County Sort table by Diagnosis Type Year Reset filters

🏆 Top 10 in Los Angeles County — UC Reach

Los Angeles County · 2025 · ≥50 seniors
What is UC Reach? UC Reach = unique top-6 UC admits ÷ senior class size — the share of a school's entire graduating class that reaches the six most selective UCs (Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Irvine, Davis). It's a better gauge of school-wide success than admit rate, which only reflects the handful of students who applied.
Why it beats admit rate: if 6 students apply to the top UCs and all get in, that's a 100% admit rate — but at a 1,000-senior school it's a UC Reach of just 0.6% (6 ÷ 1,000). By contrast, a school where 250 of 1,000 seniors land a top-UC admit has a 25% UC Reach — far stronger, even though its admit rate is lower.
Why some schools are over 100%? Out of every 100 seniors at these schools, the class is generating more than 100 admissions to the six most selective UCs — meaning the typical strong student is getting in at multiple top campuses (UCLA + UCSD, or Berkeley + UCSB + Irvine, for example). It's a rare achievement: fewer than 1% of California high schools clear 100% UC Reach.

Leaderboards by type — Los Angeles County (2025)

Top and bottom schools by UC Reach, split public/charter vs private (≥50 seniors). Scoped to Los Angeles County — change the County filter above to rescope.

▲ Top 10 Public + Charter

Los Angeles County

1
Cerritos · Public
126.1%
2
El Monte · Public
113.5%
3
Los Angeles · Public
110.0%
4
San Marino · Public
72.2%
5
Rolling Hills Estat · Public
70.8%
6
Diamond Bar · Public
64.6%
7
Arcadia · Public
60.6%
8
Manhattan Beach · Public
59.9%
9
Temple City · Public
59.7%
10
La Canada · Public
59.4%

▲ Top 10 Private

Los Angeles County

1
Claremont · Private
143.6%
2
La Canada · Private
102.8%
3
Los Angeles · Private
77.4%
4
Calabasas · Private
76.8%
5
La Canada · Private
72.7%
6
Los Angeles · Private
66.4%
7
Los Angeles · Private
64.0%
8
Los Angeles · Private
62.2%
9
Studio City · Private
61.8%
10
Santa Monica · Private
57.8%

▼ Bottom 10 Public + Charter

Los Angeles County

1
Los Angeles · Public
0.8%
2
Lancaster · Public
7.5%
3
· Public
7.6%
4
Littlerock · Public
7.8%
5
· Public
8.2%
6
Los Angeles · Public
8.3%
7
Lancaster · Public
8.6%
8
North Hollywood · Public
8.8%
9
Glendale · Public
9.7%
10
Baldwin Park · Public
9.7%

▼ Bottom 10 Private

Los Angeles County

1
Long Beach · Private
12.9%
2
Mission Hills · Private
13.2%
3
Los Angeles · Private
13.7%
4
Cerritos · Private
16.1%
5
Los Angeles · Private
17.9%
6
Panorama City · Private
19.1%
7
La Verne · Private
22.4%
8
Los Angeles · Private
23.4%
9
La Puente · Private
28.2%
10
Lakewood · Private
30.3%

🎯 Specialized high schools — Los Angeles County · 2025

Top UC Reach for schools with senior classes of 25–99. These are typically magnet programs, specialized charters, and small Catholic preps — too small to compare cleanly against comprehensive public high schools, but the most UC-effective small schools in California are here.

▲ Top 10 Small Public + Charter

Los Angeles County

1
North Hollywood · Public
109.3%
2
· Public
83.8%
3
Los Angeles · Public
82.3%
4
Santa Clarita · Public
68.0%
5
Malibu · Public
51.6%
6
Sun Valley · Public
42.2%
7
Lakewood · Public
42.1%
8
Los Angeles · Public
38.0%
9
Montebello · Public
24.1%
10
Huntington Park · Public
22.4%

▲ Top 10 Small Private

Los Angeles County

1
Los Angeles · Private
121.0%
2
Pasadena · Private
104.0%
3
Inglewood · Private
86.0%
4
La Canada · Private
76.4%
5
Pasadena · Private
76.3%
6
Burbank · Private
68.5%
7
Palos Verdes Estate · Private
65.8%
8
Santa Monica · Private
64.6%
9
Canoga Park · Private
64.3%
10
Pasadena · Private
61.5%

Top 10 by individual UC campus — Los Angeles County · 2025

Where each UC campus lands its admits, as a share of each high school's senior class. Same 50-senior floor.

Top 10 — UCB Reach

UC Berkeley

1
Claremont · Private
16.8%
2
La Canada · Private
16.0%
3
Calabasas · Private
14.8%
4
Los Angeles · Public
13.7%
5
Cerritos · Public
13.1%
6
Los Angeles · Private
12.3%
7
Los Angeles · Private
11.7%
8
El Monte · Public
11.0%
9
Chatsworth · Private
10.7%
10
Studio City · Private
10.2%

Top 10 — UCLA Reach

UCLA

1
Los Angeles · Private
10.4%
2
La Canada · Private
9.4%
3
Compton · Public
9.0%
4
Claremont · Private
8.9%
5
El Monte · Public
8.4%
6
Cerritos · Public
8.0%
7
Los Angeles · Private
6.7%
8
San Marino · Public
6.7%
9
La Canada · Private
6.7%
10
Burbank · Private
6.7%

Top 10 — UCSD Reach

UC San Diego

1
Claremont · Private
24.8%
2
Los Angeles · Public
21.6%
3
Cerritos · Public
18.8%
4
Los Angeles · Private
17.2%
5
Los Angeles · Public
15.5%
6
San Marino · Public
14.8%
7
La Canada · Private
14.2%
8
Inglewood · Public
14.1%
9
Compton · Public
13.9%
10
Los Angeles · Public
13.7%

Top 10 — UCSB Reach

UC Santa Barbara

1
Claremont · Private
29.7%
2
El Monte · Public
29.3%
3
La Canada · Private
29.2%
4
Cerritos · Public
27.8%
5
Los Angeles · Private
22.6%
6
Los Angeles · Private
20.9%
7
Los Angeles · Public
20.7%
8
La Canada · Private
19.3%
9
Calabasas · Private
17.6%
10
Manhattan Beach · Public
17.5%

Top 10 — UCI Reach

UC Irvine

1
Cerritos · Public
36.9%
2
Claremont · Private
29.7%
3
Pasadena · Private
20.7%
4
Rolling Hills Estat · Public
19.4%
5
El Monte · Public
19.0%
6
Cerritos · Public
17.0%
7
Studio City · Private
16.6%
8
La Canada · Private
14.2%
9
Temple City · Public
13.5%
10
Palos Verdes Estate · Public
13.1%

Top 10 — UCD Reach

UC Davis

1
Los Angeles · Public
39.0%
2
Claremont · Private
33.7%
3
El Monte · Public
24.9%
4
Cerritos · Public
21.6%
5
Calabasas · Private
20.4%
6
La Canada · Private
20.0%
7
La Canada · Private
19.8%
8
San Marino · Public
18.2%
9
Diamond Bar · Public
17.3%
10
Los Angeles · Private
16.2%

Beyond UC Reach — more lenses on Los Angeles County

UC Reach measures who gets in. These lenses measure the upstream pipeline (A-G), the downstream outcome (UC graduation), the capacity that drives the pipeline (counselors), reliability over time (consistency), grade-11 academic preparation (CAASPP SBAC ELA & Math), and private-school financial strength. Click any school for its full profile.

Top 10 — A-G Completion

% of graduates meeting UC/CSU course requirements · 2024-25 cohort

1
· Public
100.0%
2
· Public
100.0%
3
· Public
100.0%
4
Compton · Public
100.0%
5
· Public
100.0%
6
· Public
100.0%
7
· Public
100.0%
8
Panorama City · Public
100.0%
9
Los Angeles · Public
100.0%
10
Los Angeles · Public
100.0%

Top 10 — UC 6-Yr Grad Rate

% of UC entrants who finished in 6 years · cohort N ≥ 20

1
Santa Clarita · Public
100.0%
2
Pasadena · Private
100.0%
3
Rosemead · Public
98.1%
4
San Gabriel · Public
97.2%
5
Walnut · Public
96.9%
6
San Gabriel · Public
96.7%
7
Palos Verdes Estate · Public
96.2%
8
Hacienda Heights · Public
96.1%
9
San Dimas · Public
96.0%
10
Los Angeles · Public
95.8%

Top 10 — Best Counselor Capacity

Lowest students-per-counselor (ASCA target 250:1) · public/charter, ≥500 students

1
Los Angeles · Public
100:1
2
La Puente · Public
107:1
3
Arleta · Public
125:1
4
· Public
129:1
5
· Public
134:1
6
· Public
137:1
7
Beverly Hills · Public
138:1
8
La Puente · Public
148:1
9
· Public
151:1
10
· Public
165:1

Top 10 — Most Consistent

Lowest UC Reach std-dev across 5 years (above-CA-median mean)

1
avg 28.8% · σ 2.66
σ 2.66
2
avg 25.1% · σ 2.73
σ 2.73
3
avg 26.6% · σ 2.74
σ 2.74
4
avg 23.5% · σ 2.89
σ 2.89
5
avg 54.5% · σ 3.29
σ 3.29
6
avg 25.4% · σ 3.36
σ 3.36
7
avg 106.9% · σ 3.43
σ 3.43
8
avg 27.9% · σ 3.47
σ 3.47
9
avg 28.6% · σ 3.5
σ 3.5
10
avg 25.2% · σ 3.53
σ 3.53

Top 10 — SBAC ELA met/exceeded

% Met or Exceeded Standard · Grade 11 CAASPP · public/charter · tested ≥30

1
· n=157 · 2025
99%
2
· n=108 · 2025
98%
3
Los Angeles · n=36 · 2025
97%
4
Santa Clarita · n=98 · 2025
97%
5
North Hollywood · n=58 · 2025
97%
6
La Canada · n=327 · 2025
94%
7
· n=112 · 2025
91%
8
Los Angeles · n=92 · 2025
90%
9
Rolling Hills Estat · n=494 · 2025
90%
10
· n=132 · 2025
89%

Top 10 — SBAC Math met/exceeded

% Met or Exceeded Standard · Grade 11 CAASPP · public/charter · tested ≥30

1
Los Angeles · n=36 · 2025
97%
2
· n=157 · 2025
95%
3
North Hollywood · n=58 · 2025
95%
4
· n=112 · 2025
86%
5
La Canada · n=327 · 2025
81%
6
· n=108 · 2025
79%
7
San Marino · n=211 · 2025
78%
8
Santa Clarita · n=98 · 2025
78%
9
Rolling Hills Estat · n=495 · 2025
75%
10
· n=255 · 2025
73%

Top 10 — Private Net Assets

Wealthiest CA private high schools · IRS Form 990 · latest fiscal year

1
Studio City · Nonsectarian · FY 2024
$656.3M
2
Pasadena · Nonsectarian · FY 2023
$167.8M
3
Santa Monica · Nonsectarian · FY 2023
$152.2M
4
Los Angeles · Nonsectarian · FY 2023
$142.4M
5
Los Angeles · Nonsectarian · FY 2023
$103.3M
6
Sherman Oaks · Nonsectarian · FY 2023
$97.0M
7
Claremont · Nonsectarian · FY 2023
$95.6M
8
Los Angeles · Nonsectarian · FY 2023
$77.8M
9
Pasadena · Nonsectarian · FY 2023
$67.9M
10
Los Angeles · Nonsectarian · FY 2023
$63.9M

Reach momentum — biggest gains & declines over time

≥50 seniors · earliest→latest year

Which schools are moving a growing — or shrinking — share of their graduating class into the six most selective UCs. Reflects the current county/type filter.

▲ Biggest gains

SchoolThen → NowΔ
Claremont · Private
63% '21 → 144% '25 +80.6pp
Los Angeles · Public
3% '20 → 46% '25 +42.9pp
El Monte · Public
71% '18 → 114% '25 +42.6pp
Cerritos · Public
86% '18 → 126% '25 +40.2pp
Los Angeles · Public
75% '18 → 110% '25 +35.2pp
El Segundo · Public
20% '18 → 54% '25 +34.0pp
La Canada · Private
41% '20 → 73% '25 +31.6pp
Inglewood · Public
18% '18 → 49% '25 +30.5pp
Burbank · Private
30% '21 → 57% '25 +26.7pp
Long Beach · Public
25% '18 → 51% '25 +26.6pp

▼ Biggest declines

SchoolThen → NowΔ
Cerritos · Private
39% '20 → 16% '25 -22.6pp
Rosemead · Public
38% '18 → 19% '25 -18.3pp
Long Beach · Public
44% '18 → 27% '25 -16.8pp
Calabasas · Private
93% '20 → 77% '25 -16.5pp
West Hills · Private
61% '20 → 45% '25 -15.9pp
Chatsworth · Private
67% '20 → 51% '25 -15.8pp
Alhambra · Public
30% '18 → 18% '25 -12.8pp
Panorama City · Private
32% '20 → 19% '25 -12.6pp
La Verne · Private
35% '20 → 22% '25 -12.4pp
Walnut · Public
64% '18 → 51% '25 -12.3pp

Demand momentum — biggest gaps vs the county baseline

grade-12 enrollment Δ vs. county · ≥80 students

The demographic tide is shrinking CA enrollment ~10% over 7 years statewide, so absolute decline alone is noise. The gap vs the county baseline is the actionable signal — schools losing share faster than their demographic floor are the ones to watch. Reflects the current county/type filter.

▲ Outperforming the county the most

SchoolSchool · CountyGap
· Los Angeles · Public  Best in class
+172.2% vs -8.1% +180.3pp
El Segundo · Los Angeles · Public  Strong demand
+160.8% vs -11.2% +172.0pp
Los Angeles · Los Angeles · Public  Best in class
+89.7% vs -8.2% +97.9pp
Compton · Los Angeles · Public  Best in class
+84.6% vs -8.1% +92.7pp
Hollywood · Los Angeles · Public  Demand hides churn
+65.7% vs -8.2% +73.9pp
Los Angeles · Los Angeles · Public  Demand hides churn
+61.0% vs -8.2% +69.2pp
Pasadena · Los Angeles · Public  Best in class
+50.0% vs -8.2% +58.2pp
Los Angeles · Los Angeles · Public  Best in class
+45.8% vs -11.1% +56.9pp
Los Angeles · Los Angeles · Public  Best in class
+43.9% vs -12.1% +56.0pp
El Segundo · Los Angeles · Public  Best in class
+46.2% vs -8.2% +54.4pp

▼ Underperforming the county the most

SchoolSchool · CountyGap
Venice · Los Angeles · Public  Sharp downturn
-50.3% vs -8.2% -42.1pp
Los Angeles · Los Angeles · Public  Compounding decline
-54.2% vs -12.1% -42.1pp
Inglewood · Los Angeles · Public  Compounding decline
-36.7% vs +2.9% -39.6pp
· Los Angeles · Public  Compounding decline
-46.2% vs -8.2% -38.0pp
· Los Angeles · Public  Compounding decline
-42.9% vs -8.2% -34.7pp
Los Angeles · Los Angeles · Public  Compounding decline
-39.2% vs -8.2% -31.0pp
Bell · Los Angeles · Public  Sharp downturn
-37.1% vs -8.2% -28.9pp
Montebello · Los Angeles · Public  Material decline
-36.9% vs -8.2% -28.7pp
San Fernando · Los Angeles · Public  Compounding decline
-34.9% vs -8.2% -26.7pp
South Gate · Los Angeles · Public  Material decline
-34.2% vs -8.2% -26.0pp

GPA Performance — over/under their predicted UC admit rate

185 schools eligible · 2025

Each dot is one school. The diagonal is the per-campus GPA expectation — points above it admit students at higher rates than their GPA mix predicts; points below admit at lower rates. Schools need ≥30 top-6 UC applications and data across ≥3 campuses to appear.

▲ Top 10 outperformers

School GPA Actual Δ vs exp.
Long Beach · Public
3.77 53.8% +26.5pp
Littlerock · Public
3.83 44.6% +19.2pp
Lancaster · Public
3.85 35.8% +16.2pp
Hollywood · Public
3.62 47.2% +15.1pp
Los Angeles · Public
3.80 32.7% +13.2pp
Carson · Public
3.73 32.3% +12.9pp
Los Angeles · Public
3.77 32.8% +12.9pp
Pomona · Public
3.69 33.9% +12.6pp
Inglewood · Public
3.80 35.4% +12.2pp
Baldwin Park · Public
3.86 30.8% +11.7pp

▼ Top 10 underperformers

School GPA Actual Δ vs exp.
Inglewood · Public
3.24 25.0% -15.1pp
North Hollywood · Public
3.46 13.5% -13.4pp
Los Angeles · Public
3.38 21.1% -13.3pp
Panorama City · Public
3.48 17.1% -8.3pp
Los Angeles · Public
3.58 14.3% -7.4pp
La Puente · Public
3.58 17.2% -5.1pp
Monrovia · Public
3.86 15.3% -5.0pp
Canoga Park · Public
3.65 16.7% -5.0pp
Los Angeles · Public
3.66 17.7% -4.4pp
Alhambra · Public
3.88 15.5% -4.4pp

Full rankings — every Los Angeles County high school by UC Reach

Sortable by any column. Click a column header to sort. Click any school row to open its profile.

231 schools · 2025 data · Page 2 of 3 (showing 101–200) · 200 hidden (under 100 seniors)
Show all schools (no floor) Compare selected schools →
# School County Seniors Total Enroll UC Reach App Reach Admit Rate Yield Selective Reach Elite Reach Raw Apps Raw Admits
101
Lynwood · Public  Strong demand
Los Angeles 378 1,633 24.1% 81.8% 29.4% 19.8% 21.2 3.4 309 91
102
Rowland Heights · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 463 2,016 24.0% 125.3% 19.1% 30.6% 18.4 4.1 580 111
103
Huntington Park · Public  Demand problem
Los Angeles 382 1,479 23.6% 94.2% 25.0% 32.2% 19.6 4.2 360 90
104
Los Angeles · Private
Los Angeles 316 1,263 23.4% 68.0% 34.4% 16.2% 19.6 7.0 215 74
105
Baldwin Park · Public  Holding share
Los Angeles 393 1,650 23.2% 75.1% 30.9% 19.8% 21.6 4.1 295 91
106
· Public  Compounding decline
Los Angeles 402 1,549 23.1% 90.0% 25.7% 24.7% 19.6 3.5 362 93
107
Los Angeles · Public  Demand hides churn
Los Angeles 384 1,582 22.9% 118.0% 19.4% 20.4% 19.8 5.0 453 88
108
Bell · Public  Sharp downturn
Los Angeles 441 2,088 22.9% 100.7% 22.8% 22.8% 19.7 4.1 444 101
109
Los Angeles · Public  Both ends slipping
Los Angeles 106 431 22.6% 108.5% 20.9% 25.0% 16.0 3.8 115 24
110
El Monte · Public  Material decline
Los Angeles 423 1,638 22.5% 84.4% 26.6% 30.5% 20.3 4.0 357 95
111
· Public  Strong demand
Los Angeles 512 2,152 22.5% 86.5% 26.0% 21.7% 17.8 3.3 443 115
112
La Verne · Private
Los Angeles 156 696 22.4% 154.5% 14.5% 17.1% 16.0 1.9 241 35
113
South Gate · Public  Watch — engagement
Los Angeles 499 1,990 22.4% 108.6% 20.7% 29.5% 17.4 3.2 542 112
114
· Public  Material decline
Los Angeles 256 1,000 22.3% 102.0% 21.8% 19.3% 16.4 4.3 261 57
115
Covina · Public  Weak at the gate
Los Angeles 252 1,056 21.8% 88.9% 24.6% 9.1% 17.9 2.4 224 55
116
Long Beach · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 823 3,408 21.5% 116.7% 18.4% 23.7% 17.2 5.6 960 177
117
Palmdale · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 251 2,259 21.5% 78.1% 27.6% 29.6% 19.1 4.0 196 54
118
Los Angeles · Public
Los Angeles 395 491 21.3% 89.6% 23.7% 29.8% 19.8 4.6 354 84
119
Los Angeles · Public  Watch — engagement
Los Angeles 273 1,284 21.2% 119.4% 17.8% 22.4% 16.5 4.4 326 58
120
Carson · Public  Demand problem
Los Angeles 320 1,407 20.9% 91.2% 22.9% 25.4% 18.1 5.3 292 67
121
Los Angeles · Public  Strong demand
Los Angeles 145 533 20.7% 115.2% 18.0% 16.6 4.8 167 30
122
· Public  Demand hides churn
Los Angeles 227 908 20.3% 81.5% 24.9% 15.2% 16.3 3.5 185 46
123
Los Angeles · Public
Los Angeles 247 978 20.2% 82.6% 24.5% 6.0% 17.4 4.9 204 50
124
· Public  Strong demand
Los Angeles 622 2,457 20.1% 106.9% 18.8% 25.6% 15.8 4.3 665 125
125
Burbank · Public
Los Angeles 622 2,457 20.1% 106.9% 18.8% 25.6% 15.8 4.3 665 125
126
Pico Rivera · Public  Demand problem
Los Angeles 505 1,995 19.8% 88.1% 22.5% 23.0% 15.6 3.8 445 100
127
Rosemead · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 499 1,691 19.4% 84.6% 23.0% 27.8% 15.6 4.2 422 97
128
San Fernando · Public  Compounding decline
Los Angeles 367 1,608 19.4% 75.2% 25.7% 21.1% 16.4 4.1 276 71
129
Pomona · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 356 1,542 19.1% 71.1% 26.9% 33.8% 15.7 1.4 253 68
130
Panorama City · Private
Los Angeles 126 547 19.1% 122.2% 15.6% 12.5% 13.5 154 24
131
Lawndale · Public  Strong demand
Los Angeles 442 1,981 19.0% 98.4% 19.3% 22.6% 14.5 2.3 435 84
132
Los Angeles · Public  Compounding decline
Los Angeles 249 942 18.9% 97.6% 19.3% 27.7% 13.2 2.8 243 47
133
South El Monte · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 308 1,125 18.8% 67.2% 28.0% 20.7% 17.5 4.2 207 58
134
West Covina · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 389 1,568 18.8% 86.1% 21.8% 26.0% 15.7 4.4 335 73
135
Los Angeles · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 112 450 18.8% 141.1% 13.3% 18.8 5.4 158 21
136
Los Angeles · Public  Demand hides churn
Los Angeles 240 971 18.8% 78.8% 23.8% 26.7% 13.3 5.4 189 45
137
Long Beach · Public
Los Angeles 112 701 18.8% 78.6% 23.9% 10.7 88 21
138
· Public  Strong demand
Los Angeles 370 1,582 18.6% 82.7% 22.6% 13.0% 14.9 3.2 306 69
139
San Pedro · Public  Tracking
Los Angeles 563 2,398 18.3% 86.3% 21.2% 29.1% 15.1 3.4 486 103
140
Downey · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 933 4,051 17.9% 82.6% 21.7% 28.1% 15.3 2.6 771 167
141
Los Angeles · Private
Los Angeles 112 410 17.9% 112.5% 15.9% 15.0% 13.4 126 20
142
Alhambra · Public  Weak at the gate
Los Angeles 576 2,056 17.7% 114.6% 15.4% 27.4% 13.0 4.0 660 102
143
Castaic · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 294 1,159 17.7% 56.8% 31.1% 25.0% 14.3 2.7 167 52
144
West Covina · Public  Weak at the gate
Los Angeles 437 1,756 17.6% 93.1% 18.9% 31.2% 13.0 1.8 407 77
145
Azusa · Public  Demand hides churn
Los Angeles 422 1,609 17.5% 60.4% 29.0% 23.0% 15.9 3.1 255 74
146
Duarte · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 206 756 17.5% 75.2% 23.2% 16.7% 15.1 1.9 155 36
147
Pasadena · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 269 1,206 17.5% 78.8% 22.2% 17.0% 13.8 4.5 212 47
148
Maywood · Public  Watch — engagement
Los Angeles 242 1,012 17.4% 68.2% 25.4% 14.3% 14.1 1.2 165 42
149
Montebello · Public  Weak at the gate
Los Angeles 549 2,121 17.3% 66.7% 26.0% 23.2% 14.8 2.9 366 95
150
Whittier · Public  Demand problem
Los Angeles 406 1,652 17.2% 87.2% 19.8% 20.0% 13.6 1.2 354 70
151
Tujunga · Public  Demand hides churn
Los Angeles 267 1,195 17.2% 86.1% 20.0% 10.9% 14.6 4.5 230 46
152
Los Angeles · Public  Demand hides churn
Los Angeles 210 738 17.1% 68.6% 25.0% 16.7% 14.8 3.3 144 36
153
Glendora · Public  Sharp downturn
Los Angeles 521 2,069 16.9% 93.7% 18.0% 33.0% 12.9 2.5 488 88
154
Whittier · Public  Weak at the gate
Los Angeles 554 2,372 16.6% 96.4% 17.2% 26.1% 13.7 2.9 534 92
155
· Public  Material decline
Los Angeles 523 2,046 16.2% 53.9% 30.1% 23.5% 12.8 2.3 282 85
156
Cudahy · Public  Mid-year churn
Los Angeles 142 1,257 16.2% 83.8% 19.3% 13.4 2.1 119 23
157
Quartz Hill · Public  Strong demand
Los Angeles 822 3,175 16.2% 67.0% 24.1% 27.1% 12.7 2.5 551 133
158
Norwalk · Public
Los Angeles 198 882 16.2% 63.6% 25.4% 13.1 1.5 126 32
159
Cerritos · Private
Los Angeles 137 527 16.1% 88.3% 18.2% 13.6% 13.9 2.9 121 22
160
El Monte · Public  Material decline
Los Angeles 368 1,383 16.0% 74.2% 21.6% 28.8% 14.4 3.0 273 59
161
Los Angeles · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 131 555 16.0% 106.1% 15.1% 28.6% 10.7 2.3 139 21
162
Cerritos · Public  Material decline
Los Angeles 395 1,739 15.9% 52.4% 30.4% 36.5% 11.4 1.5 207 63
163
Los Angeles · Public  Demand hides churn
Los Angeles 138 564 15.9% 88.4% 18.0% 11.6 122 22
164
Lynwood · Public  Material decline
Los Angeles 448 1,858 15.6% 70.1% 22.3% 18.6% 12.9 1.3 314 70
165
Covina · Public  Holding share
Los Angeles 314 1,247 15.6% 62.7% 24.9% 12.2% 12.4 2.2 197 49
166
South Gate · Public  Material decline
Los Angeles 405 1,681 15.6% 86.7% 17.9% 19.1% 13.6 4.2 351 63
167
La Puente · Public  Both ends slipping
Los Angeles 374 1,535 15.5% 90.4% 17.2% 36.2% 14.4 2.4 338 58
168
Saugus · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 537 2,317 15.3% 78.2% 19.5% 30.5% 12.1 2.6 420 82
169
Covina · Public  Demand problem
Los Angeles 295 1,259 15.2% 57.3% 26.6% 24.4% 12.2 2.4 169 45
170
La Puente · Public  Material decline
Los Angeles 205 813 15.1% 67.8% 22.3% 22.6% 11.7 1.5 139 31
171
Palmdale · Public  Both ends slipping
Los Angeles 582 2,349 15.1% 61.2% 24.7% 35.2% 12.0 1.7 356 88
172
Pomona · Public  Compounding decline
Los Angeles 246 993 15.0% 48.8% 30.8% 32.4% 12.2 1.2 120 37
173
Hawthorne · Public  Material decline
Los Angeles 426 1,675 15.0% 75.1% 20.0% 20.3% 12.4 1.4 320 64
174
Montebello · Public  Material decline
Los Angeles 493 1,907 15.0% 54.6% 27.5% 20.3% 13.0 2.6 269 74
175
Bellflower · Public  Demand problem
Los Angeles 341 1,997 15.0% 67.2% 22.3% 15.7% 12.0 2.4 229 51
176
Inglewood · Public  Compounding decline
Los Angeles 114 407 14.9% 72.8% 20.5% 11.4 2.6 83 17
177
Los Angeles · Public
Los Angeles 289 1,159 14.9% 52.9% 28.1% 18.6% 14.9 1.4 153 43
178
Santa Fe Springs · Public  Sharp downturn
Los Angeles 523 1,865 14.7% 67.1% 21.9% 31.2% 13.6 1.9 351 77
179
Newhall · Public  Weak at the gate
Los Angeles 560 1,941 14.5% 77.5% 18.7% 29.6% 12.1 2.1 434 81
180
North Hills · Public  Demand hides churn
Los Angeles 450 1,905 14.4% 77.8% 18.6% 21.5% 9.8 1.3 350 65
181
West Covina · Public  Tracking
Los Angeles 208 712 14.4% 89.4% 16.1% 13.3% 11.5 1.9 186 30
182
Los Angeles · Public  Compounding decline
Los Angeles 127 614 14.2% 71.7% 19.8% 14.2 2.4 91 18
183
Los Angeles · Public  Demand hides churn
Los Angeles 405 1,889 14.1% 76.0% 18.5% 8.8% 11.6 2.7 308 57
184
Pomona · Public  Demand hides churn
Los Angeles 235 895 14.0% 48.5% 28.9% 18.2% 12.3 2.5 114 33
185
San Dimas · Public  Weak at the gate
Los Angeles 315 1,235 14.0% 89.8% 15.6% 20.4% 11.4 1.6 283 44
186
· Public  Strong demand
Los Angeles 388 1,590 13.9% 82.5% 16.9% 37.0% 10.3 1.8 320 54
187
Los Angeles · Private
Los Angeles 124 583 13.7% 209.7% 6.5% 10.5 260 17
188
Gardena · Public  Demand hides churn
Los Angeles 352 1,343 13.6% 51.1% 26.7% 12.5% 11.9 2.6 180 48
189
· Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 542 1,980 13.5% 56.1% 24.0% 26.0% 10.2 2.6 304 73
190
El Segundo · Public  Strong demand
Los Angeles 134 923 13.4% 109.0% 12.3% 10.4 3.0 146 18
191
San Pedro · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 219 916 13.2% 92.2% 14.4% 24.1% 10.5 1.8 202 29
192
Mission Hills · Private
Los Angeles 189 810 13.2% 141.8% 9.3% 16.0% 10.1 2.1 268 25
193
Long Beach · Private
Los Angeles 116 422 12.9% 119.8% 10.8% 7.8 2.6 139 15
194
Sun Valley · Public  Compounding decline
Los Angeles 512 2,124 12.9% 70.3% 18.3% 24.2% 10.6 2.3 360 66
195
La Mirada · Public  Weak at the gate
Los Angeles 457 1,726 12.7% 67.0% 18.9% 27.6% 10.5 2.2 306 58
196
Pomona · Public  Material decline
Los Angeles 463 1,567 12.5% 54.6% 22.9% 10.3% 11.0 2.2 253 58
197
· Public  Holding share
Los Angeles 520 2,261 12.5% 71.7% 17.4% 23.1% 9.6 3.5 373 65
198
Lakewood · Public  Best in class
Los Angeles 372 1,384 12.4% 51.3% 24.1% 23.9% 10.8 0.8 191 46
199
La Puente · Public  Sharp downturn
Los Angeles 171 747 12.3% 53.8% 22.8% 12.3 1.8 92 21
200
Monrovia · Public  Weak at the gate
Los Angeles 385 1,455 12.2% 80.0% 15.3% 21.3% 9.3 1.8 308 47
UC Reach = top-6 UC admits ÷ senior class size. Where UCOP has not published unique-student totals, campus admits are summed — students admitted to more than one of the 6 campuses are counted at each, so values above 100% indicate strong students winning multiple competitive UC offers. Schools with fewer than 100 seniors are excluded from the leaderboard by default — a small cohort with one strong year can otherwise dominate. See methodology →