 like Phoenix, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio. These are just a few examples. I could list many more cities with a more affordable cost of living compared to LA and So Cal. To equate LA with other cities simply because they are both cities is simply assinine.

 

[azcomdiddy]

Actually Houston is converting the downtown area to the sort of urban living you've been talking about. They're building trains and street level shops, and old buildings are being converted into high rise lofts that are both beautiful and affordable. Obviously a younger city like Houston isn't as pedestrian as Chicago, but it's on it's way. T.

Not to be rude but to say that Houston is on its way to becoming pedestrian is like saying Phoenix is going to be the next L.A. My Houston friends talk about their downtown's rennovation. Claiming that Houston is on it's way is a gross overstatement. Nearly every city in America is rennovating its downtown and trying to capture the urban feel of well known cities like Chicago and New York. This isn't just happening in Houston but in Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Cleveland, Detroit..you name it. But like those cities, Houston is a long ways away from it ever becoming pedestrian. As novacek listed above, Phoenix is putting in a light rail, a medical school, a biotech sector, 5 more sky rise buildings, and many more lofts, and it's still going to take a long time before their downtown becomes busy.

Also, you have to remember Houston and other Texas cities are still very much southern cities, so they are very Republican and socially and religously conservative. A city with these types of values cannot ever hope to capture the diversity, culture and progressiveness of a Chicago because they are not as open to controversial ideas and trends. The most hip and urban cities like Chicago, SF, New York and Boston are also very liberal, progressive and democratic. The only Texas city that comes close to offerring that is Austin and it's still pretty tiny. And if you truly want to be considered at that level, you have to attract people from other states. Houston is very cliquish. If you go out in Houston, it seems like everyone attended UT or Texas AM. People in their mid-20's were hanging out with people from their high school. That sort of thing doesn't happen in Chicago, LA or even Phoenix for that matter. It was crazy how cliquish and tight knit it was in Texas.

As far as New Orleans is considered, I think they have a lot of amazing restaraunts. Some of the best restaraunts in the world can be found in New Orleans. I love eating in Nawlins. But I must say the bar scene is highly overrated. Outside of Mardis Gras and Jazz Fest, their night life is dead. They don't have a great club scene at all. Thei night life is overrated because of Mardis Gras. Mardis Gras looks great on television. It makes New Orleans look like some party college Spring Break haven. Outside of Mardis Gras, I was amazed at how dead the French Quarter was. And that is arguably the dirtiest large city I have been to in the U.S. with Detroit being a close second. New Orleans smells like vomit. It's a great city to visit but I definitely wouldn't live there.

 

[superkeith]

i'd describe the la lifestyle as more 'chill' than 'urban.' and, i miss it so... .

 

[deleted50478]

The most hip and urban cities like Chicago, SF, New York and Boston are also very liberal, progressive and democratic.

They are liberal and democratic, but there's about as much variety of opinion as in Salt Lake City, just on the opposite side of things.

As far as New Orleans, they don't have a great club scene at all. The night life is overrated because of Mardis Gras. It's a great city to visit but I definitely wouldn't live there.

Well it's certainly not for everyone. There are relatively few dance clubs if that's what you're into, but there are tons of good bars (mostly outside the French Quarter) I think there's a tourist town and a local town and you've visited the former. That's not to say that a lot of what you said isn't true, but it's not entirely true.


Houston isn't about to become pedestrian city-wide, but at least it's developing a pedestrian area in the center of the city that people can live in if they choose. It's a step.


Anyway, I'll shut up so everyone can get back to the LA sucks, LA rules, etc.

 

[daelroy]

They are liberal and democratic, but there's about as much variety of opinion as in Salt Lake City, just on the opposite side of things.

I can agree with this in some part. At the same time, look at what makes the south conservative? They are usually conservative Christian with most being Southern Baptist. Cities like that are not welcoming to those of other faiths and cultures. And then there is the idea of racial tolerance in those cities. Interracial dating is still taboo in cities like Houston. People of different of relgions, ethnicites and nationalities are least likely to want to settle in a place that is conservative and unreceptive to those value. To me, a truly urban city offers a lot of diversity and Houston and New Orleans don't come close to offering that.

 

[deleted50478]

To me, a truly urban city offers a lot of diversity and Houston and New Orleans don't come close to offering that.

According to the US census, Houston is 49% white, 25% black, 37% Latino, 5% Asian, 0.4% Amer-ind, 17% other, 3% multi.
Chicago is 42% white, 37% black, 26% Latino, 4% Asian, 0.4% Amer-ind, 14% other, 3% multi.
(over 100% is due to overlap between white and Latino in the census I guess)

...so maybe you're getting too much of the Hollywood stereotype rather than the actual facts? Bias is alive and well in the North and West I think.

 

[Lara]

Wow - I'm not planning on rads (although anyone's free to comment on the chances of someone with 217 and passes in the clinical years) but I'm glad I stumbled into this discussion, it's been very enlightening in comparing city lifestyles. I do have to wonder what's the point of gorgeous CA weather if you rarely walk around - I grew up in Montreal and streets like St. Catherine are packed in the summer, exactly like ctwickman described NYC and Chicago. Absolutely textbook pedestrian/hip/urban (which I really didn't appreciate enough for lack of comparison). I never got my licence because I didn't need it. It's a shame LA can't be like that.

Granted, winter's a tough price to pay for living up north...I'm now in Pittsburgh which isn't nearly as cold, and I still can't wait for spring to come.

btw, my grandparents moved from Chicago to Phoenix years ago. 🙂

 

[RADRULES]

Houston is a tremendously diverse city, anyone who says otherwise just hasn't spent enough time there. If you are looking for the steotypical homogenous Texan city... look to Dallas.

The downtown boom in Houston is excellent... two of the three major sports stadiums are downtown, with light rail now in place connecting to the other as well as to the Texas Medical Center (largest medical center in the world). Frankly, downtown Houston has become a great place to live.

Negatives about Houston continue to be pollution, urban sprawl, and hot/humid weather.

But, it is dirt cheap to live in - trade off, I suppose.

 

[Valis]

Regarding walking around in LA weather: I do agree that public transportation sucks here, and you need a car. However, I currently live on the Westside, currently take the Big Blue Bus to UCLA (yes that is actually a bus for those who don't know the area) and most days WALK to bars, restaurants, grocery store, coffee shop, etc... ride my bike, or jog down to the beach. (The weather is incredible) There are huge downsides to living in this city, but the upsides are making my rank list very difficult. The reason so many people are leaving is because cost of living is so high, and don't hold your breath if you want to purchase a home. High home prices and cost of living are due to the fact that for many people this really is an amazing place to live, and they'll pay for it if they can.

So you guys yelling about Chicago, NY, and Boston can just enjoy your Blizzards (I was in Boston for the last one). The rest of us will continue to roller blade on the beach in February, and take a day trip to the mountains when we want to go looking for snow.

 

[DrRads101]

Blizzards are extreme, and therefore very rare events Valis. Probably about as rare and as widespread in this country as those torrential rains you get there in LA. If you are going to act like those cities even have a blizzard every year, then you are quite mistaken. The heaviest snowfall of the season was about 12 inches in Chicago this year which does not even come close to affecting daily life since it is cleared immediately by the city. Before and after that day, maybe the most we had was 3 inches and a few days of light covering. I can't remember the last time we had a blizzard. They are that uneventful even when they do happen.

I mean if we are going to pick on cities for some of the extremes they see, should I tell you to enjoy your Biblical apocalypse-like rains? I mean, we certainly don't get those here, and they do far more damage than a heavy snowfall. And snowfall damage, if any even exists, certainly isn't measured by how many people it kills, or how many billions of dollars of damage it costs to repair. It doesn't shut down major thoroughfares or displace people from their homes. The worst thing that can happen in a blizzard is that you may get to stay home and get off of work for a day. I believe Boston got a couple days off of school this year. Actually sounds pretty nice.

And as the heavy snowfall portion of the winter season comes to an end, Chicago, my city, has absolutely nothing to show for it, unfortunately. There is absolutely no snow on the ground, which dissapoints me. I don't want to have to drive a long time to see snow--I like diversity in everything in my life, and that includes being able to count on inevitably different seasons. Roller blading in February doesn't appeal to me, even if it was mid 50's today in Chicago, since I will be able to do that most of the year anyways. There is not only a place for every lifestyle here, but also a time. I like my winters white, summers green, and spring and fall colorful and temperate. Unfortunately the Chicago winters have been getting less and less white since I was a kid.

 

[bansheeDO]

They are liberal and democratic, but there's about as much variety of opinion as in Salt Lake City, just on the opposite side of things.

And judging by your analogy Houston is also on the opposite side of things (like Salt Lake City) because it is clearly not a liberal or democratic city.

I hardly think anyone can argued that a city as a conservative as Salt Lake City is diverse. There is nothing wrong with Salt Lake City but even it's citizens wouldn't try to depict it as hip, urban and diverse city. Likewise, does anyone outside of Houston think it's anywhere near the same level of urban sprawl like Boston, Chicago, and New York? I think the comparison itself is fairly amusing.

I have not gathered that it is a west coast and northern bias toward Houston as much as it's own citizens are defensive of the city and trying to concoct an image of diversity and tolerance regarding the city. Sorry, but anyone who walks through Chicago and Houston can easily determine which city is far more hip, urban and diverse. If Houston wants to be embraced as a diverse city, it has a long way to go. It should start by changing its political ideaology. When one envisions a melting pot or a city that embraces tolerance and diversity, one hardly thinks of Houston.

 

[bansheeDO]

These views on L.A. and Southern California remind me of how the United States is perceived in Europe and the rest of the world. People criticize it but then again, everyone wants to move there. So Cal's high housing prices and incessant traffic is due to one simple fact: it's popular as hell. They could move but they choose not to; why is that? Why did L.A. take over Chicago as the nation's second largest city? I could go on....

So you guys can criticize Southern California all you want, but I don't really hear people struggling to match in Chicago or Houston. I never see threads stating, TEXAS....do I have a chance there. There is a reason why the Midwest, South and Southeast have some of the highest paying jobs; it's called supply and demand. If more people wanted to live there, their jobs wouldn't pay as well. They wouldn't need to offer higher than normal salaries to attract candidates.

And the reason why the summers are so buys in Chicago and Montreal is because you are holed up for 9 months out of the year so when you do have some time to venture out, you take full advantage of it knowing your time is limited. Maybe if people in LA could only have their gorgeous weather for 3 months out of the year, more people would walk outside too. And there are plenty of places to walk in L.A. in the summer including Sunset Blvd, Rodeo Drive, Santa Monicao Blvd. Newport Beach, Malibu, Huntington Beach, Santa Barbara, Universal City..there are so many places it's sick. It doesn't hurt that San Diego is only 1.5 hours south which opens up entirely different array of possibilities. In Chicago, what do you have, Michigan Avenue, Lincoln Park and Wicker Park? Wow

Regarding missing seasons in L.A., well you can drive to the mountains. However, I can't drive to the ocean in Chicago. And I certainly can't go snow skiing in Houston. If enjoying seasons means putting my car on heating blocks, shoveling snow out of the driveway, starting my car 15 minutes and heating it before leaving anywhere, and de-icing my windshield, by all means, have your winter. I too would pefer to jog outside with a t-shirt and shorts in December.

 

[SoCalRULES!!!!!]

These views on L.A. and Southern California remind me of how the United States is perceived in Europe and the rest of the world. People criticize it but then again, everyone wants to move there. So Cal's high housing prices and incessant traffic is due to one simple fact: it's popular as hell. They could move but they choose not to; why is that? Why did L.A. take over Chicago as the nation's second largest city? I could go on....

So you guys can criticize Southern California all you want, but I don't really hear people struggling to match in Chicago or Houston. I never see threads stating, TEXAS....do I have a chance there. There is a reason why the Midwest, South and Southeast have some of the highest paying jobs; it's called supply and demand. If more people wanted to live there, their jobs wouldn't pay as well. They wouldn't need to offer higher than normal salaries to attract candidates.

And the reason why the summers are so buys in Chicago and Montreal is because you are holed up for 9 months out of the year so when you do have some time to venture out, you take full advantage of it knowing your time is limited. Maybe if people in LA could only have their gorgeous weather for 3 months out of the year, more people would walk outside too. And there are plenty of places to walk in L.A. in the summer including Sunset Blvd, Rodeo Drive, Santa Monicao Blvd. Newport Beach, Malibu, Huntington Beach, Santa Barbara, Universal City..there are so many places it's sick. It doesn't hurt that San Diego is only 1.5 hours south which opens up entirely different array of possibilities. In Chicago, what do you have, Michigan Avenue, Lincoln Park and Wicker Park? Wow

Regarding missing seasons in L.A., well you can drive to the mountains. However, I can't drive to the ocean in Chicago. And I certainly can't go snow skiing in Houston. If enjoying seasons means putting my car on heating blocks, shoveling snow out of the driveway, starting my car 15 minutes and heating it before leaving anywhere, and de-icing my windshield, by all means, have your winter. I too would pefer to jog outside with a t-shirt and shorts in December.

So totally agree. Plus if you want to feel connected to hip cutting edge urban culture, you pretty much can only choose from NY and LA and to a much lesser degree Miami and SF. You might be able to live without a car in Chicago while LA it is necessary every single day, but so what....look at the differences!

 

[Sancho]

The best reasons to live in the west are the weather, the mountains, the girls in daisy dukes year round-but I don't know who started the meme of LA and SF being the coolest places on earth, it boggles my mind like the question of who started the "vote for Kerry in the primaries because he is electable, i.e. people will vote for him" idea. This analogy is legit because it seems to me that a hoard of automatons spout this laudatory trash about these cities even if in reality they don't enjoy living there, they just tell themselves they ought to...ought to not care about paying 2k for a hole or sitting in traffic for 3 hrs-because everyone else says its so g-d damned sweet- but most everyone else is in the same lemming mindset -You see what I'm saying, it's a circular argument, a tautology.
If you want to enjoy the weather and the mountains, the open fronteir that is the bad ass west-go to tucson, vegas, denver, or anywhere in between-avoid the mass of plastic that is LA-When I think about LA I'm always reminded of the South Park episode when the folks from hollywood come to town and clog up mr. hankey's sewer with their falafel laden turds-that's the real cal-leee-forn-yah

 

[Sancho]

You do have the In 'n Out burger there in LA though, I got to give you that.

 

[bansheeDO]

Los Angeles overtook Chicago as the 2nd city because it sprawls more, and everyone was "California" and "Suburban" dreamin' back in the 50's-70's. Look at the square miles of Chicago and the square miles of Los Angeles. There is no comparison. But Chicago has a lot greater density. I mean, the city of Los Angeles has 3.6 million people over 459 square miles, more than double the sprawl of Chicago (2.9 million people over 227 square miles). I mean, Phoenix is now technically a "larger city" than Philadelphia but does anyone really believe that, especially when Phoenix annexed enough land to make it 420 square miles and Philadelphia is 135 square miles?

Compare the entire metropolitan area of Los Angelas versus Chicago which includes all of their suburbs and L.A. is still bigger. And this doesn't include San Diego and it's associated counties. So even if Chicago annexed additional land, it wouldn't be bigger than L.A. Also, what does population density have to do with quality of life? Yes, Phoenix is less dense but those 420 square miles are not empty space. People in Phoenix choose to live in houses rather than flats or apartment complexes in tall buildings. Phoenix is the second fastest growing city in the U.S. Philly is one of fastest shrinking cities in the U.S. Phoenix had the highest number of homes built last year with Atlanta being second. You think population density is what makes a city attractive? Apparently it didn't help Philly as it's population has been dropping.

Actually traffic and population movement to SoCal has been steadily decreasing since 1995. Back in 1995 the average angelino spent more time in traffic than he/she does now according to the TTI--you guys are now under 100 hours stuck in traffic per capita per year now for the first time in over a decade.

That's because the surrounding suburbs have grown increasingly. The areas north and South of Los Angelas have grown immensely. San Diego and Los Angelas are essentially becoming one city because the gap between them is being developed increasingly.

The fact of the matter is is that housing has been skyrocketing since the dot bomb bubble burst because venture capital firms and private investors are not putting their money into the stock market at the rate they used to, and are instead putting it into real estate. . Homebuilder's sales are down 35% for the 4th quarter through today in California, and this is being LED by a crash in the Southern California housing market.

Wrong, housing has increased in many parts of the country due to the low interest rates. It was consumer spending and the housing market that kept the economy afloat. Furthermore, you fail to explain why housing skyrocketed in Los Angelas BEFORE the crash too. This isn't a new phenomenon in Southern California like you are asserting. This didn't just occur immediately after the crash.

Yes, the housing market is starting to crash but the average home price in Southern California is still considerably higher than that of the Chicago metro.

I applaud your civic pride, but we need a dose of reality here. I mean it is a factual matter here that there are more people moving from California to the Midwest than the other way around, at least according to the latest Census data, and this was during a booming economy.

Let's inject a dose of reality here. Are they moving to the Midwest because they don't like California, or is it because the cost of living is so high? By your logic, Phoenix is better than Chicago because more people are moving from Chicago to Phoenix than vice versa.

And things are just not as simple as "Everyone wants to move here, so housing prices go up." Market based economics are complicated and you must consider many factors, ESPECIALLY capital investment and where people are putting their money. A lot of rich people live in California, and they have been choosing real estate for their investments over the stock market since 1999, and the housing prices show it.

Rich people don't put their money into property unless there is a demand for it. They could have invested in property in the midwest as well, but they know the demand for property there is not as high as it is in Southern California. And the reason for that is because Southern California attracts a lot of wealthy retirees and foreign citizens such as wealthy Europeans. It's an excellent investment to purchase a home there for these reasons.

So you are saying that because no one wants to live in the Midwest or the South, that that is the reason the job market is better in these places and the reason pay is higher here? The South is BOOMING my man... it's absolutely on fire and the only reason why home sales were overall up last quarter in this country. No where in this country has more positive domestic migration than the South. Chicago homebuilding and sales are also on fire recently, especially condo sales in the city because the city is absolutely booming. Have you been here recently and seen all the cranes?

The South is not something new. People have known about it for years. People are moving there because the cost of living and quality of life in other areas of the country are forcing people to explore it as an option. Regardless, the South and the Midwest have a more difficult time attracting physicians which is why they have to pay higher than average salaries to attact them with the exception of saturated areas like Chicago or St. Louis. Again, this is simple economics of supply and demand regardless of how you try to twist these basic principles in favor of your argument.

I think you need to learn a little more about Chicago and maybe the Midwest in general. If you care not to learn, that is OK, I can't force it on you, but we are certainly NOT couped up for 9 months out of the year. Try more like 3. The seasonal averages are absolutely sublime from April through October. And the other months are cozy and comfortable with plenty of oddball days of warmth like this weekend to break things up. Put on a nice jacket and you are just fine.

Well considering that I attended Northwestern University for 4 years, I know what it's like to live in Chicago. I'm fully aware of it's weather. Even May can get really cold. It only really starts to feel like summer in June. October varies depending the year. Some years, it can be nice enough to just wear long sleeve shirts and jeans. During other year, you need to pull out the heavy coat.

As far as all those boulevards and streets you mention, how long did you stay in Chicago and what did you explore? Because you seemed to have went out of your way to complicate, boost, and glorify certain streets in your area while simplifying, putting down, and forgetting about many in ours. Besides, we don't measure how great our city is by our ROADS--you are looking at Chicago from an LA perspective and you need to be looking at it with a different, more urban perspective. Chicago is a city of dense, urban neighborhoods. But if we need to talk about roads, you forgot the Museum Campus or Lakeshore Drive or State Street or Rush Street, which are some of the most breathtaking thoroughfares I have ever seen, and I have lived and travelled all over the country.

You forgot to mention Belmont, Wrigleville etc. Yes, I know...but again, it pales in comparison to all the places in So Cal. And those are not just ROADS, they are areas that simplified to the road most associated with it. You really think when people are referring to Santa Monica BLVD, they are referring to just one street? I could have listed hundreds of more. Besides, have you ever lived in So Cal for any significant period of time or do you just visit your grandparents or Disney Land?

The only difference between the ocean and Lake Michigan is simply the waves and the salt content. You can sneer all you want, but have you any idea how massive the Great Lakes are?

Are you kidding me? You are compareing Lake Michigan to the Pacific Ocean? You will not win that argument so don't even go there. Yes, waves are important. Ever heard of surfing? How about deep sea fishing or scuba diving? I'm sure there is some exotic sea life in Lake Michigan. Granted, LA beaches are pretty nasty now but LaJolla in San Diego is amazing and certain beaches in LA are beautifull.

As far as de-icing and shoveling your driveway, you are still looking at living here from an LA perspective. Your scenario, no offense, doesn't make sense. First of all, I don't own a car. None of my friends do.

Yeah, tell that to all the people who live in Oakpark, Oakbrook. Skokie, Evanston, Naperville, Lyle, Schaumberg etc.....Please, you think everyone who works in downtown lives there? Regardless, what it's like walking for 15 minutes in that lovely wind in January?

Why would I de-ice a car that is in a garage or inside a deck?

Because you will park on the street or in areas that don't have garages like a friends' home or a supermarket???? Hello

As far as shoveling the driveway, most people own snowblowers if they have to live out in the burbs and have a driveway--my father is one of those guys and probably has to blow the snow out of the driveway, what, maybe 4 or 5 times per year, and it takes what, 30-40 minutes?

You think 40 minutes at 15 F with the wind blowing is fun every morning?

http://www.financialsense.com/edito.../2004/1018.html

This is an editorial written by Professor "Piggington". You call this a reputable source? Did you google this? Couldn't you find an article from a more reputable source like BusinessWeek, Money, Forbes or the Economist?

 

[DrRads101]

Did you even read my post? There seems to be several things you missed or maybe chose to ignore.

You forgot that I don't own a car so I don't care about de-icing it, nor do any of my friends, so I'm not sure why this got brought up again.

"Every morning" for blowing snow: how did you go from 4 or 5 major snowfalls a year to "every morning?" And did you miss the fact I don't have a driveway, so this is irrelevant?

And do I sound like a guy who would care about all your "suburban growth"?

Do I sound like a guy who is dying to scuba dive? Or "surf's up dood?"

As far as domestic migration, you may need to research who is actually leaving California in droves and moving to places like the Midwest, because it ain't the poor who can't afford to live there.

And it seems we agree on factors of why certain cities grow to be "larger" than others. So let me remind you that you stated that LA grew way past Chicago as being America's 2nd city, as somehow to infer that life was far superior there and all these people were clamoring to get into LA, while completely ignoring the realities of density and space--at the very least it was an attempt to belittle Chicago. But then you used lack of density and space as equivalent to high homebuilding a post later with Phoenix, which was the exact point I was originally making regarding LA versus Chicago growth--and why I compared their population density. When you originally mentioned LA's growth I responded "well duh" because LA was (and still is) far less developed than Chicago (I mean, no offense, but the majority of your freeways still don't even have street lights on them). Using lack of density and Phoenix underscores my original point of why a sprawling 460 square mile place like LA could grow past a measly 227 square mile place like Chicago. Add to that the synergy of annexation to which LA has done repeatedly, and in the same style I could make Chicago bigger than New York City. But this thread was about URBAN LIFESTYLE which NECESSITATES density, so New York City would still kick the ass of a "technically bigger" annexed Chicago for people seeking such a lifestyle.

And yes, I realize LA's metro area is much larger than Chicago's, you totally missed that. But we are talking about CITY and CITY LIVING (which is what this thread was all about), not McMansions an hour from the central core. I realize your area has a lot more people living in suburbia than here but I don't know if that is something to be proud of especially for a place that politically pretends to care so much for the environment, and I know this doesn't make for a greater built urban environment or downtown core, to which city living is all about. There is a reason why people call LA the "city for people that don't like cities."

 

[2012mdc]

Anyone who tries to label LA as hip and urban is an idiot. For one thing, urban places have a sophistacted mode of transport other than a bus system. LA svcks and this is coming from someone who grew up in Anaheim Hills which is a nice area of LA. LA has no downtown for one thing. People work there and that's it. No one parties or dines in downtown LA. It's like Phoenix' downtown in that people go there for work and leave at night. It's just a bigger version of Phoenix with Hollywood. Sunset BLVD is overrated. It takes you an hour to drive any place ON A GOOD DAY. The traffic alone in LA will cause you to look elsewhere. On Saturday afternoons, it will still take you 45 minute to an hour just to drive someplace.

The problem with LA is that you can't enjoy the LA lifestyle unless you earn a lot of money. As a physician, you are not going to earn 400K like you would in Dallas. And a 2000 square foot home costs at least half a million dollars in a decent area. So you won't be living the OC life if that's what you are thinking. It's a lot of hype and that's what continues to bring people to the city because they have no idea what it's really like. Outside of the entertainment industry, it's offers very little industry. Law firms, Investment Banks, corporations, they don't compare to the sheer volume that exists in cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, SF and Washington D.C.

San Francisco is much better. It has a downtown and culture as opposed to LA is which is just one large suburb and strip malls. SF has better schools, companies, restaraunts, you name it.

Chicago is a great city. Midwest people are genuine and intelligent. In LA, it seems like nearly everyone there has not ever left southern california unless they went to Vegas or SF for a weekend. LA natives are some of the most ignorant and poorly traveled people you will ever meet.

The truth is if you want the best LA has to offer without it's worst, move to Phoenix. Phoenix has a midwest mentality with the luxury, weather and west coast attitude of LA. A lot of people from Chicago move to Phoenix because they got sick of the cold. It's a clean city with well designed freeways. Even Phoenix is adding a light rail system which LA hasn't figured out for decades and it has nearly triple the population. It's not a "hip and urban city" but as the nation's 6th largest city, I would say it is big enough. And it's soon to overtake Philly as the 5th largest city next year because of the growth. Phoenix has all the 4 major sports teams. Corporations are moving their headquarters there because of the inexpensive rents and the tax shelters. Their downtown is adding a major biotech hub there. And it's affordable. I guess this explains why it's the second fastest growing city in the U.S. which trails only Las Vegas. As far as hip and urban is concerned, yeah, that's cool when you are 25 years old but when you are purchasing a home, setting up your practice and raising a family; hip and urban is the last thing you want.

Except for the fact that it lacks the weather (much hotter), the beaches, and the diversity Phoenix is just like LA.

Ok I didn't revive a 5 year old thread just to comment on that.

Are the lower tier programs in Cali still pretty competitive? Cedars, UCI, USC, SB Cottage etc. Can a pretty competitive applicant with ties to the region bank on interviews from those programs?

Outside of UCSF, Stanford, UCLA.and UCSD what's the general consensus on
UCLA Harbor
Cedars Sinai
USC
UCI
UC Davis
Kaiser SoCal
SB Cottage
SCVMC
Loma Linda