Saw this on the MSN news feed today. Found it interesting. I saw a question on the England forum asking about choosing between Paris and Amsterdam... and this pops up later and talks about "cheaper alternatives to Paris and Amsterdam".....
[http://money.msn.com/personal-finance/8-great-affordable-international-vacations]
If the link doesn't work search on their site for 8 great affordable international vacations and you'll find the article. European cities include: Kracow, Budapest, Barcelona, and Istanbul.
Here's the link, made clickable:
http://money.msn.com/personal-finance/8-great-affordable-international-vacations
Budapest has also made a couple of must see lists (Conde Nast, etc) the past few years. I posted some pretty incorrect numbers earlier today. My memory isn't what it once was. Here is a good comparison with Paris
The think is though Toni, when people travel that far they want to visit the stuff everyone else does because part of the magic is being in those must see places and being able to discuss them afterwords with other who has been there.
For example, I've no doubt that anyone could have a fantastic week at my favourite location the Weissenstein in the Swiss Jura - great views, traditional food, wonderful rambling opportunities, welcoming farmer who are only too happy to show you round the farms and prices that are about half what you paid in most tourist points. But telling someone you've spend a week at the Weissenstein does not bring the same magic to the trip as saying you say the Matterhorn or the Eiger or whatever...
Jim got it right.
My kid sister and I are both geographers by training. I'm a nothing with only a masters. She has a doctorate and is well-known internationally in some aspects of the field. However we both speak the same general language.
According to the twerp, from a survey of five hundred college-educated people from all fields except geography and history:
. Fewer than ten percent could name the capitals of more than six European nations when given a list of the nations.
. Fewer than ten percent could correctly label fifteen nations on an outline map of Europe.
. Fewer than five percent could identify more than six European nations if the map of the continent were cut up along national boundaries and dumped like a jigsaw puzzle.
. Fewer than one percent could name three counties in the United Kingdom, or three provinces of Spain, or three regions of France.
. Fewer than one percent could name the four components of the United Kingdom.
. Fewer than one percent could name more than two nations that border Austria.
. Fewer than one percent could cross-match more than one pair from a list of Nazi death camps with a list of associated nations.
. Knowledge of North American geography was equally dismal: hardly anybody could cross-match half of the states with their capitals, about the same number couldn't label a fourth of the contiguous state if they were presented as a jigsaw puzzle, etc.
. Knowledge of Asian and African geography is not even worth mentioning.
. On a global scale, less than ten percent could name more than two nations through which the equator passes.
According to me:
. I was in Ukraine on a commercial consulting job when the Kiev mess started back in January. The project self-aborted when bodies started to pile up in the streets (nobody saw it coming, hence my proponency in other threads not to get too far from my passport). I was well clear and home by the time Crimea tore loose. At a cocktail party attended mostly by educators who'd wondered where I'd been for a couple of weeks, only one person could identify a nation besides Russia that had a common border with Ukraine. Only one other could name the body of water into which the peninsula protrudes. The situation was clobbering the news.
. At a fairly recent gathering of cyclists and kayakers I was asked to be the speaker and describe a bike trip through Ghana. I know them all and suspect everyone has a degree of some kind, maybe not, but some are much more educated than I. I had some pretty good photos. I should have had one of the nation and its surrounds. From the question period afterward, some though it was in Central America, some on the Malay Peninsula, and a couple got the Africa part but moved it over to the east coast around Kenya or something. At least the latitude was usually close. I'd have thought hide color would have knocked out some of the guesses.
So, why would anybody go to Poland when they can't find it on a map and wouldn't be able to talk about it to anybody that knew a thing about it when they got home? And how much traffic is on the France forum while the entirety of the Poland forum is contained on a single page?
Money don't matter. Bragging rights do.
Sorry- I have to disagree. Money does matter to some on these boards. And bragging rights aren't all that some here are concerned with. I'd say that this site, in particular, draws some visitors who are interested in 'other' European cities- after all Rick's 'famous' for his 'back doors'.
All I was wanting to do was share an interesting list. Didn't mean to stir up a windstorm in a bottle.
First.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cey35bBWXls
That having been said I pretty much agree with Ed, but despite my personal well known preference I generally suggest the first trip to Europe include London, Paris and Rome; and at a time of the year when the weather is good. If they were meant to travel that trip will draw it out, then they can expand their horizons if the interest exists. If not, well, like you said Fred, they at least have bragging rights.
Following up on Ed's (very interesting) post. And, I have to admit I would not have scored 100% on that quiz....maybe a strong B+.
But, how many geography majors would be able to calculate the square root of 153?
There are many who would react with 'say what?' when I admit that most years I have no idea who is playing in the Super Bowl until the week prior (when I hear it on main TV news or see it in the headlines of the first section of the newspaper).
It's a matter of different interests.
I find among those who are well traveled, they are often more interested (some might call it impressed) to hear someone has visited a lesser-known, more remote, non-mainstream destination............and then it is assumed the traveler has previously visited all the common biggies. For example, Madagascar is usually not going to be one's first travel destination (but I sure would be interested to hear more if someone I met had just returned), and it is on my secondary bucket list for someday.
Toni, you didn't stir anything up. Good post. Now it is being discussed.
If U.S. political leaders are promoting that if elected they can bring us all the wonders that Western Europe have enjoyed for decades, then I worry less about if the voter can calculate the square root of any number and a lot about if the voter really knows what life in Europe is like. The world has gotten very small. We now have politicians who are running on platforms promising maternity leave equivalent to Poland, medical care equivalent to the UK, work hours equivalent to France, minimum wages equivalent to Finland, and so on ..... Travel can be as much about being an educated voter as anything else. Even cheap travel.
That looks like a good test , I'll take it. They would know more geography if they read more war history. A return trip to Poland and Hungary too is in the trip plans along with a tour to China.
I would say that understanding geography is a wee bit more important that knowing who is playing in the super bowl. :) Granted, I'm sure that you were looking for a stark contrast, but the isolationist perspectives of the past are foolish in a global society.
My office in on the 8th floor in Manhattan and I don't have cubie with window, but we heard the roar from the pub when Germany made their first score and heard it through closed windows! Do you think that would have happened in Manhattan in the 1970's? It's the global nature of the world that has helped increase US interest in World Cup. We're publishing a book on Latin American politics and my first question, was, will it cover the debate about the World Cup and Olympics expense for Brazil. I like to think I'm well-educated, but back in the 80's I wouldn't have known to ask that question!
So, we're more global; what happens on the other side of the world affects us. So, it matters that we don't know geography. And yes, I think it's equally deplorable to not know US geography. :(
Pam
(PS the book does cover the impact of the World Cup and the Olympics.)
I don't much care for catch words or phrases when discussing political issues; and this isn't the place to discuss political issues. But I think it's fair to discuss if getting out of the US and seeing the results of various political leanings makes you a better more informed voter/citizen; and yes it does.
I own a business in the US and I have had employees ask why they don't get X or Y like they have heard Europeans get. I say its possible if they want it bad enough, but would they be willing to give up W and Z like the Europeans have chosen to do? Then I get a blank stare and disbelief.
Interested to know what "Euopeans" have given up that have made your employees stare in disbelief. Low gas prices are the only thing that comes to mind, or perhaps cheap houses. Certainly not a deal breaker for me. Distinguishing between countries is important though. Things in Greece aren't like they are in Norway.
I decided my geography knowledge was woefully lacking so began a learning program online called Memrise. It works really well and is easy to use and to learn. In a short period of time I have learned the locations of about 160 countries. They have other catagories too, like capitals, kings of England, languages, etc. Give it a try for a few days and see. It is free so you have nothing to lose
Ms Jo, like I said, not a place for a political discussion. Just an observation that unless you take the time to learn a greater part of the whole picture including benefits and the trade offs that one culture makes vs another you cant make very well informed decisions when what is being offered to you has in it a statement about someplace else having something better than we do here. To go beyond that and give the subject any justice would not be possible here. The emphasis here is to encourage people to broaden their awareness (one way or another) and not to support or defend or criticize anything in particular.
And thanks for the Memrise suggestion.
Toni, I don't think you stirred up a windstorm at all, just a normal discussion. And why not, the topic begs for discussion.
And for whoever said money is an issue with a lot of people here on this board, you're right. It certainly is with me - now. However, when I first started traveling to Europe (and other places outside the US), it was the 'biggies' that I wanted to see just like about 80% of most American tourists and what it costs wasn't so much an issue. I was willing to pay for the more expensive places because they had the sights that I wanted to see.
Now when I travel to Europe, I usually include those big name places that I haven't been to (or haven't explored thoroughly enough) and I also include the less well known cities that are on a lot of 'alternative' lists such as this one. I think that's what so many on here do also.
I liked Ed's response a lot and fear that though I might do better than most on some of those questions I would be in that 'less than 10%' on others.
Another way to look at is: ask a European planning to visit the US if they're coming to see New York, San Francisco, Miami (the expensive well known places) or might they be coming to some other cities like Kansas City, Mpls-St Paul, Portland OR, etc that have lots to offer as 'alternative' less expensive cities.
Nancy - In 2003 I had the opportunity to get a 9 day fly-drive to Toronto for less then €400,-.
Visited: Niagara Falls, Boston (Cheers (by accident), Harvard and MIT, New England Aquarium, whale watching), Mystic Seaport, tried to visit the USS Nautilus but was unfortunitaly just closed for visit at the moment I arrived), a brewery in Coopertown. Final day I visited CN tower and the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto.
In terms of highlights I could have done better, but in the first place it was for me an opportunity getting closer to the American and Canadian way of living. It was not a well planned journey but nevertheless there was so much to experience that I didn’t really needed more. I deliberately avoided New York, decided to keep it for a later visit. Planning less gives more room to spontaneous experiences, what makes for me a trip certainly worth to do and it’s indeed more friendly for the budget. Not letting dominate the highlights is I think the best way to enjoy the trip, it’s more the mixture with other things that a place/country has to offer what enriches the experience. More a matter of finding/discovering the balance.
About the car I used this trick: Order the smallest car on the list, very likely it isn’t available at the moment you want to pick it up. As a friendly gesture they let you select any car you like for the same price. Instead of an economy car I used a Chevrolet Impala. A little gamble, but worked out well this time, so no garantee it always will be.
Personaly I think I am more belonging to a minority who travels this way. As many people elsewhere also most Europeans I think are focused too on well known attractions when going far away.
On flights from Germany to Atlanta, I have met several German tourists, passing through Atlanta, who were headed for Yelllowstone and the Grand Canyon but never to Calloway Gardens or the state park down the road from me. I wonder why? They must be bypassing these other gems because they want to impress their friends and neighbors. Nah, if their friends and neighbors were like mine, these travelers would mention where they've been and be quickly told where to go.
Right, George. It will soon be cut-and-paste time on the forum.
What an interesting debate, with differing points of view!
I note that most of the posters seem to be either US nationals, or at least US based. Hearing some other Europeans' views (I'm a Londoner) would interest me, as I think we may find that opinions, and knowledge (or ignorance) of each other's geography, are not so different on either side of the Atlantic.
As for the original question, about 'alternative' cities, I'd hazard a guess that unless someone has family or good friends in their target country to visit, the original motivation for people to visit other places often simply comes from hearing or seeing some of the marquee sites that every country has, and the bragging rights one then acquires. However I'd also surmise that once you have tasted the main sights and enjoyed them, that it spurs you on to see the paths less well trodden - and all that drives where you stay and how you travel is your personal financial situation. For instance, having been to NYC a couple of times, I'd love to explore Philadelphia and Baltimore, and I'd be looking to do so on a mid-range budget.
Lastly, to suggest some alternatives in England to visit, I'd include Bristol, Leeds, Southampton and Newcastle on Tyne as great places to visit and use as a base!
@ Mark G...all those places in England I hope to get to (and more) on future trips since they have been recommended to me, good choices.
I read a few good suggestions. Roy, don’t bother I know a few ignored places too here where I live. People in general like to follow the beaten path, it’s a bit a risk avoiding mentality, being afraid to regret to miss something I guess.
Mark - The Clifton Suspension Bridge and Brunel’s SS Great Britain are still on my wish list.
I visited London only after a few other visits to other parts of the country. Great Britain has so much to offer, so many “hidden” gems, way enough to keep coming back many times. Just drive around and you can find them on your path.
Ed's test results were interesting, if not surprising. And as for the countries straddling the Equator, answering Ecuador should have been obvious, so a respondent only needed to come up with two more countries! I remember hearing once about a resident in New Mexico, who was told she couldn't have an order mailed to her, because that company "didn't ship ouside the U.S."
Back to the original topic, and considering a recent thread about popular destinations getting overcrowded, perhaps the cheaper places would also offer less crowded conditions :-)
"...your best travel deal is the country you've been dreaming about."
Sounds very poetic. But naaaa, life doesn't really work that way. I dreamt it, therefore so it shall be? I recently returned from a country that I had been dreaming about; not a good deal. A real let down. Actually a couple of my dreamt places didn't pan out over the years.
Then there is the place I never dreamt about because I didn't know a dang thing about it but ended up in it almost by accident and it became the place I now dream about most.
All this talking about geography makes me wonder just what American kids are supposed to know when it comes to geography?
As it would happen today, my 13 year old daughter was complaining about a certain boy in her class, whom she considers a bit of a dummy and one of her points was: "Imagine he can't find Portland on a map of the USA!"
The whole thing is based on a faulty premise, that you have to substitute one city for another. Cities are inherently expensive, and I find that the most interesting things for me are outside cities. I save money by spending 85% of my time outside cities.
I agree too that lack of understanding of geography and different cultures is not exclusive to US citizens. And it's really hard to break out of the familiar. I work for a British company. And I sell books that are published by UK based editors into the US market. And even with highly educated people you are constrained and influenced by what is familiar to you. It takes work to learn the geography or the culture of a foreign place. We were selling a book on water resources this past year. It was supposed to be global. There was no mention of the Great Lakes or California! What's the matter with them! Don't they know basic US Geography? : ) Well, India was more on their mind as was Africa. Nothing wrong with that, but if they want me to sell more copies I need California!
I don't think it matters whether it's travel or markets, or whatever, the shrinking globe is new to us. It was only a little over 30 years ago that I visited Greece for a month and never talked to any one back in the US for the entire time. Now I talk to the UK daily in the course of my work. The transatlantic phone line was laid until the 1950's. It's so easy to forget in our Internet connected world that it hasn't been that way that long.
Pam
