How the hell does anyone in California get into college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCs, Cal in particular, absolutely engage in social engineering. It’s very common to see kids in the top 5%, best ECs skipped over for someone in the top 20% because they meet a racial or socioeconomic institutional goal. UCs are not only test optional but they do not accept letters of reference from counselors or teachers. There is no verification of what you report on your app for admissions other than transcript and AP scores after you are accepted. You only have to report your AP score if you plan to use it for credit. This opens the door to massive cheating on ECs, awards, community engagement, where/if your parents went to school etc. UCs do not care if lie.

The above is flat out false and easy to see if you have access to your schools data.

If you are at a good public or private your first hurdle for a top UC is being 'local' ELC (top 9% in your school). If you do not achieve this your chance of getting in drops dramatically. You don't have to add it anywhere, your school is required to compute and report it. It will be on your UC app for all to see. This is a big hurdle at really competitive schools which is why so many get shut out. After that you will also be assigned a ranking based on the zip code/census tract where you live to score your socioeconomic level so poor kids going to a catholic school on financial aid will have the advantage of a good education along with being recognized as poor. This will give you a shot if you are outside of local ELC (i.e. getting state ELC which is top 9% in the state).

When it all shakes out there is nothing surprising at a top school; the kids with top GPAs and test scores (even though they aren't seen) end up with really good chances of getting in (at my kids school you could see that above a 1530 and 4.5 it was about 75% for both UCB and UCLA) but for everyone else it was about 8%.

The starting point for every school is ELC and for somewhere like Lynnbrook where 350+ kids apply and only 40 are ELC about 40-45 get in. At Mission San Francisco probably every kid that applied was ELC as well. The difference is that few non-ELC kids applied.

moron, the UC's are banned by law from even looking at SAT for admissions.

I’m not the PP that you immaturely called a “moron”, but I think the point is that top of the class is who generally gets in — especially at UCLA since it is generally the #1 desired UC these days. And your point on the SAT is also correct though you could have stated it better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Community college is free in California. Many, many intelligent kids opt there first because it makes sense and has guaranteed transfer programs.

But really, I don't know anyone who's been shut out of all UCs and CSUs they applied to.

Does CA have academically more-rigorous community colleges to accommodate those high performing students?

DP. I don’t think students look for academic rigor there. They want to get their As and transfer to a decent school

This is correct, they definitely aren’t more rigorous. They serve a broad range of students with no gatekeeping.

Community Colleges near prestigious universities (Caltech, Berkeley) sometimes have professors from the prestigious schools teach at the CC.

Or the professors’ spouses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Community college is free in California. Many, many intelligent kids opt there first because it makes sense and has guaranteed transfer programs.

But really, I don't know anyone who's been shut out of all UCs and CSUs they applied to.

Does CA have academically more-rigorous community colleges to accommodate those high performing students?

DP. I don’t think students look for academic rigor there. They want to get their As and transfer to a decent school

Californian here. This is false. They want academic rigor because these kids generally want to hit the ground running at Cal or UCLA.

So many people assume your school has to be brutally rigorous for you to learn. There are many factors involved, and in my experience of studying & teaching at 14 colleges is that a lot of what passes for rigor is unnecessary ball-busting that doesn’t improve the amount of learning. It’s possible to learn more at super-rigorous schools, but it’s not the absolute slam dunk people think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Community college is free in California. Many, many intelligent kids opt there first because it makes sense and has guaranteed transfer programs.

But really, I don't know anyone who's been shut out of all UCs and CSUs they applied to.

Does CA have academically more-rigorous community colleges to accommodate those high performing students?

DP. I don’t think students look for academic rigor there. They want to get their As and transfer to a decent school

Californian here. This is false. They want academic rigor because these kids generally want to hit the ground running at Cal or UCLA.

So many people assume your school has to be brutally rigorous for you to learn. There are many factors involved, and in my experience of studying & teaching at 14 colleges is that a lot of what passes for rigor is unnecessary ball-busting that doesn’t improve the amount of learning. It’s possible to learn more at super-rigorous schools, but it’s not the absolute slam dunk people think it is.

Yes, but at a practical level the kids hoping to transfer to UCLA or Cal do not want to be unprepared. That’s why they cluster in some of the feeder community colleges.

There are a lot of excellent students who deliberately choose CC to up their chances of Cal or UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCs, Cal in particular, absolutely engage in social engineering. It’s very common to see kids in the top 5%, best ECs skipped over for someone in the top 20% because they meet a racial or socioeconomic institutional goal. UCs are not only test optional but they do not accept letters of reference from counselors or teachers. There is no verification of what you report on your app for admissions other than transcript and AP scores after you are accepted. You only have to report your AP score if you plan to use it for credit. This opens the door to massive cheating on ECs, awards, community engagement, where/if your parents went to school etc. UCs do not care if lie.

The above is flat out false and easy to see if you have access to your schools data.

If you are at a good public or private your first hurdle for a top UC is being 'local' ELC (top 9% in your school). If you do not achieve this your chance of getting in drops dramatically. You don't have to add it anywhere, your school is required to compute and report it. It will be on your UC app for all to see. This is a big hurdle at really competitive schools which is why so many get shut out. After that you will also be assigned a ranking based on the zip code/census tract where you live to score your socioeconomic level so poor kids going to a catholic school on financial aid will have the advantage of a good education along with being recognized as poor. This will give you a shot if you are outside of local ELC (i.e. getting state ELC which is top 9% in the state).

When it all shakes out there is nothing surprising at a top school; the kids with top GPAs and test scores (even though they aren't seen) end up with really good chances of getting in (at my kids school you could see that above a 1530 and 4.5 it was about 75% for both UCB and UCLA) but for everyone else it was about 8%.

The starting point for every school is ELC and for somewhere like Lynnbrook where 350+ kids apply and only 40 are ELC about 40-45 get in. At Mission San Francisco probably every kid that applied was ELC as well. The difference is that few non-ELC kids applied.

moron, the UC's are banned by law from even looking at SAT for admissions.

Might want to actually read before you reply. I said that they aren’t even seen. The point is that they are able to hone in on the top students at a school and those are the ones who get accepted. If you want to see a Moron look in the mirror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCs, Cal in particular, absolutely engage in social engineering. It’s very common to see kids in the top 5%, best ECs skipped over for someone in the top 20% because they meet a racial or socioeconomic institutional goal. UCs are not only test optional but they do not accept letters of reference from counselors or teachers. There is no verification of what you report on your app for admissions other than transcript and AP scores after you are accepted. You only have to report your AP score if you plan to use it for credit. This opens the door to massive cheating on ECs, awards, community engagement, where/if your parents went to school etc. UCs do not care if lie.

The above is flat out false and easy to see if you have access to your schools data.

If you are at a good public or private your first hurdle for a top UC is being 'local' ELC (top 9% in your school). If you do not achieve this your chance of getting in drops dramatically. You don't have to add it anywhere, your school is required to compute and report it. It will be on your UC app for all to see. This is a big hurdle at really competitive schools which is why so many get shut out. After that you will also be assigned a ranking based on the zip code/census tract where you live to score your socioeconomic level so poor kids going to a catholic school on financial aid will have the advantage of a good education along with being recognized as poor. This will give you a shot if you are outside of local ELC (i.e. getting state ELC which is top 9% in the state).

When it all shakes out there is nothing surprising at a top school; the kids with top GPAs and test scores (even though they aren't seen) end up with really good chances of getting in (at my kids school you could see that above a 1530 and 4.5 it was about 75% for both UCB and UCLA) but for everyone else it was about 8%.

The starting point for every school is ELC and for somewhere like Lynnbrook where 350+ kids apply and only 40 are ELC about 40-45 get in. At Mission San Francisco probably every kid that applied was ELC as well. The difference is that few non-ELC kids applied.

so the game plan is to go to a school which allows a ton of 5.0 weighted courses (uc-approved honors, AP, de) relative to 4.0 weighted courses in order to maximize your weighted gpa, then transfer to a school that doesn't in your senior year so your GPA is impossibly high for that school's students, thus making your valedictorian or, if you underperformed at the first school, at least boosting your odds of ELC?

That wouldn’t work. ELC is computed after your junior year. You have to have high rigor based on where you go to school or you have no shot. UCB wants to see APs if available so Honors courses don’t cut it at highly competitive schools though they will work at schools without APs. Remember it is in context of what you have access too.

The UC system computes GPA in three ways weighted, weighted capped, and unweighted. UCB and UCLA use weighted so high rigor relative to your high school is very important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting into a UC not named UC Merced or Riverside is not that hard.

Generally don't suck and be in or near the top 10% of your class, participate in your school's community, show you are a decent human being and you'll get into one of them. Will it be Berkeley or UCLA? That's the crapshoot, but you will get into one of them.

Admission's statistics are available for every high school in the country. It isn't impossible or frankly even that hard because of all the UC's.

You say it isn’t that hard but then also say you have to be in the top 10% of the class which means it is hard to get in particularly at schools with a lot of high achieving kids. UW 3.9 GPA DC with ECs including significant volunteer work applying for a psychology major didn’t get into any UC except Merced nor did several of her friends get into UCs other than Merced or Riverside as well as few who got UCSC.

The top 10% at schools like Lynbrook and Cupertino would eat TJ kids as snacks. Every day is a pressure cooker.

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1743439230/fuhsdorg/owmxetiqoxllgcphfxmi/CHS24-25SchoolProfile.pdf - 15% of Cupertino grads are going to a CC. That’s pretty interesting. The other thing that stood out to me is that the average class size is over 32 students!

My husband’s alma mater, Westlake High School, sends 40% of its students to CC. It’s is not as super extremely competitive of place as Cupertino or some of the other public HSs in the Bay Area, but definitely a VERY nice, upper middle class area and highly ranked school.

The stigma just isn’t there.

They are going to feeder CC’s like Foothill which are loaded with kids TAPing into the UCs.

This was shortly after COVID, but at my DC's orientation, the department head specifically name checked Foothill, and said if you've loaded up with credits I recommend you retake courses here. You will have to work with admin to be allowed to do that but I can facilitate that.

I'm not sure what decade people are replying from but the CCC is largely buying canned curriculums (e.g. Pearson for math and programming) and hiring anyone with a masters to babysit the course shell. Tenured at a CC is good money and benefits, but moonlighting as per course adjunct is not for anyone who could get an adjunct contract elsewhere. It is a way to get health benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Folsom High in Folsom CA is middle class, mostly white and Asian and has 637 seniors. 42% met or exceeded California's math standards. Grant High School is low income, mostly Black and Hispanic and has 410 seniors. 13% of the students met or exceeded California's math standards.

UCLA
Folsom:
119 applied, 9 admitted
Grant:
27 applied, 6 admitted

So, it sounds like 1.4% of the graduates in both schools were accepted to a UC. My read on that is that UCLA purposely tries to accept the top students from all schools, and this is irregardless of the school’s overall socioeconomic status. I’m not sure if there is anything surprising here, but is that the point you were trying to make?

And to correct, my post above. This seems to be the case for public schools. At least in DC’s case, the well-regarded privates gain acceptances at a much higher (~10 pct rate.

No they don’t and that is easily verified. For top public and private High Schools UCB and UCLA admissions tend to follow the overall acceptance rate for the UC. May be a couple of points above or below in any given year but there isn’t much variability.

It is fairly verifiable, and I stick by my original post. Also note that I said % of total student population NOT the percent accepted from those who chose to apply. The question being tested is how selective they are compared to the total graduating class, and the applicant pool is less relevant in that case. Here is an example:

Per the UC website for Lick Wilmerding applicants to UCLA — 101 applied, 13 admitted, and 6 chose to enroll. Lick’s class size is roughly 140, so that is an admit rate of ~10% of the total class or 13% of applicants accepted. College Prep, Head Royce, Nueva, etc all have some rough version of the same math with the only real difference being how selective the STUDENTS were on applying to a top UC.

Finally, I looked at Mission HS in SF too since that often gets thrown out since the Chronicle ran article on them. For UCLA, they had 7 of 56 applicants accepted (13%), but they also have 260 in their graduating class (~3% of class admitted). In fairness though, 3% is still quite strong, and they do remarkably well when looking at UCB.

Below is the UC database, and you can run this as you desire. Bottom line is that they seem to be aiming to admit the top students in the school…..not the top students in the overall in applicant pool.

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/admissions-source-school

I can see what you are trying to say and we are in agreement. The key piece for any student in top UC admissions is being ELC (top 9% at your school). If you are coming from Lick or any of the other schools that you mentioned and you are not ELC you have a very small chance.

NP. How do they determine top 9% - many students have the exact same GPA.

Alternatively, a student with a 4.5 W GPA may have AP Chem, Calc BC, AP Physics - whereas another student with a 4.5 has APES, AP Pysch, AP PreCalc etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting into a UC not named UC Merced or Riverside is not that hard.

Generally don't suck and be in or near the top 10% of your class, participate in your school's community, show you are a decent human being and you'll get into one of them. Will it be Berkeley or UCLA? That's the crapshoot, but you will get into one of them.

Admission's statistics are available for every high school in the country. It isn't impossible or frankly even that hard because of all the UC's.

You say it isn’t that hard but then also say you have to be in the top 10% of the class which means it is hard to get in particularly at schools with a lot of high achieving kids. UW 3.9 GPA DC with ECs including significant volunteer work applying for a psychology major didn’t get into any UC except Merced nor did several of her friends get into UCs other than Merced or Riverside as well as few who got UCSC.

The top 10% at schools like Lynbrook and Cupertino would eat TJ kids as snacks. Every day is a pressure cooker.

How about top 10% at TJ? Ivy caliber student, do you see your logic problem here? Or you know nothing about TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting into a UC not named UC Merced or Riverside is not that hard.

Generally don't suck and be in or near the top 10% of your class, participate in your school's community, show you are a decent human being and you'll get into one of them. Will it be Berkeley or UCLA? That's the crapshoot, but you will get into one of them.

Admission's statistics are available for every high school in the country. It isn't impossible or frankly even that hard because of all the UC's.

You say it isn’t that hard but then also say you have to be in the top 10% of the class which means it is hard to get in particularly at schools with a lot of high achieving kids. UW 3.9 GPA DC with ECs including significant volunteer work applying for a psychology major didn’t get into any UC except Merced nor did several of her friends get into UCs other than Merced or Riverside as well as few who got UCSC.

The top 10% at schools like Lynbrook and Cupertino would eat TJ kids as snacks. Every day is a pressure cooker.

How about top 10% at TJ? Ivy caliber student, do you see your logic problem here? Or you know nothing about TJ.

By end of freshman year TJ kids aren't bragging like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting into a UC not named UC Merced or Riverside is not that hard.

Generally don't suck and be in or near the top 10% of your class, participate in your school's community, show you are a decent human being and you'll get into one of them. Will it be Berkeley or UCLA? That's the crapshoot, but you will get into one of them.

Admission's statistics are available for every high school in the country. It isn't impossible or frankly even that hard because of all the UC's.

You say it isn’t that hard but then also say you have to be in the top 10% of the class which means it is hard to get in particularly at schools with a lot of high achieving kids. UW 3.9 GPA DC with ECs including significant volunteer work applying for a psychology major didn’t get into any UC except Merced nor did several of her friends get into UCs other than Merced or Riverside as well as few who got UCSC.

The top 10% at schools like Lynbrook and Cupertino would eat TJ kids as snacks. Every day is a pressure cooker.

How about top 10% at TJ? Ivy caliber student, do you see your logic problem here? Or you know nothing about TJ.

I actually know a lot about TJ but you obviously know nothing about Lynbrook or Cupertino. I can tell that you are Asian by your misuse of the term "logic problem". You might want to take a look at Lynnbrook and Cupertino taking into mind that they are regular public schools (unlike TJ). HS competition at top Bay area schools is another level even compared to DMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting into a UC not named UC Merced or Riverside is not that hard.

Generally don't suck and be in or near the top 10% of your class, participate in your school's community, show you are a decent human being and you'll get into one of them. Will it be Berkeley or UCLA? That's the crapshoot, but you will get into one of them.

Admission's statistics are available for every high school in the country. It isn't impossible or frankly even that hard because of all the UC's.

You say it isn’t that hard but then also say you have to be in the top 10% of the class which means it is hard to get in particularly at schools with a lot of high achieving kids. UW 3.9 GPA DC with ECs including significant volunteer work applying for a psychology major didn’t get into any UC except Merced nor did several of her friends get into UCs other than Merced or Riverside as well as few who got UCSC.

The top 10% at schools like Lynbrook and Cupertino would eat TJ kids as snacks. Every day is a pressure cooker.

How about top 10% at TJ? Ivy caliber student, do you see your logic problem here? Or you know nothing about TJ.

I actually know a lot about TJ but you obviously know nothing about Lynbrook or Cupertino. I can tell that you are Asian by your misuse of the term "logic problem". You might want to take a look at Lynnbrook and Cupertino taking into mind that they are regular public schools (unlike TJ). HS competition at top Bay area schools is another level even compared to DMV.

Ok I am "taking into mind". LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Folsom High in Folsom CA is middle class, mostly white and Asian and has 637 seniors. 42% met or exceeded California's math standards. Grant High School is low income, mostly Black and Hispanic and has 410 seniors. 13% of the students met or exceeded California's math standards.

UCLA
Folsom:
119 applied, 9 admitted
Grant:
27 applied, 6 admitted

So, it sounds like 1.4% of the graduates in both schools were accepted to a UC. My read on that is that UCLA purposely tries to accept the top students from all schools, and this is irregardless of the school’s overall socioeconomic status. I’m not sure if there is anything surprising here, but is that the point you were trying to make?

And to correct, my post above. This seems to be the case for public schools. At least in DC’s case, the well-regarded privates gain acceptances at a much higher (~10 pct rate.

No they don’t and that is easily verified. For top public and private High Schools UCB and UCLA admissions tend to follow the overall acceptance rate for the UC. May be a couple of points above or below in any given year but there isn’t much variability.

It is fairly verifiable, and I stick by my original post. Also note that I said % of total student population NOT the percent accepted from those who chose to apply. The question being tested is how selective they are compared to the total graduating class, and the applicant pool is less relevant in that case. Here is an example:

Per the UC website for Lick Wilmerding applicants to UCLA — 101 applied, 13 admitted, and 6 chose to enroll. Lick’s class size is roughly 140, so that is an admit rate of ~10% of the total class or 13% of applicants accepted. College Prep, Head Royce, Nueva, etc all have some rough version of the same math with the only real difference being how selective the STUDENTS were on applying to a top UC.

Finally, I looked at Mission HS in SF too since that often gets thrown out since the Chronicle ran article on them. For UCLA, they had 7 of 56 applicants accepted (13%), but they also have 260 in their graduating class (~3% of class admitted). In fairness though, 3% is still quite strong, and they do remarkably well when looking at UCB.

Below is the UC database, and you can run this as you desire. Bottom line is that they seem to be aiming to admit the top students in the school…..not the top students in the overall in applicant pool.

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/admissions-source-school

I can see what you are trying to say and we are in agreement. The key piece for any student in top UC admissions is being ELC (top 9% at your school). If you are coming from Lick or any of the other schools that you mentioned and you are not ELC you have a very small chance.

NP. How do they determine top 9% - many students have the exact same GPA.

Alternatively, a student with a 4.5 W GPA may have AP Chem, Calc BC, AP Physics - whereas another student with a 4.5 has APES, AP Pysch, AP PreCalc etc

They determine top 9% by GPA for A-G courses in your school. It doesn’t include rigor. UC admissions are very unpredictable. The patterns vary be school districts and schools. It’s common for an applicant who gets into Cal or UCSD to be denied by UCI and UCD. It freaks the kids out because to their parents UCD and UCI were safety school and those decisions come out earlier. It makes a very stressful 2-3 weeks. UCLA seems to be the only one that consistently takes the actual top students. Cal is a real outlier and will pass over all the top 5-10% for a much lower GPA, no school leadership or big ECs, or rigorous classes.

A teacher on another thread put it best that schools are looking for a well rounded class not that each student is well rounded. Another aspect where this all feels and probably is unfair to the students is that UC is heavily factoring in geography, parents education, income and proxy measures for race and ethnicity which kids can’t control. It isn’t happenstance that the admits magically meet the demographic goals of the institution every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone talks about how competitive the DMV area is, but it's even worse in California. In the Bay Area, every large high school is just as competitive as Langley or McLean in NOVA. Everyone is taking 15+ AP classes and getting 5s on the scores. Teachers refuse to give out As. Sports teams are impossible to join. Extracurriculars are impossible to stand out. Everyone is doing research, starting non-profits, winning chess tournaments, and doing other niche extracurriculars. And it sucks too because high schools in LA, Orange County, and San Diego are also brutally competitive and cutthroat. It's why someone with straight As in California can get denied from UC Riverside.

Yeah, what I've heard is that a lot of kids accelerate course in the summer and retake a lower level during school year to guarantee an A. This is San Diego suburbs. Some very competitive schools also have graduating classes of 1000 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting into a UC not named UC Merced or Riverside is not that hard.

Generally don't suck and be in or near the top 10% of your class, participate in your school's community, show you are a decent human being and you'll get into one of them. Will it be Berkeley or UCLA? That's the crapshoot, but you will get into one of them.

Admission's statistics are available for every high school in the country. It isn't impossible or frankly even that hard because of all the UC's.

You say it isn’t that hard but then also say you have to be in the top 10% of the class which means it is hard to get in particularly at schools with a lot of high achieving kids. UW 3.9 GPA DC with ECs including significant volunteer work applying for a psychology major didn’t get into any UC except Merced nor did several of her friends get into UCs other than Merced or Riverside as well as few who got UCSC.

The top 10% at schools like Lynbrook and Cupertino would eat TJ kids as snacks. Every day is a pressure cooker.

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1743439230/fuhsdorg/owmxetiqoxllgcphfxmi/CHS24-25SchoolProfile.pdf - 15% of Cupertino grads are going to a CC. That’s pretty interesting. The other thing that stood out to me is that the average class size is over 32 students!

My husband’s alma mater, Westlake High School, sends 40% of its students to CC. It’s is not as super extremely competitive of place as Cupertino or some of the other public HSs in the Bay Area, but definitely a VERY nice, upper middle class area and highly ranked school.

The stigma just isn’t there.

They are going to feeder CC’s like Foothill which are loaded with kids TAPing into the UCs.

This was shortly after COVID, but at my DC's orientation, the department head specifically name checked Foothill, and said if you've loaded up with credits I recommend you retake courses here. You will have to work with admin to be allowed to do that but I can facilitate that.

I'm not sure what decade people are replying from but the CCC is largely buying canned curriculums (e.g. Pearson for math and programming) and hiring anyone with a masters to babysit the course shell. Tenured at a CC is good money and benefits, but moonlighting as per course adjunct is not for anyone who could get an adjunct contract elsewhere. It is a way to get health benefits.

You are out of touch. It doesn’t work the way it does on the east coast in California.