[MediocreButArrogant]

Originally Posted by Everdeen

We have high schools that are in the top one-half of one percent in the nation.

Oh really? What schools would those be? By what measure?

If someone wants to use a different metric for determining what the word first-rate means in their little world, I'm gonna let them.

You're the one who brought Palo Alto into the discussion.

My problem with CCSD isn't the teachers or the administrators. IMHO, the problem is the students and their parents, even at the best high schools in the district. As one very wise poster to this forum wrote, one of the biggest influences you can have as a parent is choosing the population from which your child will choose their peers. I wouldn't want to send my kids to school with the offspring of your typical uneducated low achieving Las Vegas loser. By my standards, that describes 90% of Summerlin residents, and is the reason why none of my friends who have relocated from the SF Bay Area with school age children would ever consider sending their kids to public school here.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by MediocreButArrogant

My problem with CCSD isn't the teachers or the administrators.

Plenty of blame to pass around in administration. CCSD wastes an egregious amount of money. Money that would be better spent reducing class size -- which is one thing that we could do, today, to improve the chances for kids stuck in CCSD.

One of my favorite quotes is from Ben Franklin: "There was never a good knife made of bad steel." CCSD is bad steel. (An inefficient, wasteful hive of cronyism. Like Mt. Everest, the higher one climbs, the worse it gets.) Las Vegas is ALSO bad steel (an intellectually incurious, lazy, deceitful populous*). Using "first-rate," Las Vegas, and CCSD schools in the same sentence is, at best, wishful thinking.


* You have to admit that this describes at least 50% of the people here.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by MediocreButArrogant

Oh really? What schools would those be? By what measure?



You're the one who brought Palo Alto into the discussion.

My problem with CCSD isn't the teachers or the administrators. IMHO, the problem is the students and their parents, even at the best high schools in the district. As one very wise poster to this forum wrote, one of the biggest influences you can have as a parent is choosing the population from which your child will choose their peers. I wouldn't want to send my kids to school with the offspring of your typical uneducated low achieving Las Vegas loser. By my standards, that describes 90% of Summerlin residents, and is the reason why none of my friends who have relocated from the SF Bay Area with school age children would ever consider sending their kids to public school here.

I believe Coronado is rated as a "top" high school by US News and Newsweek. Advanced tech is in the top 2% of US schools according to their rankings. And Meadows of course would rank above Lynbrook or PA High.

I do like your appeal to the snob in us all. When all else fails go to the insult. You think a kid, even a very smart kid, from the midwest would do well and find social acceptance at Lynbrook? Would you not rather send your kid to Beverly Hills where the kid can compare his Beamer to his classmates?

[Everdeen]

Originally Posted by MediocreButArrogant

Oh really? What schools would those be? By what measure?

I've posted them here before and you are welcome to sift through my previous posts to find them. I'm not going to be sent on a mission that will likely end up with attempts of refuting the evidence with straw man arguments as has happened in the past.

If you want to think you know more me, you go right ahead. I'm not going to keep having this same argument.

The OP seems like he's capable of sifting through the information and making a decision. We haven't heard back from him so maybe he decided on Seattle after all.

[ddrhazy]

I went to university in the Bay Area and LV. I can't compare high schools but I can tell you the college education is about the same. If you're saying kids do better because culturally the Bay Area is more rich, that's certainly a good argument. That doesn't prevent a willing individual from learning though. It just encourages the general populace to do better. If I had to choose between taking a job between Bay Area for 200k and Las Vegas for 200k. I'd take the Bay Area. The problem is when you consider your income is 60k in NorCal vs. 60k here, all the sudden the Bay Area is not a realistic place to live anymore.

[boboluv]

Originally Posted by tinman1412

Hi-

I have a job offer in vegas and thinking about moving from dallas. I know very little about vegas except for the casinos. My job will pay me $200k+. Should I make the move?. I have 3 young kids and good schools are important to me

thanks

my answer is yes you should. i grew up in louisiana. your answer might be different.

are you ready to say goodbye to rain? do you like the idea of living in the desert? when you drive the highway to work, would you rather see endless green and grass and bushes and weeds along the ride or sand and rock and stone? i like the rocks.. hate the weeds.

forget about the nevada state school district. all that matters is the one or two schools that your kids will actually go to. in macdonald ranch here in henderson all of the schools our son will attend are rated 10 at greatschools.org. we hear distant cheering from the sports played nearby in anthem park. kids ride by all the time on bikes headed to the skateboard park. the neighborhoods are quiet and peaceful and the schools are nestled right in with the houses. everything else commercial is completely isolated away from you and your children.

200k+ per year will afford you a pretty luxurious home here and a comfortable lifestyle. you'll be 5 hours away from los angeles. a short trip to the national forest canyons of utah and the grand canyon in northern arizona.

and when you want to go out on friday or saturday night... YOU'RE IN LAS VEGAS.

let's say your gross pay is 200,000 per year. if you set your mortage as 33% of your gross income, you can afford 5500/month if you want to live large. at today's rate of 4.1%, that would afford you a 1.1 million dollar home. here is an example of my favorite such home that sold in august for 1.1 million

11947 Oakland Hills Dr, Las Vegas, NV 89141 - Zillow

[Jennarose8]

You could definitely live in a nice house in Las Vegas with that income. You will want to look in the Summerlin / northwest area for good schools and nice housing. The Mesas neighborhood is very nice or out in the Northwest. The education system isn't fabulous in Las Vegas but I have loved my kids teachers and schools.

[Jennarose8]

The area boboluv mentioned is a very nice area too. I think Las Vegas is a great place to raise a family and that is a great income to live off of there.

[LV702]

Originally Posted by von949

Sent from watch

While West CTA is technically a public school, you still have to apply to get into it. You can live in the"bad side of north town" and get in.

[LV702]

Originally Posted by tinman1412

I live in a nice area called southlake. The school district is exemplary. I'm not worried about the job security. My new job will allow my wife to stay home with the kids and not have to work. Can I get into a good neighborhood with good schools on roughly $250k per year?.

Also what kind of house can I afford?. I'm currently in a 3500 sq ft house that is about $500k

thanks

I have lived in both cities myself. Grew up in Vegas, spent most of my life there and moved to DFW in 2010.

Insurance is more expensive in Vegas than Texas
Taxes are cheaper in Vegas
Gas is cheaper in Dallas
Summers can be more brutal in Vegas than Dallas
The CCSD was bad when I was in school, it is worse now.
$250k /yr is just fine for Vegas. You can live in a very nice neighborhood.