Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla
- This topic has 83 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
earlyretirement.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 7, 2013 at 7:08 AM #762471June 7, 2013 at 8:02 AM #762472
Anonymous
GuestI really don’t have an opinion about which demographics are making La Jolla the priciest area in San Diego; just noting that many families can’t afford to live there and therefore, look elsewhere.
June 9, 2013 at 7:27 AM #762522cvmom
Participant[quote=DaCounselor]Characterizing CCA as a “lottery” school is technically correct so I take no issue there but I raise the question of what are a kid’s chances of getting in? I have heard but not confirmed a success rate in the range of 90%.[/quote]
It depends on the year. Last year, all those who wanted to were admitted to CCA. This year, there were a couple of hundred who were not admitted. In any case, yes I think you have to include CCA’s scores in any evaluation of Carmel Valley schools.
June 9, 2013 at 4:49 PM #762528ocrenter
Participant[quote=carli]I don’t feel personal about this at all. I don’t live in either La Jolla or Carmel Valley and as nice as each community is in its own way, I wouldn’t choose to live in either. La Jolla is too touristy and difficult to get in and out of and Carmel Valley is too cookie cutter for us. Just trying to fill the data in with some local color. Although you mention the blog is data driven, we’re all providing opinions at this point, at the request of the OP. Your opinion is in the mix, too, when you state your assumption about which demographic(s) are helping create the delta in real estate prices between La Jolla and Carmel Valley.
This is where we differ – on our opinions. My opinion is that these are vastly different communities and many families who are attracted to Carmel Valley would not choose La Jolla over Carmel Valley. They live in Carmel Valley because it is extremely family oriented, which La Jolla is not.
I guess we’ll never know. But it’s not personal. The OP can live wherever she wants to live; just trying to provide anecdotal background, trying to be helpful to a fellow east coaster who’s moving out here….when we first arrived in the area, we too were smitten by the charm and walkability of La Jolla and started our search there, like many others. But once you live in the area, you begin to see the nuances of each community appear and opinions evolve. Hopefully, that’s helpful, but if not, feel free to ignore. :-)[/quote]
Agree with your assessment. To me, La Jolla and Carmel Valley do attract two very different crowds. The CV crowd is very school/children-centric, this is essentially the case with the entire 56 cooridor. We are looking at the upper class professionals, essentially the upper 2-5%. Whereas La Jolla attracts the true one-percenter with whom money is truly no object. Of course, La Jolla also attracts the well-to-do retirees and the young trendy set who mostly rent.
The best example would be the Romneys. The younger Romneys with schhol age kids ended up in 4S, a more comparable community to CV. Whereas the well-to-do retiree aka Mitt Romney ended up in La Jolla.
June 9, 2013 at 9:18 PM #762537bearishgurl
Participant[quote=westwood]I really don’t have an opinion about which demographics are making La Jolla the priciest area in San Diego; just noting that many families can’t afford to live there and therefore, look elsewhere.[/quote]
westwood (are you living in LA, by chance?), I agree that LJ is too pricey for the vast majority of families. Even the ones than CAN afford to buy there generally will not because they want a larger house for the money. The homebuying demographic in “family-raising mode” today want size over all other considerations so I disagree with carli in that size does matter (pun intended).
[quote=carli]. . . To say it’s about square footage when a family chooses Carmel Valley over La Jolla is skipping over a lot of other factors and oversimplifying the typical family’s home buying decision. . . [/quote]
[quote=carli] . . . this is a little bit of a chicken and egg discussion as the Pardee marketing people did not design the 3500 sf Carmel Valley houses just for kicks but because they saw a need in the marketplace – families moving to Carmel Valley for the schools, not just to live in 3500 sf houses.[/quote]
carli, I understand the other factors that you mentioned regarding your perception of CV as “Familyville” but I feel there are dozens of communities all over the county which are more of an ideal “Familyville” than CV, LJ being one of them.
A boomer, WWII Gen or Greatest Gen member would have raised a family of 4-6 in 1500-2300 sq ft. Today’s family who has an income of ~$150K typically believes they need 3000-4000 sf to raise a family of four or less. Also, the prior generations of parents valued room on the lot to park toys and work on their own vehicles, as well as to have their own swimming pool and play equipment for the kids. Most LJ SFR’s have those lot sizes but the vast majority of CV properties do not. Most of the current contingent of SoCal parents-of-minors do not care about lot size. Not only do they NOT want to care for that lot or pay someone else to, they don’t want to pay the now-exorbitant water rates five months per year to keep all its (expensive) plants/trees from dying. And newer vehicles are not as easy for the DIY’er to work on as vehicles of yesteryear were. They require expensive tools and equipment that can only be found in a commercial repair shop.
The majority of today’s younger Gen X and Gen Y homebuyer set just want a concrete covered rear patio and a sidewalk poured around its 3-4′ wide side yards, so that’s what builders have been giving them (in all price ranges) since about 2000. If there is any grass at all in most of these newer-tract subdivisions, each lot can be trimmed with a weedeater in five minutes. Today’s parent-buyers would rather pay HOA dues and use a community park and pool for their kids that someone else is maintaining than deal with these maintenance chores themselves. These are the type of SFR’s that are offered in CV in all but its most expensive subdivisions.
Nazzy, In CA coastal counties, the value is in the location first (view location included), lot size second and custom house design third, all of which LJ has and CV does not. In areas like LJ, it doesn’t matter what, if anything, is currently standing on a lot. Even a vacant lot in LJ has a very high value, whether zoned residential or commercial.
The way I see it, it just depends on how small of a house you would be comfortable with or how much work you are willing to do (obviously some work could be done after move-in if you won’t undergo a major remodel) in order to get a suitable SFR in LJ for <=$1.2M. As SK noted, the public schools in CV and LJ are comparable to one another, LJ is definitely more walkable and is world famous for its unmatched natural beauty. CV cannot compete in this area and for this reason a SFR in LJ, no matter what its size, is a much better investment in the long term, IMO. You also have to think about where and what you would want to live in after your kids leave for college.
***
The OP hails from Boston, MA (NOT Montana or Wyoming) which is (200+?) years old, is highly integrated and always has been (Nazzy, pls correct me if I’m wrong here). I just don’t see them being that concerned about their kids having classmates who may possibly be “of color” and (gasp!) “disadvantaged.”
A family of four does not need 3500 feet to live in, IMHO.
June 9, 2013 at 9:34 PM #762541njtosd
ParticipantBG – I searched this thread and no one ever said anything about residents being “of color.” From what I can tell you are the only one to use that phrase.
June 9, 2013 at 10:53 PM #762543zk
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
A family of four does not need 3500 feet to live in, IMHO.[/quote]
I always thought the “H” was for “humble.” Guess not.
June 9, 2013 at 11:43 PM #762544Participant[quote=njtosd]BG – I searched this thread and no one ever said anything about residents being “of color.” From what I can tell you are the only one to use that phrase.[/quote]
The students that that are being complained about by Piggs on this thread as being “free lunchers” in an “affluent community” such as LJ aren’t “residents” (of LJ). They are from other areas of the City where the schools are subject to voluntary transfers-out of students living in their respective attendance areas by their parents in accordance with the NCLB Act.
Actually, only a portion of SDUSD VEEP/CHOICE, etc students could be construed to be “of color,” the same as a portion of students who reside in the attendance area of SDUSD schools situated in LJ.
btw, an individual of “Hispanic origin” is not actually “of color.” They are considered to be of the Caucasian race by the US Census Bureau and are self-identified as “White” on the census:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/29/hispanics-drive-growth-of-u-s-white-population/
etc…
I was referring to the comments made by Piggs that because a portion of these “nonresident students” at LJHS qualified for “free or reduced-price lunches,” they must somehow be inferior in intelligence or test scores to resident-students. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.
From a few posts on this thread, I got the impression that some Piggs were “worried” about their children attending school with “disadvantaged kids” and that is why they didn’t/wouldn’t choose LJ to buy into in favor of more northern tract developments in SD County which they perceived to be “less disadvantaged.” As we all know, areas like 4S Ranch along that “coveted 56 corridor” (aka Foreclosure Ranch) were at the epicenter of the housing bust in SD County (read: inhabited by original buyer-families who were too insolvent to keep up the mortgage on their homes) and too stupid and/or unqualified to obtain a non-“exotic” (read: “non-subprime”) purchase-money mortgage.
NO AREA is exempt from the threat of rampant foreclosure unless it has a large population of free-and-clear owners (ex. La Jolla SFR stock). Surprisingly (for many, I’m sure), 92113 (where the Lincoln High VEEP cluster with attendance rights to LJ schools is located) has a very high degree of free-and-clear homeowners.
Ask yourselves how/why this is so.
June 10, 2013 at 12:32 AM #762545Participant[quote=sjglaze3]Hi I just had to reply to this thread. My daughter attends Muirlands and is going to LJHS in the fall. She is a VEEP student and takes a school bus in the morning (yes BG the district is still running free school busing). There was no academic requirement, high or low, for being a VEEP student, just being in the right cluster area (we live in South Park). I have been very impressed with the academic rigor at Muirlands and its very strict no tolerance policy on bullying, drugs etc. Incidentally my daughter has a 3.8 GPA and her local bused in friends are likewise doing well academically. Just my 2 cents.[/quote]
Thank you for your post, sjglaze. I note that “South Park” is among the most expensive communities in urban SD … for several reasons. (UR, correct me if I’m wrong here.) IIRC, McKinley is one of the elem schools that service South Park and it is?/was a very good school. Upon their children reaching MS/HS age, a South Park resident shares schools with other communities which have underperforming schools.
I did touch base today with one of the PH (92139) parents I am familiar with whose kids attend SR schools. They are actually CHOICE students and not VEEP. They stated their kids did not have free transportation but alternatively ride public transportation and get rides.
I wanted to point out here that students who VOLUNTARILY take 45+ minutes to get to/from a distant public school (one way) in SD County (whether an intra or interdistrict transfer) don’t do it for the thrill of it or just because they CAN. They do it because the distant school offers programs or classes (AP/IB/magnet, etc) that their home school does not, or does not to that degree.
I can assure you that they would not do this if they weren’t confident that they could excel at the distant school.
WHY??
Especially in HS, a CA college-bound student would have to successfully complete those unavailable classes (offered at the magnet or distant school but not their resident school) with a GPA better and in some cases (ex LJHS) MUCH better than they would have had to attain had they stayed in their home-area school and taken the A – G requirements and whatever AP classes were offered. By at least UC admission standards, there is no incentive to leave one’s home-area school, even if “underperforming” for a much better-performing school for admission purposes.
Why would a good student bother to go thru all that daily inconvenience as a “Lincoln HS attendance-area resident” (for example) to attend LJHS if he/she could easily obtain a GPA in the top 12.5% of the graduating class in their home school and thus be “guaranteed admission” as a freshman to a UC campus?
It would be pure folly for a (good Lincoln HS student, for example) to take a chance that their same class ranking could be attained at LJHS (having a GPA in the top 12.5% of their Junior* class).
* End of Junior-year GPA used for college admission purposes in CA.
I believe the VEEP and choice transfers do it solely for programs/classes not offered to them in their respective attendance areas and also possess the confidence that they will be very successful in said classes. Otherwise, if CA college bound, there is really no incentive to transfer out of their resident-school.
June 10, 2013 at 12:58 AM #762546Participantbtw, folks, Lincoln HS in SD has been COMPLETELY REBUILT in recent years. It’s a helluva lot newer (and undoubtedly more well-equipped) than LJHS.
Just in case ya’ll haven’t have a chance to do a drive-by, I’ll post the pics here.
June 10, 2013 at 7:23 AM #762548ParticipantBG – you entirely ignored my point, and my point was that when you use quotation marks (and you use more than anyone I have ever encountered) you should actually be quoting someone.
I now have a second point – when you purport to quote ME never, EVER, change what I have written. You added italics where there were none. The italics don’t change the meaning on the quote, but they make me look stupid, as the italics have no use where you have put them. If you wish to appear melodramatic in your own writing, that’s up to you. But if you quote me, use my words as I have written them.
June 10, 2013 at 7:45 AM #762549carli
ParticipantOh well, another formerly thoughtful, interesting discussion has turned into a stream of BG’s off-the-wall personal musings. I realize this might be her idea of entertainment, but I have no interest in taking part. I now fully understand and appreciate the “ignore user” button.
June 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM #762554drboom
ParticipantMy wife taught at Torrey Pines Elementary and was not impressed at all.
Poway schools are better but the reputation is undeserved IMO. If you put stock in test scores, just look at the similar schools rankings for Poway.
http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2011/2010Base_Dst.aspx?allcds=3768296
If you care about your kids’ education and have the means to do something about it you shouldn’t be looking at public schools anyway. If they let teachers teach it might be different …
June 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM #762558ParticipantI get tired of reading over and over here how a contingent of regular posters laud ONLY I-56 corridor schools and the (heavily indebted) PUSD over all other schools in the county …. as if the other schools/districts didn’t exist and/or weren’t “good enough” for their kids to attend.
It’s all a crock of BS and and I’m happy to report that the UC and CSU doesn’t see it that way.
We’ve even got Piggs posting here from out of state who may not have lived here for years advising other out-of-state incoming posters on the “best schools” in SD County, but undoubtedly some of their kids didn’t even make it out of elementary school before they moved away.
Unlike a poster who has resided in SD County for well over 35 years and in CA for 50 years (describing myself), we’ve got the blind leading the blind here with a bunch of anecdotes describing their (negative?) perception of “disadvantaged kids” being bussed into LJ schools which has been going on long before most of you got here (excepting native San Diegans, of course). We all know that parents don’t make the rules and never will … anywhere in the country. School districts do … in compliance with the HUGE patchwork of state and Federal law controlling them.
Why even discuss the presence of out-of-area students attending a particular school, unless they actually live in MX and are fraudulently “stealing” spots from area-resident students causing them to attend an out-of-area school? (Yes, this DOES happen and in more districts that you might think.) Especially in a large urban district where EVERY school has some. What difference does the presence of out-of-area children in your child’s school make to them? Does their presence lessen the opportunities offered to your child to excel in the same school?
I didn’t think so.
When you are buying into a school “attendance area,” you are buying into *all* the levels of public school within it. And as we all know, only the HS grades (grades 9-11 or 10-11, depending on university system) are averaged together for college admittance. When push comes to shove, a student’s GPA in those 2-3 grades (along with their SAT/ACT scores) are all that matters in the end.
In this case, the OP asked only about TWO particular areas they are interested in where the housing stock is vastly different from one another. One has more custom homes than tracts (some which offer views unmatched anywhere in the world) and the other has almost all tract developments. Comparing these two areas is essentially comparing apples to oranges. By virtue of its location and housing stock, CV is not even in the same league as LJ and never will be.
I currently have a kid enrolled in public HS here and have already gone through all of this (college admissions/getting thru college/college graduation) a time or two :=0
Nazzy, if you haven’t come here personally, driven the streets in your target areas and actually viewed properties, it is difficult to describe how your family’s life would be living in each area. You actually have to see for yourself with your own eyes the differences in housing stock in your two areas as they are great. We also don’t know what you are used to living in (age, lot size, house sf) so don’t know what you would be most comfortable in.
In the two areas you mentioned, I would choose location, lot and house over schools since the schools are comparable at all levels. Whatever schools go with that house, so be it. It is unwise to shop schools over house because you don’t know if in the future an overcrowded school in your attendance area will redirect some resident students to other district schools or redraw school boundaries as they have the right to do. We must be ever mindful that school districts run the show, NOT parents.
June 10, 2013 at 11:31 AM #762561ParticipantNazzy – in terms of what not to be influenced by, I would add that bearishgurl has a case of sour grapes that almost borders on hallucination. There are a lot of other more reasonable posters here, though, who have raised many good points.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.