Chicago vs San Francisco???
Hi, I'm applying for a student exchange program to US colleges.
I have to choose the school either in Chicago or San Francisco.
I have a few questions about these two cities!
1. In terms of accent, which accent is closer to General American(Neutral Standard Accent)??
Chicago Accent or San Francisco Accent?
I want to learn General American accent. I'm not a big fan of surfer-dude accent.
2. Loyola Chicago University vs University of San Francisco!
Which school will be the better place to learn English more effectively?
(Sorry, this question is too general, isn't it?)
3. The city itself: Chicago vs San Francisco!
Which city is more cultural, exciting and central?
I want to make the most use of its urban location.
P.S. I know San Francisco is a gay-friendly city.
Then, is Chicago gay-friendly as well?
I hope to get helpful replies from Americans who live close to either of the cities.
<<Which city is more cultural, exciting and central?>>
Chicago is certainly more central. Both places are way too exciting and cultural for me. Andes, New York is more my speed :)
Chicago sounds nice as far as what I have seen on TV. People are easy going and quite a nice city really. I'd love to visit there one day.
NativeKorean, San Francisco speaks English that is closer to General American; Chicago is in the NorthernCitiesVowelShift belt, and has a pronounced accent to people from the rest of the States.
San Francisco--as far as I know--is too far North to have any surfer-dude influence.
I don't know about the rest of your questions.
San Francisco speaks General American of Western type with Low Back merger but with no strong dialectal features of Southern California /like Californian vowel speech/
Chicago does not speak General American at all! most people there have Northern Cities vowel shift!That's why most actors from that region need an accent coach in Hollywood to get a more neutral accent!
SF is one of the best places to get a nice accent.
try listening to Clint Estwood /from SF/ or Michael Moore /from CH/.
Clint Estwood's accent sounds more neutral.
If you're focusing on the dialect you'll come out speaking, definitely San Fransisco, but I wouldn't recommend it for any other reason...
Chicago is a more interesting city... Though I like Clint Eastwood much more than Michael Moore, I'd stick to Chicago.
Oh, and if you're looking for a gay-friendly city, there's no where in the world as gay friendly as San Fransisco. Unless that's why you're going there, I don't think there'd be any reason to stay for more than a three-day weekend unless you're going to traveling through the wine country.
Native Korean, you DO know this isn't a dating service site, right?
Chicago: Loads of culture, friendly people, public transportation and cold in winter.
SF: Basically the same, except not so cold in winter, but earthquakes are a possibility.
I've been to SF many times and I've spent time in Chicago recently.
The old-time Chicago accent is definitely more extreme, although most people in both places in 2007 don't really have an extreme accent. As for the stereotypical accents--Chicago is really nasal, with a fully realized and very pronounced Northern Cities vowel shift, plus hyper-aspirated vowels that verge on hissing. Chicago would be shi-caaaaaaahhhh-goh. It can be a harsh and off-putting accent to people from other regions. The stereotypical northern california accent is also a little nasal, with every syllable pronounced with close to equal length. California would be Cal-uhh-forrn-yuhh. Not really offensive to people from other areas, although it can seem a little slow-paced (When I spent a week near Ukiah I wanted people to hurry up and get the words out so I could go on with my life.) All American big cities are gay-friendly, even in the otherwise gay-unfriendly South, but San Francisco can't be beat for gay-friendliness. If you stay in the city proper, San Francisco is a little easier to live in without a car, but it's hard to get to the airports on public transport, whereas in Chicago you can get to both airports easily and very inexpensively by train. San Francisco has better weather, especially in winter. If you want to see the rest of the US, Chicago is more centrally located has better air connections. To get an idea which college is better regarded, go to
www.usnews.com and click on the link for "college guide". USF is probably a little better known.
So Chicago is more exciting and fast-pace but has a strong accent of their own.
And San Francisco has a neutral accent and gay friendly but can be somewhat boring. Right?
Wow, it's really hard to pick where to go. =p
Does anyone know which city has cleaner air and more environmentally-friendly?
I wish I could spend time 6 months in Chicago and 6 months in San Francisco.
OH BROTHER! Native Korean, this isn't a travel agency!
San Francisco is not boring. And there's plenty to see in Northern California.
Santa Cruz is a nice surfing city just south of SF. And cities of the Bay Area are nice too...Cities of the interior (Livermore, San Ramon) are nice to see too...And Sacramento, the capital is interesting too...and 2hours from Sacramento, lake Tahoe...very clear, not polluted like the Great Lakes but crystal clear.
San Fransisco, I'd assume, would be more environmentally friendly... To the point that bottles of water are illegal and other ridiculous things like that...
Go to Chicago.
Chicago is boring, the capital of fly-over-states region
new kids on the black
LOL