Home
›
High School Rankings
San Mateo 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 Score of just 0.6 (6 ÷ 1,000). By contrast, a school where 250 of 1,000 seniors land a top-UC admit has a UC Reach Score of 25 — 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 a UC Reach Score of 100.
Top and bottom schools by UC Reach, split public/charter vs private (≥50 seniors).
Scoped to San Mateo County — change the County filter above to rescope.
▲ Top 10 Public + Charter
San Mateo County
| 1 |
Redwood City · Public
|
70 |
| 2 |
Millbrae · Public
|
59 |
| 3 |
Belmont · Public
|
54 |
| 4 |
San Mateo · Public
|
54 |
| 5 |
Pacifica · Public
|
51 |
| 6 |
Burlingame · Public
|
45 |
| 7 |
San Mateo · Public
|
33 |
| 8 |
San Mateo · Public
|
32 |
| 9 |
Woodside · Public
|
32 |
| 10 |
Atherton · Public
|
30 |
▲ Top 10 Private
San Mateo County
| 1 |
San Mateo · Private
|
65 |
| 2 |
Atherton · Private
|
62 |
▼ Bottom 10 Public + Charter
San Mateo County
| 1 |
Pacifica · Public
|
10 |
| 2 |
Daly City · Public
|
14 |
| 3 |
San Bruno · Public
|
14 |
| 4 |
South San Francisco · Public
|
14 |
| 5 |
Redwood City · Public
|
21 |
| 6 |
South San Francisco · Public
|
23 |
| 7 |
Daly City · Public
|
25 |
| 8 |
Half Moon Bay · Public
|
30 |
| 9 |
Atherton · Public
|
30 |
| 10 |
Woodside · Public
|
32 |
▼ Bottom 10 Private
San Mateo County
| 1 |
Atherton · Private
|
62 |
| 2 |
San Mateo · Private
|
65 |
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
San Mateo County
| 1 |
Redwood City · Public
|
12 |
| 2 |
Menlo Park · Public
|
10 |
| 3 |
East Palo Alto · Public
|
7 |
| 4 |
East Palo Alto · Public
|
4 |
▲ Top 10 Small Private
San Mateo County
| 1 |
Portola Valley · Private
|
70 |
| 2 |
Hillsborough · Private
|
64 |
| 3 |
East Palo Alto · Private
|
26 |
| 4 |
Burlingame · Private
|
25 |
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 |
San Mateo · Private
|
17 |
| 2 |
Atherton · Private
|
12 |
| 3 |
Redwood City · Public
|
9 |
| 4 |
Belmont · Public
|
8 |
| 5 |
San Mateo · Public
|
6 |
| 6 |
Millbrae · Public
|
6 |
| 7 |
Pacifica · Public
|
5 |
| 8 |
San Mateo · Public
|
5 |
| 9 |
Atherton · Public
|
4 |
| 10 |
Woodside · Public
|
4 |
| 1 |
Atherton · Private
|
7 |
| 2 |
San Mateo · Private
|
6 |
| 3 |
Redwood City · Public
|
4 |
| 4 |
Belmont · Public
|
4 |
| 5 |
Millbrae · Public
|
4 |
| 6 |
Burlingame · Public
|
4 |
| 7 |
Pacifica · Public
|
4 |
| 8 |
San Mateo · Public
|
3 |
| 9 |
Woodside · Public
|
3 |
| 10 |
San Mateo · Public
|
3 |
Top 10 — UCSD Reach
UC San Diego
| 1 |
Redwood City · Public
|
18 |
| 2 |
Millbrae · Public
|
12 |
| 3 |
Pacifica · Public
|
10 |
| 4 |
San Mateo · Private
|
9 |
| 5 |
Belmont · Public
|
8 |
| 6 |
San Mateo · Public
|
7 |
| 7 |
Atherton · Private
|
6 |
| 8 |
Burlingame · Public
|
6 |
| 9 |
San Mateo · Public
|
5 |
| 10 |
Woodside · Public
|
5 |
Top 10 — UCSB Reach
UC Santa Barbara
| 1 |
Atherton · Private
|
17 |
| 2 |
Redwood City · Public
|
15 |
| 3 |
Belmont · Public
|
14 |
| 4 |
San Mateo · Public
|
14 |
| 5 |
Burlingame · Public
|
13 |
| 6 |
Millbrae · Public
|
12 |
| 7 |
Pacifica · Public
|
11 |
| 8 |
San Mateo · Private
|
11 |
| 9 |
Half Moon Bay · Public
|
10 |
| 10 |
Woodside · Public
|
10 |
Top 10 — UCI Reach
UC Irvine
| 1 |
Millbrae · Public
|
10 |
| 2 |
San Mateo · Public
|
8 |
| 3 |
Belmont · Public
|
8 |
| 4 |
Atherton · Private
|
7 |
| 5 |
Redwood City · Public
|
7 |
| 6 |
Pacifica · Public
|
7 |
| 7 |
Burlingame · Public
|
6 |
| 8 |
San Mateo · Public
|
5 |
| 9 |
San Mateo · Public
|
5 |
| 10 |
Daly City · Public
|
4 |
Top 10 — UCD Reach
UC Davis
| 1 |
San Mateo · Private
|
18 |
| 2 |
Redwood City · Public
|
16 |
| 3 |
Millbrae · Public
|
16 |
| 4 |
San Mateo · Public
|
16 |
| 5 |
Pacifica · Public
|
14 |
| 6 |
Burlingame · Public
|
13 |
| 7 |
Belmont · Public
|
13 |
| 8 |
Atherton · Private
|
13 |
| 9 |
Daly City · Public
|
10 |
| 10 |
San Mateo · Public
|
9 |
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 |
East Palo Alto · Public
|
100.0% |
| 3 |
Redwood City · Public
|
98.0% |
| 4 |
Redwood City · Public
|
97.7% |
| 5 |
Burlingame · Public
|
85.4% |
| 6 |
East Palo Alto · Public
|
85.0% |
| 7 |
San Mateo · Public
|
80.8% |
| 8 |
Pacifica · Public
|
80.0% |
| 9 |
Belmont · Public
|
77.7% |
| 10 |
San Mateo · Public
|
74.9% |
Top 10 — UC 6-Yr Grad Rate
% of UC entrants who finished in 6 years · cohort N ≥ 20
| 1 |
Atherton · Public
|
100.0% |
| 2 |
Burlingame · Private
|
100.0% |
| 3 |
San Mateo · Public
|
97.2% |
| 4 |
Belmont · Public
|
96.5% |
| 5 |
South San Francisco · Public
|
96.2% |
| 6 |
Burlingame · Public
|
96.1% |
| 7 |
Pacifica · Public
|
95.7% |
| 8 |
San Mateo · Public
|
92.3% |
| 9 |
South San Francisco · Public
|
92.3% |
| 10 |
San Mateo · Public
|
90.9% |
Top 10 — Best Counselor Capacity
Lowest students-per-counselor (ASCA target 250:1) · public/charter, ≥500 students
| 1 |
Daly City · Public
|
123:1 |
| 2 |
Pacifica · Public
|
131:1 |
| 3 |
Daly City · Public
|
198:1 |
| 4 |
Atherton · Public
|
215:1 |
| 5 |
Redwood City · Public
|
230:1 |
| 6 |
South San Francisco · Public
|
263:1 |
| 7 |
Belmont · Public
|
265:1 |
| 8 |
· Public
|
267:1 |
| 9 |
Woodside · Public
|
282:1 |
| 10 |
South San Francisco · Public
|
306:1 |
Top 10 — Most Consistent
Lowest UC Reach std-dev across 5 years (above-CA-median mean)
| 1 |
avg 35.0 · σ 2.81
|
σ 2.81 |
| 2 |
avg 31.7 · σ 4.59
|
σ 4.59 |
| 3 |
avg 49.3 · σ 4.85
|
σ 4.85 |
| 4 |
avg 46.0 · σ 4.95
|
σ 4.95 |
| 5 |
avg 55.5 · σ 6.65
|
σ 6.65 |
| 6 |
avg 43.6 · σ 7.1
|
σ 7.1 |
| 7 |
avg 46.8 · σ 9.39
|
σ 9.39 |
| 8 |
avg 62.7 · σ 10.37
|
σ 10.37 |
| 9 |
avg 66.0 · σ 11.26
|
σ 11.26 |
| 10 |
avg 71.0 · σ 11.68
|
σ 11.68 |
Top 10 — SBAC ELA met/exceeded
% Met or Exceeded Standard · Grade 11 CAASPP · public/charter · tested ≥30
| 1 |
Redwood City · n=121 · 2025
|
90% |
| 2 |
Belmont · n=548 · 2025
|
85% |
| 3 |
Burlingame · n=327 · 2025
|
83% |
| 4 |
Millbrae · n=270 · 2025
|
82% |
| 5 |
San Mateo · n=399 · 2025
|
82% |
| 6 |
South San Francisco · n=265 · 2025
|
74% |
| 7 |
San Mateo · n=355 · 2025
|
72% |
| 8 |
Atherton · n=453 · 2025
|
69% |
| 9 |
Pacifica · n=102 · 2025
|
67% |
| 10 |
Daly City · n=329 · 2025
|
65% |
Top 10 — SBAC Math met/exceeded
% Met or Exceeded Standard · Grade 11 CAASPP · public/charter · tested ≥30
| 1 |
Belmont · n=529 · 2025
|
72% |
| 2 |
Burlingame · n=316 · 2025
|
66% |
| 3 |
Millbrae · n=270 · 2025
|
63% |
| 4 |
Redwood City · n=120 · 2025
|
63% |
| 5 |
San Mateo · n=399 · 2025
|
59% |
| 6 |
Atherton · n=461 · 2025
|
51% |
| 7 |
Pacifica · n=102 · 2025
|
50% |
| 8 |
San Mateo · n=289 · 2025
|
44% |
| 9 |
San Mateo · n=358 · 2025
|
42% |
| 10 |
Pacifica · n=148 · 2025
|
41% |
Top 10 — Private Net Assets
Wealthiest CA private high schools · IRS Form 990 · latest fiscal year
| 1 |
Atherton · Nonsectarian · FY 2023
|
$243.0M |
| 2 |
Pacifica · Other religious · FY 2023
|
$226,977 |
| 3 |
Menlo Park · Nonsectarian · FY 2023
|
$55,140 |
≥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
| School | Then → Now | Δ |
|---|
|
Redwood City · Public
|
32 '18
→ 70 '25
|
+37.5pp |
|
Pacifica · Public
|
26 '18
→ 51 '25
|
+25.2pp |
|
Half Moon Bay · Public
|
15 '18
→ 30 '25
|
+14.9pp |
|
Daly City · Public
|
16 '18
→ 25 '25
|
+9.4pp |
|
Woodside · Public
|
23 '18
→ 32 '25
|
+8.6pp |
|
San Mateo · Public
|
46 '18
→ 54 '25
|
+7.1pp |
|
South San Francisco · Public
|
16 '18
→ 22 '25
|
+6.8pp |
|
San Mateo · Private
|
60 '22
→ 65 '25
|
+5.2pp |
|
Burlingame · Public
|
40 '18
→ 45 '25
|
+4.2pp |
|
South San Francisco · Public
|
12 '18
→ 14 '25
|
+2.2pp |
▼ Biggest declines
| School | Then → Now | Δ |
|---|
|
Atherton · Private
|
70 '20
→ 62 '25
|
-7.1pp |
|
San Bruno · Public
|
21 '18
→ 14 '25
|
-6.4pp |
|
Burlingame · Private
|
25 '20
→ 20 '24
|
-4.6pp |
|
Atherton · Public
|
34 '18
→ 30 '25
|
-3.6pp |
|
Belmont · Public
|
57 '18
→ 54 '25
|
-2.7pp |
|
Redwood City · Public
|
23 '18
→ 21 '25
|
-2.1pp |
|
Pacifica · Public
|
12 '18
→ 10 '25
|
-1.9pp |
|
Millbrae · Public
|
61 '18
→ 59 '25
|
-1.7pp |
|
Daly City · Public
|
14 '18
→ 14 '25
|
-0.7pp |
|
San Mateo · Public
|
32 '18
→ 32 '25
|
0.1pp |
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
| School | School · County | Gap |
|---|
|
Burlingame · San Mateo · Public Best in class
|
+18.0% vs -5.3%
|
+23.3pp |
|
San Mateo · San Mateo · Public Best in class
|
+13.6% vs -5.3%
|
+18.9pp |
|
San Mateo · San Mateo · Public Strong demand
|
+11.6% vs -5.3%
|
+16.9pp |
|
Daly City · San Mateo · Public Demand hides churn
|
+8.9% vs -5.3%
|
+14.2pp |
|
Belmont · San Mateo · Public Best in class
|
+4.5% vs -5.3%
|
+9.8pp |
|
Redwood City · San Mateo · Public Best in class
|
+1.6% vs -5.3%
|
+6.9pp |
|
San Bruno · San Mateo · Public Strong demand
|
-0.7% vs -5.3%
|
+4.7pp |
|
Atherton · San Mateo · Public Strong demand
|
-0.7% vs -5.3%
|
+4.6pp |
|
Woodside · San Mateo · Public Strong demand
|
-1.5% vs -5.3%
|
+3.8pp |
|
Redwood City · San Mateo · Public Tracking
|
-5.0% vs -5.3%
|
+0.3pp |
▼ Underperforming the county the most
| School | School · County | Gap |
|---|
|
Pacifica · San Mateo · Public Material decline
|
-36.1% vs -5.3%
|
-30.8pp |
|
Pacifica · San Mateo · Public Sharp downturn
|
-26.1% vs -5.3%
|
-20.8pp |
|
South San Francisco · San Mateo · Public Compounding decline
|
-25.7% vs -5.3%
|
-20.4pp |
|
Daly City · San Mateo · Public Compounding decline
|
-21.4% vs -5.3%
|
-16.0pp |
|
San Mateo · San Mateo · Public Compounding decline
|
-16.9% vs -5.3%
|
-11.5pp |
|
Millbrae · San Mateo · Public Sharp downturn
|
-15.8% vs -5.3%
|
-10.4pp |
|
South San Francisco · San Mateo · Public Demand problem
|
-12.8% vs -5.3%
|
-7.5pp |
|
East Palo Alto · San Mateo · Public Demand problem
|
-9.3% vs -5.3%
|
-4.0pp |
|
Half Moon Bay · San Mateo · Public Tracking
|
-5.6% vs -5.3%
|
-0.2pp |
|
Redwood City · San Mateo · Public Tracking
|
-5.0% vs -5.3%
|
+0.3pp |
18 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. |
|
Half Moon Bay · Public
|
4.09 |
26.4% |
+2.2pp |
|
Pacifica · Public
|
4.06 |
24.3% |
+1.2pp |
|
San Bruno · Public
|
4.06 |
22.3% |
+0.9pp |
|
South San Francisco · Public
|
3.71 |
21.8% |
+0.4pp |
|
Daly City · Public
|
3.92 |
21.1% |
+-0.3pp |
|
Daly City · Public
|
3.91 |
19.8% |
+-0.5pp |
|
Redwood City · Public
|
4.07 |
22.6% |
+-0.8pp |
|
Millbrae · Public
|
3.99 |
20.9% |
+-1.2pp |
|
Woodside · Public
|
4.02 |
21.0% |
+-1.7pp |
|
San Mateo · Public
|
3.99 |
19.8% |
+-2.2pp |
▼ Top 10 underperformers
| School |
GPA |
Actual |
Δ vs exp. |
|
Pacifica · Public
|
3.90 |
19.6% |
-8.7pp |
|
San Mateo · Public
|
3.96 |
16.7% |
-4.9pp |
|
Atherton · Public
|
3.98 |
16.8% |
-4.9pp |
|
Belmont · Public
|
4.00 |
17.8% |
-4.5pp |
|
Redwood City · Public
|
3.98 |
18.0% |
-4.4pp |
|
South San Francisco · Public
|
3.98 |
17.8% |
-4.0pp |
|
San Mateo · Public
|
4.02 |
19.7% |
-3.1pp |
|
Burlingame · Public
|
3.96 |
18.6% |
-3.1pp |
|
San Mateo · Public
|
3.99 |
19.8% |
-2.2pp |
|
Woodside · Public
|
4.02 |
21.0% |
-1.7pp |
Sortable by any column. Click a column header to sort. Click any school row to open its profile.
20 schools · 2025 data
· 16 hidden (under 100 seniors)
| # |
School |
County |
Seniors
ⓘ
|
Total Enroll
ⓘ
|
UC Reach Score
ⓘ
|
App Reach Score
ⓘ
|
Admit Rate
ⓘ
|
Yield
ⓘ
|
Selective Reach
ⓘ
|
Elite Reach
ⓘ
|
Raw Apps
ⓘ
|
Raw Admits
ⓘ
|
| 1 |
Redwood City · Public Best in class
|
San Mateo |
138 |
567 |
70
|
308 |
22.6% |
18.8% |
53.6 |
13.0 |
425 |
96 |
| 2 |
San Mateo · Private
|
San Mateo |
108 |
952 |
65
|
375 |
17.3% |
4.3% |
47.2 |
23.1 |
405 |
70 |
| 3 |
Atherton · Private
|
San Mateo |
149 |
805 |
62
|
348 |
17.9% |
10.8% |
49.7 |
19.5 |
519 |
93 |
| 4 |
Millbrae · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Mateo |
275 |
1,115 |
59
|
283 |
20.9% |
28.2% |
43.6 |
10.2 |
779 |
163 |
| 5 |
Belmont · Public Best in class
|
San Mateo |
595 |
2,360 |
54
|
304 |
17.8% |
29.2% |
41.3 |
11.6 |
1,811 |
322 |
| 6 |
San Mateo · Public Best in class
|
San Mateo |
438 |
1,658 |
54
|
271 |
19.8% |
30.6% |
38.1 |
9.1 |
1,189 |
235 |
| 7 |
Pacifica · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Mateo |
142 |
471 |
51
|
208 |
24.3% |
37.5% |
36.6 |
8.4 |
296 |
72 |
| 8 |
Burlingame · Public Best in class
|
San Mateo |
412 |
1,583 |
45
|
240 |
18.6% |
17.4% |
31.6 |
6.8 |
988 |
184 |
| 9 |
San Mateo · Public Compounding decline
|
San Mateo |
394 |
1,557 |
33
|
197 |
16.7% |
23.1% |
24.6 |
7.4 |
777 |
130 |
| 10 |
San Mateo · Public Strong demand
|
San Mateo |
411 |
1,585 |
32
|
163 |
19.7% |
23.5% |
22.9 |
5.8 |
670 |
132 |
| 11 |
Woodside · Public Strong demand
|
San Mateo |
435 |
1,660 |
32
|
151 |
21.0% |
27.5% |
24.8 |
6.4 |
656 |
138 |
| 12 |
Atherton · Public Strong demand
|
San Mateo |
571 |
2,158 |
30
|
180 |
16.8% |
25.6% |
21.5 |
6.7 |
1,025 |
172 |
| 13 |
Half Moon Bay · Public Tracking
|
San Mateo |
233 |
911 |
30
|
112 |
26.4% |
18.8% |
21.5 |
5.2 |
261 |
69 |
| 14 |
Daly City · Public Compounding decline
|
San Mateo |
322 |
1,278 |
25
|
119 |
21.1% |
39.5% |
15.5 |
3.7 |
384 |
81 |
| 15 |
South San Francisco · Public Demand problem
|
San Mateo |
271 |
1,053 |
23
|
126 |
17.8% |
29.5% |
14.0 |
3.3 |
342 |
61 |
| 16 |
Redwood City · Public Tracking
|
San Mateo |
475 |
1,854 |
21
|
118 |
18.0% |
16.8% |
14.9 |
5.0 |
560 |
101 |
| 17 |
South San Francisco · Public Compounding decline
|
San Mateo |
304 |
1,239 |
14
|
66 |
21.8% |
22.7% |
9.9 |
2.0 |
202 |
44 |
| 18 |
San Bruno · Public Strong demand
|
San Mateo |
281 |
1,061 |
14
|
76 |
18.7% |
20.0% |
9.2 |
3.2 |
214 |
40 |
| 19 |
Daly City · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Mateo |
260 |
1,072 |
14
|
82 |
16.8% |
27.8% |
9.6 |
2.3 |
214 |
36 |
| 20 |
Pacifica · Public Material decline
|
San Mateo |
178 |
740 |
10
|
91 |
11.1% |
22.2% |
5.6 |
— |
162 |
18 |
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 →