America's Smartest Cities

800px-Boston_Skyline_at_Dusk.jpg

In this difficult recovery, many of the strongest local economies have been those with a high share of educated people in their workforce, particularly areas where technology companies and other knowledge-based industries are growing most rapidly.

To determine the metro areas that are gaining brainpower in the 21stCentury, we scored the nation’s 380 metropolitan statistical areas based on three criteria. We started with the growth rate in the number of residents with at least a bachelor’s degree from 2000 through 2013 (25% weighting in final score). But since the places that post the highest growth rates tend to be those starting with low levels of educational attainment, we gave greater weight to the percentage point increase in the share of the population that is college-educated over that span (50%), and we factored in the share of educated people in the population in 2013 (25%). We also separated out results for the 51 MSAs with over a million residents.

For the most part, the top 10 on our list of the 51 largest metro areas is dominated by places with large concentrations of colleges, and those that long ago made the transition from industrial to information-based economies.

In the Boston-Cambridge-Newton metro area, 44.8% of the population has bachelor’s degrees or above, the fourth-highest concentration of brainpower in the nation, up 7.8 percentage points since 2000 on the strength of a 32.2% jump in its college-educated population. That places Boston No. 1 on our large cities list.

It’s followed in second place by Pittsburgh, which logged the largest percentage point increase since 2000 in the proportion of its population that is college-educated, 8.8 points, to 32.2%, on the strength of 37.3% growth in raw numbers.

Perhaps the biggest driver in increasing the concentration of educated people in a population lies in the composition of local industry. Silicon Valley has done very well, making heavy additions to an already high concentration of educated residents. The San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara metro area places third on our list with a population in which 46.7% hold a bachelor’s degree or above, the second highest share in the nation, a 6.8 percentage point jump over 2000. Its urban annex, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, places eighth, with a population that is 45.2% college-educated, an increase of 6.4 percentage points. To some extent, this reflects the area’s deindustrialization and high price structure; you do not want to come to the Bay Area today without a high-paying job requiring a good college degree if you expect to live a middle-class lifestyle.

Another big employer of educated people is government, and with Washington in expansion mode over the past decade, it’s no surprise that our nation’s capital features in the top 10 — twice. The proportion of the population of Washington-Alexandria-Arlington that is college-educated has risen 6.2 points to 48.7%, the highest concentration in the nation, on the back of a 45% increase in the raw numbers. It ranks fifth on our list, followed in sixth place by neighboring Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, Md.

The Small Smart Set

Looking at the full set of the nation’s 380 metropolitan areas, the 51 biggest added far more people to their college-educated populations than the other 329 — a net 12 million since 2000, compared to 4.8 million for the smaller metro areas. But the growth rates were actually fairly similar, 43% vs. 41%, which highlights that the largest cities are no longer the only places attracting educated workers.

Some of the most dramatic growth is taking place in two kinds of small-scale geographies: college towns and what might be best described as amenity regions. At the turn of the millennium, college towns already had a decent base of educated people; now they seem able to attract and nurture tech companies as well. This is the case for the second-ranked metro area on our overall list of all 380: Bloomington, Indiana. Home to Indiana University, the metro area has logged a dramatic 11.7 percentage point increase in the proportion of its population that is college educated since 2000. The share of its population with BAs is now 40.6%, putting it in range of places like Boston and the Bay Area.

Much the same pattern can be seen in several college towns, including No. 4 Auburn-Opelika, Ala.; Hattiesburg, Miss. (sixth); Lawrence, Kan. (seventh), and Burlington, Vt. (10th). The other big growth areas are attractive small towns that have lured many down-shifting, but often well educated, boomers. Placing first on our overall list is St. George, Utah — its college-educated population increased by 167% from 2000 through 2013, making for a hefty 11.1 percentage point jump in the proportion of its population that’s college educated to 32.0%. Other areas with similar patterns of growth include Ocean City, N.J. (third), Wilmington, N.C. (fifth), Asheville, N.C. (eighth), and Redmond-Bend, Ore. (ninth).

Looking Forward

The rapid growth in the concentration of residents with bachelor’s degrees in these smaller cities suggests that the geography of brainpower is likely to change in the years ahead. For decades the Southeast and Midwest have lagged behind the Northeast and the West Coast in education, but this gap is closing somewhat, at least in the smaller cities. Save Burlington, Vt., not one small metro area in the Northeast or California ranked within the top 65 of our overall list.

A plethora of places in the Southeast dot the top part of our overall list: in addition to the previously mentioned Wilmington and Asheville, Durham-Chapel Hill (15th); Charleston-North Charleston, S.C. (17th); and Savannah, Ga. (20th). The Intermountain West is well represented as well in addition to St. George, with Boulder, Colo., in 13th place, and Provo-Orem, Utah, in 22nd. These areas are all likely to emerge as top tech and professional centers as their ranks of educated workers swell.

An equally compelling view of the future would be to concentrate on the locations of relatively recent college graduates. A recent study by Richey Piiparinen and Jim Russell for Cleveland State University looked at college-educated people between the ages of 25 and 34 in 2011-13. It found that many of the metro areas with the most rapid growth of this population were in the South, led by Nashville, Tenn., Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, Fla.; and Austin, Texas, all of which experienced growth in this cohort of between 15% and 25%.

More surprising, however, was the strong growth in some Rust Belt cities, including Cleveland-Elyria (+20%), and Pittsburgh (12%). Piiparinen and Russell suggest this is, in part, due to the lower costs in these regions, which allow young people to live far better than they would in a pricier city on either coast. Clearly high costs could shift the nature of future educated migration. It already has caused millennial populations to stagnate in some traditional magnet cities for the educated, such as New York and San Francisco, and actually drop in the core areas of Chicago and Portland. Another factor could be the availability of high-paying jobs; Portland, for example, has an inordinate proportion of college-educated young residents working at lower wages than the national average. In contrast Houston, where high-paying jobs are being created at a healthy clip, the young educated cohort grew five times as fast.

Of course many factors could shift this geography of education in the years ahead. An extended slide in oil prices, for example, could slow growth in places like Houston and Dallas, while a shift in the terrain of social media could have a devastating effect on the Bay Area. Yet looking ahead, it’s clear that the map of America’s brainpower is likely to continue changing. The leaders, particularly talent-producers such as Boston, should remain at the top for years to come, but other regions — notably the South, the Intermountain West and perhaps also the Rust Belt — could be making bigger gains in the years ahead.








Educated Metropolitan Area Rankings
Rank Rank in Size Group Region (MSA) Size Score 2013 share 2000-2013 Growth 2000-2013 point change
1 1 St. George, UT S 72.0 32.0% 167.3% 11.1%
2 2 Bloomington, IN S 69.7 40.6% 27.6% 11.7%
3 3 Ocean City, NJ S 67.6 33.7% 48.7% 11.7%
4 4 Auburn-Opelika, AL S 65.6 37.9% 90.0% 10.0%
5 1 Wilmington, NC M 62.5 34.6% 37.6% 10.4%
6 5 Hattiesburg, MS S 62.1 32.6% 77.7% 10.0%
7 6 Lawrence, KS S 60.6 50.4% 50.4% 7.7%
8 2 Asheville, NC M 60.2 32.7% 71.8% 9.6%
9 7 Bend-Redmond, OR S 60.1 33.8% 104.6% 8.9%
10 8 Burlington-South Burlington, VT S 59.2 43.3% 39.8% 8.4%
11 9 Bloomington, IL S 58.1 41.8% 48.0% 8.2%
12 1 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH L 57.1 44.8% 32.2% 7.8%
13 3 Boulder, CO M 56.8 58.5% 20.1% 6.1%
14 10 Iowa City, IA S 55.2 48.6% 45.2% 6.6%
15 4 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC M 54.7 45.5% 53.1% 6.8%
16 2 Pittsburgh, PA L 54.7 32.2% 37.3% 8.8%
17 5 Charleston-North Charleston, SC M 54.7 33.0% 81.5% 8.0%
18 3 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA L 54.2 46.7% 32.9% 6.8%
19 4 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI L 54.0 30.6% 92.7% 7.9%
20 6 Savannah, GA M 53.9 31.3% 73.2% 8.1%
21 5 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV L 53.3 48.7% 44.9% 6.2%
22 7 Provo-Orem, UT M 52.9 37.7% 94.5% 6.7%
23 11 Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, SC S 52.6 36.7% 83.4% 6.9%
24 6 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD L 52.6 36.8% 40.8% 7.6%
25 7 Raleigh, NC L 52.6 43.7% 78.7% 6.1%
26 12 Missoula, MT S 52.5 39.8% 48.8% 7.0%
27 8 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA M 52.4 35.4% 59.8% 7.4%
28 9 Ann Arbor, MI M 51.4 53.5% 23.7% 5.4%
29 8 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA L 51.3 45.2% 30.8% 6.4%
30 9 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA L 50.9 39.4% 47.9% 6.7%
31 10 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA L 50.9 37.4% 37.9% 7.1%
32 11 St. Louis, MO-IL L 50.8 32.5% 41.9% 7.7%
33 13 Sioux Falls, SD S 50.6 32.3% 73.0% 7.2%
34 10 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO M 50.4 28.2% 92.3% 7.4%
35 14 Manhattan, KS S 50.3 37.8% 13.0% 7.4%
36 15 Great Falls, MT S 50.2 29.4% 45.5% 7.9%
37 12 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO L 49.4 40.3% 52.2% 6.1%
38 11 Trenton, NJ M 49.0 40.4% 27.7% 6.4%
39 16 Logan, UT-ID S 48.8 35.9% 66.6% 6.3%
40 17 Corvallis, OR S 48.7 52.2% 26.1% 4.8%
41 18 Hinesville, GA S 48.4 20.9% 101.1% 7.7%
42 13 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN L 48.4 32.3% 71.9% 6.6%
43 14 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD L 48.2 34.6% 36.3% 6.9%
44 19 California-Lexington Park, MD S 48.1 29.5% 69.3% 7.0%
45 15 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI L 48.1 39.3% 43.7% 6.1%
46 12 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT M 48.0 45.5% 21.5% 5.6%
47 13 Portland-South Portland, ME M 47.9 35.8% 37.2% 6.6%
48 20 Columbia, MO S 47.7 45.3% 35.0% 5.3%
49 14 Madison, WI M 47.6 42.4% 48.5% 5.5%
50 16 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA L 47.4 35.1% 53.9% 6.3%
51 15 Salisbury, MD-DE M 46.9 22.5% 344.7% 3.0%
52 21 Morgantown, WV S 46.7 32.5% 55.5% 6.4%
53 17 Austin-Round Rock, TX L 46.3 41.5% 79.8% 4.8%
54 16 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA M 46.3 33.4% 48.0% 6.4%
55 22 Fargo, ND-MN S 46.3 35.3% 56.7% 5.9%
56 23 Sumter, SC S 46.2 23.3% 58.9% 7.5%
57 24 State College, PA S 46.1 41.7% 36.0% 5.4%
58 25 Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY S 46.1 21.6% 113.7% 6.8%
59 17 Green Bay, WI M 45.9 27.0% 54.7% 7.0%
60 18 Lexington-Fayette, KY M 45.6 35.7% 45.7% 5.9%
61 19 Huntsville, AL M 45.6 36.5% 54.5% 5.6%
62 18 Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY L 45.4 30.1% 29.4% 6.9%
63 19 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI L 45.4 35.1% 32.5% 6.2%
64 20 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT L 45.2 36.5% 28.5% 6.0%
65 20 Worcester, MA-CT M 44.9 32.9% 55.0% 6.0%
66 21 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI L 44.8 33.2% 33.4% 6.3%
67 21 Clarksville, TN-KY M 44.8 23.2% 70.1% 7.0%
68 26 Pittsfield, MA S 44.5 32.4% 24.4% 6.4%
69 22 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN L 44.4 31.2% 37.7% 6.4%
70 27 Gettysburg, PA S 44.3 23.6% 63.8% 6.9%
71 22 Greeley, CO M 44.3 27.4% 101.2% 5.8%
72 23 Peoria, IL M 44.0 27.4% 41.3% 6.7%
73 28 Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL S 44.0 29.0% 76.5% 5.9%
74 24 North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL M 43.9 30.6% 53.3% 6.0%
75 29 Springfield, IL S 43.9 34.0% 30.0% 6.0%
76 30 Santa Fe, NM S 43.7 41.7% 37.1% 4.8%
77 25 New Haven-Milford, CT M 43.4 33.5% 30.1% 5.9%
78 26 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL M 43.3 26.5% 41.2% 6.6%
79 27 Evansville, IN-KY M 43.3 24.5% 32.3% 7.0%
80 31 Napa, CA S 43.1 32.2% 39.8% 5.8%
81 32 Fairbanks, AK S 43.1 32.6% 52.5% 5.6%
82 23 Kansas City, MO-KS L 43.1 33.7% 37.7% 5.7%
83 28 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV M 43.0 21.3% 71.5% 6.7%
84 24 Columbus, OH L 42.7 33.7% 50.0% 5.4%
85 33 Champaign-Urbana, IL S 42.4 39.4% 30.3% 4.9%
86 29 Urban Honolulu, HI M 42.2 33.4% 37.5% 5.5%
87 30 Norwich-New London, CT M 42.2 32.0% 32.7% 5.8%
88 34 Ithaca, NY S 42.2 50.9% 21.3% 3.4%
89 35 Johnson City, TN S 42.0 24.8% 50.2% 6.4%
90 25 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL L 42.0 27.6% 53.1% 5.9%
91 31 Boise City, ID M 41.9 30.7% 74.5% 5.2%
92 26 Jacksonville, FL L 41.9 28.3% 62.5% 5.7%
93 36 Ames, IA S 41.8 48.2% 22.0% 3.7%
94 27 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC L 41.8 29.6% 41.2% 5.8%
95 28 Providence-Warwick, RI-MA L 41.7 29.6% 30.9% 6.0%
96 37 Rochester, MN S 41.7 35.3% 56.9% 4.8%
97 38 Grand Junction, CO S 41.6 27.6% 63.7% 5.7%
98 32 Bremerton-Silverdale, WA M 41.6 30.9% 42.2% 5.6%
99 33 Roanoke, VA M 41.6 27.1% 40.7% 6.1%
100 29 Birmingham-Hoover, AL L 41.5 28.6% 39.9% 5.9%
101 39 Charlottesville, VA S 41.4 42.2% 48.2% 3.9%
102 34 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ M 41.4 27.6% 44.3% 5.9%
103 40 Las Cruces, NM S 41.3 27.9% 59.3% 5.6%
104 30 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA L 41.3 31.7% 36.6% 5.5%
105 41 Winchester, VA-WV S 41.2 24.2% 71.3% 5.9%
106 31 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA L 41.2 34.6% 39.9% 5.0%
107 35 Fort Collins, CO M 41.2 43.3% 43.6% 3.8%
108 32 Cleveland-Elyria, OH L 41.0 29.8% 23.8% 5.9%
109 36 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY M 40.8 34.3% 28.0% 5.2%
110 37 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA M 40.6 38.9% 18.6% 4.7%
111 42 Bellingham, WA S 40.4 32.2% 51.9% 5.0%
112 33 Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN L 40.4 27.0% 42.5% 5.8%
113 43 Bismarck, ND S 40.3 30.5% 65.3% 4.9%
114 34 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI L 40.0 29.0% 24.6% 5.7%
115 38 Lynchburg, VA M 39.8 24.6% 46.9% 5.9%
116 35 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL L 39.8 29.3% 45.2% 5.3%
117 39 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL M 39.7 26.2% 84.1% 5.1%
118 44 Appleton, WI S 39.7 27.6% 48.8% 5.4%
119 36 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC L 39.7 32.0% 102.3% 4.0%
120 40 Lancaster, PA M 39.6 26.1% 47.7% 5.6%
121 41 Akron, OH M 39.4 29.7% 27.7% 5.4%
122 42 Lincoln, NE M 39.4 36.3% 37.0% 4.4%
123 43 Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton, PA M 39.3 23.6% 35.7% 6.1%
124 45 Jonesboro, AR S 39.2 23.1% 58.5% 5.8%
125 37 Richmond, VA L 39.2 32.5% 37.0% 4.9%
126 44 Erie, PA M 39.2 26.6% 32.9% 5.7%
127 46 Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ S 39.1 24.5% 52.4% 5.7%
128 38 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL L 39.0 29.5% 66.5% 4.7%
129 47 Dover, DE S 39.0 23.9% 79.0% 5.3%
130 45 Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC M 39.0 22.7% 163.1% 4.0%
131 46 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL M 39.0 32.4% 58.2% 4.5%
132 39 Rochester, NY L 38.8 32.6% 27.6% 4.9%
133 40 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX L 38.7 30.9% 61.7% 4.5%
134 48 Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI S 38.7 27.4% 60.0% 5.0%
135 49 Walla Walla, WA S 38.5 28.1% 37.8% 5.2%
136 50 Flagstaff, AZ S 38.4 34.3% 40.1% 4.4%
137 47 Ogden-Clearfield, UT M 38.4 29.0% 79.0% 4.4%
138 48 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA M 38.3 31.5% 35.4% 4.8%
139 51 Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA S 38.2 23.0% 40.8% 5.8%
140 52 Fond du Lac, WI S 38.2 22.6% 48.7% 5.7%
141 49 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA M 38.2 29.4% 34.8% 5.0%
142 53 Dubuque, IA S 38.0 26.6% 38.2% 5.3%
143 54 Homosassa Springs, FL S 38.0 18.9% 70.8% 5.8%
144 50 Manchester-Nashua, NH M 37.9 34.5% 27.0% 4.4%
145 51 Reno, NV M 37.8 28.4% 58.5% 4.7%
146 55 La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN S 37.5 29.5% 34.1% 4.9%
147 41 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX L 37.4 32.6% 54.6% 4.1%
148 42 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX L 37.4 26.7% 66.2% 4.7%
149 56 Cheyenne, WY S 37.2 28.2% 45.2% 4.8%
150 43 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA L 37.1 35.2% 47.7% 3.8%
151 52 Wichita, KS M 37.0 29.0% 36.9% 4.8%
152 57 Kingston, NY S 37.0 29.8% 25.9% 4.8%
153 53 Ocala, FL M 36.9 19.0% 84.4% 5.3%
154 44 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV L 36.9 22.1% 91.4% 4.7%
155 45 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN L 36.8 30.8% 51.4% 4.3%
156 54 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA M 36.8 24.2% 56.8% 5.0%
157 58 Columbus, IN S 36.6 27.0% 36.8% 4.9%
158 46 Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA L 36.6 30.8% 48.4% 4.2%
159 59 Altoona, PA S 36.5 19.7% 41.8% 5.8%
160 47 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ L 36.4 29.2% 62.5% 4.2%
161 55 Syracuse, NY M 36.4 29.9% 25.6% 4.7%
162 56 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA M 36.1 31.2% 34.8% 4.3%
163 60 Niles-Benton Harbor, MI S 36.1 24.9% 26.5% 5.3%
164 61 Elmira, NY S 36.1 23.9% 29.0% 5.3%
165 57 Colorado Springs, CO M 36.0 35.3% 43.7% 3.6%
166 62 Chico, CA S 35.9 26.6% 36.7% 4.8%
167 58 Columbia, SC M 35.9 30.7% 44.3% 4.1%
168 59 Baton Rouge, LA M 35.8 27.3% 46.7% 4.5%
169 63 Cape Girardeau, MO-IL S 35.3 24.9% 31.3% 5.0%
170 60 Springfield, MO M 35.2 25.8% 51.2% 4.5%
171 64 Greenville, NC S 35.1 28.4% 33.3% 4.4%
172 61 Lansing-East Lansing, MI M 34.9 32.4% 23.8% 4.0%
173 65 Staunton-Waynesboro, VA S 34.9 22.4% 41.7% 5.0%
174 66 Pocatello, ID S 34.9 28.4% 28.0% 4.5%
175 48 New Orleans-Metairie, LA L 34.9 27.4% 21.8% 4.7%
176 62 Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC M 34.8 26.8% 81.5% 3.8%
177 67 Midland, MI S 34.7 33.2% 21.8% 3.9%
178 63 Kalamazoo-Portage, MI M 34.6 31.0% 25.3% 4.1%
179 68 Barnstable Town, MA S 34.5 37.1% 10.2% 3.5%
180 64 Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ M 34.5 23.5% 40.0% 4.8%
181 65 Duluth, MN-WI M 34.3 25.2% 28.9% 4.7%
182 69 Wheeling, WV-OH S 34.3 20.0% 34.1% 5.3%
183 49 Memphis, TN-MS-AR L 34.1 26.4% 38.1% 4.4%
184 70 Glens Falls, NY S 34.1 23.6% 37.2% 4.7%
185 50 Salt Lake City, UT L 34.1 31.2% 43.8% 3.6%
186 71 Monroe, MI S 34.0 19.4% 47.7% 5.1%
187 72 Harrisonburg, VA S 33.7 25.6% 47.1% 4.2%
188 73 Albany, OR S 33.7 18.3% 62.1% 4.9%
189 66 Spartanburg, SC M 33.6 22.6% 56.1% 4.4%
190 67 Greensboro-High Point, NC M 33.5 27.5% 36.6% 4.1%
191 74 Binghamton, NY S 33.1 26.4% 19.9% 4.4%
192 75 Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN S 32.9 32.5% 32.6% 3.3%
193 76 Lebanon, PA S 32.9 20.1% 47.8% 4.7%
194 77 Bay City, MI S 32.8 19.2% 35.4% 5.0%
195 68 Eugene, OR M 32.6 29.2% 30.9% 3.7%
196 78 Coeur d'Alene, ID S 32.6 23.0% 68.6% 3.9%
197 79 Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA S 32.6 29.3% 38.0% 3.6%
198 80 Battle Creek, MI S 32.6 20.8% 31.1% 4.8%
199 51 Oklahoma City, OK L 32.5 27.9% 41.8% 3.7%
200 69 Chattanooga, TN-GA M 32.4 23.7% 42.1% 4.2%
201 81 College Station-Bryan, TX S 32.3 34.2% 49.9% 2.7%
202 70 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC M 32.2 24.5% 45.2% 4.0%
203 71 Springfield, MA M 32.2 29.2% 7.8% 4.0%
204 82 Carbondale-Marion, IL S 32.0 27.5% 27.3% 3.9%
205 83 Johnstown, PA S 32.0 18.7% 28.4% 5.0%
206 84 Saginaw, MI S 31.9 20.7% 26.3% 4.8%
207 72 El Paso, TX M 31.8 20.8% 57.7% 4.2%
208 73 Tucson, AZ M 31.8 30.1% 35.0% 3.3%
209 74 Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL M 31.7 25.4% 37.7% 3.9%
210 85 Bowling Green, KY S 31.5 25.3% 86.0% 3.1%
211 86 Charleston, WV S 31.5 22.8% -4.8% 4.9%
212 87 Medford, OR S 31.4 26.0% 40.9% 3.7%
213 75 Santa Rosa, CA M 31.4 31.7% 25.4% 3.2%
214 88 Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA S 31.3 19.1% 54.2% 4.3%
215 76 Tallahassee, FL M 31.2 36.6% 26.8% 2.5%
216 89 Jackson, TN S 31.2 23.8% 50.4% 3.8%
217 90 Brunswick, GA S 31.0 23.4% 50.2% 3.8%
218 77 Fayetteville, NC M 31.0 22.3% 43.0% 4.0%
219 52 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA L 31.0 20.1% 73.9% 3.8%
220 78 Anchorage, AK M 30.9 30.0% 41.4% 3.0%
221 91 Oshkosh-Neenah, WI S 30.8 26.4% 30.1% 3.6%
222 79 Dayton, OH M 30.7 26.6% 14.1% 3.9%
223 92 Decatur, IL S 30.5 21.3% 24.9% 4.3%
224 80 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL M 30.5 21.3% 66.9% 3.6%
225 81 Killeen-Temple, TX M 30.5 21.6% 61.5% 3.7%
226 82 Tulsa, OK M 30.5 26.0% 33.0% 3.6%
227 83 Reading, PA M 30.4 22.5% 35.3% 4.0%
228 84 Jackson, MS M 30.4 29.3% 35.6% 3.1%
229 85 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR M 30.3 27.4% 37.6% 3.3%
230 86 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH M 30.1 18.8% 63.5% 3.9%
231 93 Wausau, WI S 30.0 22.2% 37.5% 3.9%
232 87 Port St. Lucie, FL M 30.0 23.1% 60.6% 3.4%
233 94 Grants Pass, OR S 30.0 18.3% 48.6% 4.2%
234 88 Utica-Rome, NY M 30.0 21.9% 24.6% 4.1%
235 95 Casper, WY S 29.9 23.5% 47.8% 3.5%
236 89 Canton-Massillon, OH M 29.7 21.4% 26.3% 4.1%
237 90 Albuquerque, NM M 29.6 30.7% 40.7% 2.6%
238 96 Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL S 29.4 26.2% 42.3% 3.1%
239 91 Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA M 29.4 32.2% 18.4% 2.7%
240 97 Prescott, AZ S 29.3 24.3% 55.2% 3.2%
241 98 Muncie, IN S 29.0 24.1% 16.1% 3.7%
242 99 Lake Charles, LA S 28.9 20.3% 35.5% 3.9%
243 92 Lubbock, TX M 28.9 26.9% 37.6% 3.0%
244 93 York-Hanover, PA M 28.6 21.9% 39.1% 3.5%
245 94 Mobile, AL M 28.5 22.3% 30.4% 3.6%
246 100 Grand Forks, ND-MN S 28.5 27.4% 17.3% 3.2%
247 95 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX M 28.4 17.1% 63.6% 3.7%
248 101 Yuba City, CA S 28.4 17.0% 61.7% 3.8%
249 96 Olympia-Tumwater, WA M 28.4 32.0% 41.8% 2.1%
250 97 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA M 28.4 20.3% 19.3% 4.0%
251 102 Lewiston, ID-WA S 28.3 22.1% 32.5% 3.5%
252 98 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL M 28.2 26.5% 33.4% 2.9%
253 99 Toledo, OH M 28.2 24.8% 10.5% 3.5%
254 100 Knoxville, TN M 28.1 27.1% 55.2% 2.5%
255 101 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL M 28.0 18.4% 60.9% 3.5%
256 103 Lewiston-Auburn, ME S 28.0 18.3% 35.8% 3.9%
257 104 Bangor, ME S 27.9 23.6% 30.0% 3.3%
258 105 Midland, TX S 27.9 27.3% 49.9% 2.5%
259 102 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA M 27.9 24.5% 31.8% 3.1%
260 106 Florence, SC S 27.9 20.5% 33.9% 3.6%
261 107 Springfield, OH S 27.8 18.9% 23.5% 4.0%
262 103 Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC M 27.8 17.5% 40.5% 3.9%
263 108 Punta Gorda, FL S 27.8 21.0% 40.3% 3.4%
264 104 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX M 27.8 16.2% 84.9% 3.3%
265 109 Gainesville, GA S 27.7 21.7% 59.6% 3.0%
266 110 Joplin, MO S 27.6 19.9% 38.3% 3.6%
267 111 St. Cloud, MN S 27.6 24.0% 37.9% 3.0%
268 112 Williamsport, PA S 27.6 19.0% 26.1% 3.9%
269 105 Cedar Rapids, IA M 27.5 27.6% 26.3% 2.7%
270 113 Tuscaloosa, AL S 27.4 24.7% 37.1% 2.9%
271 114 Eau Claire, WI S 27.3 25.0% 31.8% 2.9%
272 115 Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA S 27.1 23.7% 39.5% 2.9%
273 116 Tyler, TX S 27.1 25.3% 40.7% 2.7%
274 106 Fort Wayne, IN M 27.0 24.3% 27.2% 3.0%
275 117 Racine, WI S 26.9 23.4% 25.4% 3.2%
276 118 Beckley, WV S 26.9 15.9% 33.9% 4.0%
277 119 Hammond, LA S 26.4 19.3% 58.0% 3.0%
278 107 Salem, OR M 26.3 23.6% 34.3% 2.8%
279 120 Topeka, KS S 26.2 26.3% 18.4% 2.7%
280 121 Hot Springs, AR S 26.1 21.1% 31.4% 3.1%
281 122 Pueblo, CO S 26.0 21.3% 37.2% 3.0%
282 123 Lima, OH S 25.8 17.1% 27.2% 3.7%
283 124 Sheboygan, WI S 25.8 21.1% 26.0% 3.2%
284 125 Jefferson City, MO S 25.7 24.0% 23.0% 2.8%
285 126 Burlington, NC S 25.6 22.0% 36.8% 2.8%
286 127 Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA S 25.5 25.0% 18.1% 2.7%
287 128 Michigan City-La Porte, IN S 25.3 17.4% 31.5% 3.4%
288 108 Laredo, TX M 25.3 16.8% 70.4% 2.9%
289 129 Jacksonville, NC S 25.3 17.8% 56.3% 3.0%
290 130 Muskegon, MI S 25.3 17.3% 31.5% 3.4%
291 109 South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI M 25.3 24.4% 17.3% 2.7%
292 110 Fort Smith, AR-OK M 25.2 16.7% 33.0% 3.5%
293 111 Gainesville, FL M 25.0 37.5% 24.2% 0.8%
294 112 Winston-Salem, NC M 25.0 25.7% 66.2% 1.7%
295 113 Amarillo, TX M 24.9 23.4% 31.9% 2.5%
296 114 Columbus, GA-AL M 24.9 21.1% 32.3% 2.8%
297 131 San Angelo, TX S 24.9 22.2% 30.8% 2.7%
298 132 Decatur, AL S 24.8 18.9% 30.2% 3.1%
299 133 Cleveland, TN S 24.8 17.6% 44.1% 3.1%
300 134 Janesville-Beloit, WI S 24.8 19.7% 29.8% 3.0%
301 135 Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH S 24.3 15.7% 20.6% 3.6%
302 115 Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA M 24.1 18.6% 26.2% 3.1%
303 136 Valdosta, GA S 24.0 20.1% 35.4% 2.7%
304 116 Flint, MI M 23.9 19.3% 18.8% 3.0%
305 117 Stockton-Lodi, CA M 23.5 17.2% 53.0% 2.6%
306 118 Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL M 23.4 25.6% 63.8% 1.3%
307 137 Jackson, MI S 23.4 19.1% 22.4% 2.9%
308 138 Abilene, TX S 23.4 22.1% 21.1% 2.5%
309 139 Watertown-Fort Drum, NY S 23.4 18.9% 26.2% 2.8%
310 119 Kennewick-Richland, WA M 23.1 24.8% 54.4% 1.5%
311 140 East Stroudsburg, PA S 23.1 22.6% 36.9% 2.1%
312 141 Cumberland, MD-WV S 23.0 16.5% 24.2% 3.1%
313 142 Sioux City, IA-NE-SD S 22.9 20.8% 34.5% 2.3%
314 120 Fresno, CA M 22.6 19.8% 41.1% 2.3%
315 121 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX M 22.4 17.4% 28.9% 2.7%
316 122 Rockford, IL M 22.1 21.0% 23.0% 2.3%
317 143 Mankato-North Mankato, MN S 22.0 28.8% 27.1% 1.2%
318 123 Montgomery, AL M 21.9 25.9% 19.1% 1.7%
319 144 Dothan, AL S 21.8 18.3% 33.2% 2.4%
320 145 Gadsden, AL S 21.7 16.2% 24.2% 2.8%
321 124 Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS M 21.2 19.3% 73.8% 1.4%
322 125 Merced, CA M 21.2 13.5% 59.1% 2.4%
323 146 Rome, GA S 20.9 18.2% 22.4% 2.4%
324 147 Elkhart-Goshen, IN S 20.9 17.8% 29.2% 2.3%
325 148 Goldsboro, NC S 20.8 17.4% 28.4% 2.4%
326 149 Rapid City, SD S 20.8 24.5% 42.0% 1.2%
327 150 Mansfield, OH S 20.7 15.3% 19.3% 2.7%
328 151 Rocky Mount, NC S 20.5 16.3% 28.6% 2.4%
329 152 Hanford-Corcoran, CA S 20.5 12.9% 48.8% 2.5%
330 153 Grand Island, NE S 20.5 18.2% 25.6% 2.2%
331 154 Longview, WA S 20.1 15.6% 36.7% 2.3%
332 126 Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA M 20.1 25.9% 39.5% 0.9%
333 155 El Centro, CA S 20.1 12.7% 55.8% 2.3%
334 156 Kokomo, IN S 20.1 19.5% -2.9% 2.4%
335 157 Terre Haute, IN S 19.8 19.4% 14.6% 2.1%
336 158 Alexandria, LA S 19.6 17.7% 25.6% 2.0%
337 127 Modesto, CA M 19.5 16.0% 40.5% 2.0%
338 159 Yuma, AZ S 19.3 13.9% 48.8% 2.1%
339 160 Billings, MT S 19.2 26.8% 28.2% 0.7%
340 161 St. Joseph, MO-KS S 19.0 18.3% 21.9% 1.9%
341 162 Macon, GA S 19.0 20.4% 15.9% 1.7%
342 163 Lawton, OK S 18.8 20.5% 28.1% 1.4%
343 164 Texarkana, TX-AR S 18.6 16.8% 33.8% 1.8%
344 165 Owensboro, KY S 18.3 17.4% 23.0% 1.8%
345 166 Panama City, FL S 17.8 18.8% 43.4% 1.1%
346 167 Morristown, TN S 17.7 14.4% 13.3% 2.2%
347 128 Visalia-Porterville, CA M 17.7 13.3% 47.1% 1.8%
348 168 Odessa, TX S 17.7 13.8% 42.1% 1.8%
349 169 Idaho Falls, ID S 17.4 24.5% 41.4% 0.3%
350 170 Sherman-Denison, TX S 17.3 18.6% 23.3% 1.4%
351 171 Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ S 17.3 13.7% 27.0% 2.0%
352 172 Warner Robins, GA S 17.2 20.1% 74.6% 0.3%
353 129 Lafayette, LA M 17.1 21.6% 107.4% -0.5%
354 173 Wichita Falls, TX S 17.0 20.5% 10.5% 1.3%
355 174 Kankakee, IL S 17.0 16.6% 23.1% 1.6%
356 175 New Bern, NC S 16.6 18.9% 23.6% 1.2%
357 176 Sebring, FL S 15.9 15.1% 23.8% 1.5%
358 177 Parkersburg-Vienna, WV S 15.6 16.9% -33.6% 2.1%
359 178 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ S 15.5 11.3% 56.0% 1.4%
360 130 Waco, TX M 15.3 19.7% 27.9% 0.6%
361 179 Athens-Clarke County, GA S 15.2 31.6% 20.3% -0.8%
362 180 Monroe, LA S 15.1 21.7% 13.8% 0.6%
363 181 Danville, IL S 14.3 13.9% 8.7% 1.5%
364 131 Bakersfield, CA M 14.2 14.4% 41.6% 0.9%
365 182 Redding, CA S 13.9 17.3% 20.3% 0.7%
366 183 Madera, CA S 13.6 13.0% 36.4% 1.0%
367 184 Dalton, GA S 13.4 12.2% 30.4% 1.1%
368 185 Wenatchee, WA S 13.0 20.2% 21.0% 0.1%
369 186 Houma-Thibodaux, LA S 12.6 13.2% 23.6% 0.9%
370 187 Carson City, NV S 12.5 18.8% 8.5% 0.4%
371 188 Albany, GA S 12.4 16.4% 7.9% 0.7%
372 132 Salinas, CA M 11.6 22.2% 8.6% -0.3%
373 189 Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL S 10.9 17.0% 5.9% 0.3%
374 190 Yakima, WA S 10.6 15.5% 14.9% 0.2%
375 191 Victoria, TX S 10.1 15.7% -6.8% 0.5%
376 133 Corpus Christi, TX M 10.0 17.5% 14.5% -0.2%
377 192 Longview, TX S 9.3 16.1% 12.3% -0.1%
378 193 Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville, AL S 8.0 15.0% 4.6% -0.2%
379 194 Pine Bluff, AR S 6.0 13.8% -6.3% -0.3%
380 195 Farmington, NM S 5.8 12.9% 15.7% -0.6%

 

Analysis by Mark Schill, mark@praxissg.com. Measures are normalized and weighted 50% to point change in educational attainment rate, 25% growth in educated population, and 25% in 2013 educational attainment rate. Point change is the difference between the 2000 and the 2013 educational attainment rate. The Villages, FL, an extreme outlier, was excluded from the analysis. Data source: U.S. Census and American Community Survey.

This piece originally appeared at Forbes..

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and Distinguished Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University, and a member of the editorial board of the Orange County Register. His newest book, The New Class Conflict is now available at Amazon and Telos Press. He is author of The City: A Global History and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. His most recent study, The Rise of Postfamilialism, has been widely discussed and distributed internationally. He lives in Los Angeles, CA.

Mark Schill is a community process consultant, economic strategist, and public policy researcher with Praxis Strategy Group.

Boston photo by 2nified (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons