Quick now, here's a pop quiz for you: Which city has the highest concentration of million-dollar houses?

Wrong. It's not San Francisco, or even Los Angeles. The correct answer is...drum roll please...Cambridge, Mass., home of Harvard University and a place where one in every eight houses is valued at $1 million-plus.

Okay, here's a chance to redeem yourself: Which state has the highest rents?

This one is easy. Yes, it's California. The Golden State has the highest housing prices in the land, so it only stands to reason it also would have the highest rents.

According to the Census Bureau, Irvine, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Fremont, Calif., recorded the highest median gross rents among large U.S. cities, all at or above $1,200 a month. Indeed, the only city outside California in the nation's most expensive high-rent districts was Stanford, Conn.

In contrast, the median gross rent for the nation as a whole was only $602, only half the $1,200 benchmark. But if you are really looking for a rental bargain, try Brownsville, Texas, or Erie, Pa. Folks in those town paid renters the lowest monthly rents in the land, $405 and $424 a month, respectively.

On a state-by-state basis, both Hawaii and New Jersey have the highest gross monthy rents, at $779 and $747. California is third at $747.

But tenants in California lead the nation in the share of their incomes spent on rent 27.7 percent. Renters in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming spent the lowest share -- 23.4 percent or less.

In case you are wondering, Census defines gross rent as the amount of rent, plus the estimated average monthly cost of fuel and utilities. The data is based on the sample of households responding to the bureau's long form tally sheet. Nationally, about 1-in-6 housing units were included in the sample.

Meanwhile, on the for-sale side of the ledger, the government says Cambridge has more million dollar houses per 100,000 population than anywhere else at about 12 percent.

San Francisco is a distant second, at 7 percent, followed by two other California burgs Pasadena (4.7 percent) and LA (3.8 percent).

A Census Bureau analysis released last week said the median value of a home in the United States was $119,600 in 2000, an increase of 18 percent over the 1990 median of $101,100 (after adjusting for inflation). Median value means one-half of all homes were worth more and one-half are worth less.

Seven of the 10 places with the highest median single-family home values were in the San Francisco Bay area, two were in New England and one in Hawaii.

Sunnyvale, Calif., recorded the highest median single-family home value among large cities at $459,200, more than four times the national median. On the other side of the ledger, Flint, Mich., had the lowest median single-family home value among large cities at $49,700, more than 50 percent below the national figure.

State-wise, Hawaii recorded the highest median value for single-family homes ($272,700), more than twice the national median. The lowest median was in Oklahoma ($70,700), one-third below the national number.

Here are some other highlights and low-lights from the most recent Census Bureau release:

• In 1950, the median value of single-family homes nationwide was only $44,600.
• The fastest rise in house prices from decade to decade was 43 percent in the 1970s. The slowest was 8.2 percent in the '80s.
• Between 1990 and 2000, Oregon had the sharpest rise in median home values of any state, up 78 percent. Other western states experiencing large increases included Utah (66 percent) and Colorado (58 percent).
• Values decreased in 11 states and the District of Columbia, with Connecticut showing the sharpest drop (27 percent).
• Of all 55.2 million owner-occupied homes in the nation, 70 percent were mortgaged and 30 percent were debt-free. The median value of mortgaged homes ($128,800) was much higher than those without a mortgage ($96,900).