Why is state legislature involved in reducing non-res enrollment at UCB, LA, & SD?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - GENERAL
,
1

UC Campuses Three Resident Cohort
Admissions for 2021 for High School, Transfer, & Combined Students

Campus Cohort Residence Applied % of Total Accepted % of Total A/R % Enrolled % of Total % Yield
UCB High School CA Res 62,191 55.1% 10,452 64.1% 16.8% 4,875 70.3% 46.6%
OOS 29,663 26.3% 4,152 25.5% 14.0% 1,160 16.7% 27.9%
Int’l. 20,981 18.6% 1,691 10.4% 8.1% 896 12.9% 53.0%
H.S. Total 112,835 100.0% 16,295 100.0% 14.4% 6,931 99.9% 42.5%
Transfer CA Res 17,781 80.2% 3,711 86.2% 20.9% 2,209 83.4% 59.5%
OOS 705 3.2% 36 0.8% 5.1% 22 0.8% 61.1%
Int’l. 3,696 16.7% 556 12.9% 15.0% 417 15.7% 75.0%
Trx Total 22,182 100.1% 4,303 99.9% 19.4% 2,648 99.9% 61.5%
Combined CA Res 79,972 59.2% 14,163 68.8% 17.7% 7,084 74.0% 50.0%
OOS 30,368 22.5% 4,188 20.3% 13.8% 1,182 12.3% 28.2%
Int’l. 24,677 18.3% 2,247 10.9% 9.1% 1,313 13.7% 58.4%
Total 135,017 100.0% 20,598 100.0% 15.3% 9,579 100.0% 46.5%
Campus Cohort Residence Applied % of Total Accepted % of Total A/R % Enrolled % of Total % Yield
UCD High School CA Res 60,984 70.0% 23,713 55.8% 38.9% 5,562 74.3% 23.5%
OOS 9,534 10.9% 7,649 18.0% 80.2% 499 6.7% 6.5%
Int’l. 16,618 19.1% 11,112 26.2% 66.9% 1,421 19.0% 12.8%
H.S. Total 87,136 100.0% 42,474 100.0% 48.7% 7,482 100.0% 17.6%
Transfer CA Res 15,924 84.9% 7,938 84.0% 49.8% 2,666 94.6% 33.6%
OOS 360 1.9% 63 0.7% 17.5% 7 0.2% 11.1%
Int’l. 2,481 13.2% 1,453 15.4% 58.6% 144 5.1% 9.9%
Trx Total 18,765 100.0% 9,454 100.1% 50.4% 2,817 99.9% 29.8%
Combined CA Res 76,908 72.6% 31,651 61.0% 41.2% 8,228 79.9% 26.0%
OOS 9,894 9.3% 7,712 14.9% 77.9% 506 4.9% 6.6%
Int’l. 19,099 18.0% 12,565 24.2% 65.8% 1,565 15.2% 12.5%
Total 105,901 99.9% 51,928 100.1% 49.0% 10,299 100.0% 19.8%
Campus Cohort Residence Applied % of Total Accepted % of Total A/R % Enrolled % of Total % Yield
UCI High School CA Res 78,027 72.3% 15,669 50.4% 20.1% 4,601 70.9% 29.4%
OOS 11,699 10.8% 8,627 27.7% 73.7% 971 15.0% 11.3%
Int’l. 18,217 16.9% 6,813 21.9% 37.4% 917 14.1% 13.5%
H.S. Total 107,943 100.0% 31,109 100.0% 28.8% 6,489 100.0% 20.9%
Transfer CA Res 21,918 84.8% 7,886 81.5% 36.0% 2,402 83.9% 30.5%
OOS 510 2.0% 94 1.0% 18.4% 19 0.7% 20.2%
Int’l. 3,429 13.3% 1,694 17.5% 49.4% 442 15.4% 26.1%
Trx Total 25,857 100.1% 9,674 100.0% 37.4% 2,863 100.0% 29.6%
Combined CA Res 99,945 74.7% 23,555 57.8% 23.6% 7,003 74.9% 29.7%
OOS 12,209 9.1% 8,721 21.4% 71.4% 990 10.6% 11.4%
Int’l. 21,646 16.2% 8,507 20.9% 39.3% 1,359 14.5% 16.0%
Total 133,800 100.0% 40,783 100.1% 30.5% 9,352 100.0% 22.9%
Campus Cohort Residence Applied % of Total Accepted % of Total A/R % Enrolled % of Total % Yield
UCLA High School CA Res 84,182 60.4% 8,436 56.1% 10.0% 4,545 69.0% 53.9%
OOS 33,423 24.0% 4,619 30.7% 13.8% 1,354 20.6% 29.3%
Int’l. 21,877 15.7% 1,973 13.1% 9.0% 685 10.4% 34.7%
H.S. Total 139,482 100.1% 15,028 99.9% 10.8% 6,584 100.0% 43.8%
Transfer CA Res 23,446 82.4% 4,623 85.1% 19.7% 2,944 85.7% 63.7%
OOS 943 3.3% 40 0.7% 4.2% 21 0.6% 52.5%
Int’l. 4,075 14.3% 772 14.2% 18.9% 469 13.7% 60.8%
Trx Total 28,464 100.0% 5,435 100.0% 19.1% 3,434 100.0% 63.2%
Combined CA Res 107,628 64.1% 13,059 63.8% 12.1% 7,489 74.8% 57.3%
OOS 34,366 20.5% 4,659 22.8% 13.6% 1,375 13.7% 29.5%
Int’l. 25,952 15.5% 2,745 13.4% 10.6% 1,154 11.5% 42.0%
Total 167,946 100.1% 20,463 100.0% 12.2% 10,018 100.0% 49.0%
Campus Cohort Residence Applied % of Total Accepted % of Total A/R % Enrolled % of Total % Yield
UCM High School CA Res 24,848 89.4% 22,197 92.2% 89.3% 2,397 99.5% 10.8%
OOS 1,122 4.0% 788 3.3% 70.2% 5 0.2% 0.6%
Int’l. 1,823 6.6% 1,084 4.5% 59.5% 8 0.3% 0.7%
H.S. Total 27,793 100.0% 24,069 100.0% 86.6% 2,410 100.0% 10.0%
Transfer CA Res 4,452 89.7% 2,756 90.2% 61.9% 262 97.8% 9.5%
OOS 86 1.7% 25 0.8% 29.1% 0 0.0% 0.0%
Int’l. 424 8.5% 275 9.0% 64.9% 6 2.2% 2.2%
Trx Total 4,962 99.9% 3,056 100.0% 61.6% 268 100.0% 8.8%
Combined CA Res 29,300 89.5% 24,953 92.0% 85.2% 2,659 99.3% 10.7%
OOS 1,208 3.7% 813 3.0% 67.3% 5 0.2% 0.6%
Int’l. 2,247 6.9% 1,359 5.0% 60.5% 14 0.5% 1.0%
Total 32,755 100.1% 27,125 100.0% 82.8% 2,678 100.0% 9.9%
Campus Cohort Residence Applied % of Total Accepted % of Total A/R % Enrolled % of Total % Yield
UCR High School CA Res 45,339 86.1% 28,795 83.6% 63.5% 4,987 95.8% 17.3%
OOS 2,495 4.7% 2,066 6.0% 82.8% 51 1.0% 2.5%
Int’l. 4,843 9.2% 3,576 10.4% 73.8% 165 3.2% 4.6%
H.S. Total 52,677 100.0% 34,437 100.0% 65.4% 5,203 100.0% 15.1%
Transfer CA Res 13,135 89.1% 8,185 88.6% 62.3% 1,941 94.4% 23.7%
OOS 258 1.8% 72 0.8% 27.9% 9 0.4% 12.5%
Int’l. 1,347 9.1% 977 10.6% 72.5% 106 5.2% 10.8%
Trx Total 14,740 100.0% 9,234 100.0% 62.6% 2,056 100.0% 22.3%
Combined CA Res 58,474 86.7% 36,980 84.7% 63.2% 6,928 95.4% 18.7%
OOS 2,753 4.1% 2,138 4.9% 77.7% 60 0.8% 2.8%
Int’l. 6,190 9.2% 4,553 10.4% 73.6% 271 3.7% 6.0%
Total 67,417 100.0% 43,671 100.0% 64.8% 7,259 99.9% 16.6%
Campus Cohort Residence Applied % of Total Accepted % of Total A/R % Enrolled % of Total % Yield
UCSB High School CA Res 71,220 67.4% 19,908 64.6% 28.0% 3,678 75.1% 18.5%
OOS 16,852 16.0% 6,103 19.8% 36.2% 566 11.6% 9.3%
Int’l. 17,559 16.6% 4,812 15.6% 27.4% 654 13.4% 13.6%
H.S. Total 105,631 100.0% 30,823 100.0% 29.2% 4,898 100.1% 15.9%
Transfer CA Res 17,389 84.5% 8,121 80.9% 46.7% 1,876 89.2% 23.1%
OOS 424 2.1% 123 1.2% 29.0% 22 1.0% 17.9%
Int’l. 2,760 13.4% 1,796 17.9% 65.1% 204 9.7% 11.4%
Trx Total 20,573 100.0% 10,040 100.0% 48.8% 2,102 99.9% 20.9%
Combined CA Res 88,609 70.2% 28,029 68.6% 31.6% 5,554 79.3% 19.8%
OOS 17,276 13.7% 6,226 15.2% 36.0% 588 8.4% 9.4%
Int’l. 20,319 16.1% 6,608 16.2% 32.5% 858 12.3% 13.0%
Total 126,204 100.0% 40,863 100.0% 32.4% 7,000 100.0% 17.1%
Campus Cohort Residence Applied % of Total Accepted % of Total A/R % Enrolled % of Total % Yield
UCSC High School CA Res 49,204 79.6% 26,747 73.8% 54.4% 3,804 90.9% 14.2%
OOS 6,385 10.3% 5,148 14.2% 80.6% 230 5.5% 4.5%
Int’l. 6,216 10.1% 4,357 12.0% 70.1% 153 3.7% 3.5%
H.S. Total 61,805 100.0% 36,252 100.0% 58.7% 4,187 100.1% 11.5%
Transfer CA Res 11,816 89.3% 6,918 90.5% 58.5% 1,658 95.9% 24.0%
OOS 308 2.3% 67 0.9% 21.8% 7 0.4% 10.4%
Int’l. 1,113 8.4% 659 8.6% 59.2% 63 3.6% 9.6%
Trx Total 13,237 100.0% 7,644 100.0% 57.7% 1,728 99.9% 22.6%
Combined CA Res 61,020 81.3% 33,665 76.7% 55.2% 5,462 92.3% 16.2%
OOS 6,693 8.9% 5,215 11.9% 77.9% 237 4.0% 4.5%
Int’l. 7,329 9.8% 5,016 11.4% 68.4% 216 3.7% 4.3%
Total 75,042 100.0% 43,896 100.0% 58.5% 5,915 100.0% 13.5%
Campus Cohort Residence Applied % of Total Accepted % of Total A/R % Enrolled % of Total % Yield
UCSD High School CA Res 76,398 64.5% 21,700 53.6% 28.4% 5,199 68.9% 24.0%
OOS 20,852 17.6% 12,300 30.4% 59.0% 1,235 16.4% 10.0%
Int’l. 21,133 17.9% 6,496 16.0% 30.7% 1,109 14.7% 17.1%
H.S. Total 118,383 100.0% 40,496 100.0% 34.2% 7,543 100.0% 18.6%
Transfer CA Res 18,564 82.5% 10,071 82.7% 54.3% 2,868 79.8% 28.5%
OOS 564 2.5% 180 1.5% 31.9% 47 1.3% 26.1%
Int’l. 3,364 15.0% 1,924 15.8% 57.2% 679 18.9% 35.3%
Trx Total 22,492 100.0% 12,175 100.0% 54.1% 3,594 100.0% 29.5%
Combined CA Res 94,962 67.4% 31,771 60.3% 33.5% 8,067 72.4% 25.4%
OOS 21,416 15.2% 12,480 23.7% 58.3% 1,282 11.5% 10.3%
Int’l. 24,497 17.4% 8,420 16.0% 34.4% 1,788 16.1% 21.2%
Total 140,875 100.0% 52,671 100.0% 37.4% 11,137 100.0% 21.1%
2

So I guess it’ll scroll left to show the whole table. I severely hate though that I can’t right justify the figures, and I didn’t want to enter them manually.

My quest was to try to determine an approximate of what the total enrollment would be if transfers were combined with high-school grads. This would be an approximate % for each of the nine UC campuses overall undergrad enrollments with respect to the three residential cohorts. It would actually show better for CA students because they generally take longer to graduate – which I think is a good thing because there are more in-state students that need more time [to adjust to the rigors of college]. And the transfers which are predominantly CA residents take a bit longer to graduate {beyond} two years than high-school grads do to graduate {beyond} four.

I’ll add some thoughts to the thread when I get a chance. I believe the CA state legislature are not really looking at the big picture. There was one state senator who wanted all campuses to be around 10% in non-resident enrollment. That’s never going to happen as seen above. These legislators need to let UCB, UCSD, and UCLA enroll a decent amount of non-residents, because their extra tuition will pay for additional professors and student services. (I don’t know when the $8k increase [for non-residents] will take hold, [which will increase the total from] $42k to $50k …my writing here is atrocious.) The legislature is going to fund more CA students to LA, SD, B, but they’re still going to short the added amounts [per student because the added funding is solely for more students] which will still be under cost/year, I believe – don’t quote me – by ~ $6k/per. This is why SD, B, and LA have sought non-resident enrollment, because of the tuition freeze for over five+ years and their need to make up for the shortages.

Additionally, besides giving underfunded amounts to the three and all campuses, the legislature wants to fund infrastructure to each campus to build more classrooms, etc. This isn’t going to help the students.

I’ll comment on individual campuses and their admission rates. There are some major offenders in the differentials, and none of them [is] named UCSD, UCB, nor UCLA.

3

I guess that’s you’re own opinion on offenders.

UCI- wow- the acceptance rate is super high.

But I would also say I would embrace a lower % at UCLA and UCB (70% is too low, imo!) and take the cue from Texas and UNC and limiting OOS people. Or- maybe even UW where apparently CS OOS acceptance rate is 3%. We have plenty of amazing kids to fill those spots (geographically, academically, socioeconomic background).

4

Thanks for replying. 70% for in-state students is too low? Look at the in-state combined cohort for UCB, UCLA, and UCSD: 74.0%, 74.8%, and 72.4%. UCSD really went for it with 31.1% for high school and 20.1% transfer non-res enrollments. (I’m having trouble writing a cogent sentence, sorry.)

Most of the UCs have high capability of enrolling International students, and they can get high yields from the PRC. UCB and UCLA get more students from India than the others.

U-Dub’s CS is outstanding which is why they can limit their A/R to 3%. But they take a lot of California students in their other departments.

5

I might have been unclear- I think CA Hs school enrollment rates should be akin to what Texas and UNC do for their state kids. UCLA has only 69% CA enrolled. I’d like it closer to 85%.

3 Likes
6

You want your taxes to go up or other services from the state to go down?

That may be the trade off.

Not to mention a more geographically homogenous student body.

2 Likes
7

It’s just my opinion, but yes, I am sure Newsom and company can find somewhere in the budget to allocate the difference. Probably lots of wasteful spending. Regarding geographic homogeneity, CA has all types of people, regions, etc. I personally don’t see much value add in that argument. Perhaps if we were talking about Arkansas, maybe, but not CA.

2 Likes
8

Yes, outside the two states of So Cal and No Cal.

Having someone from Eureka or El Centro doesn’t compensate for not having kids from other parts of the country - and you can make that argument in other places.

Top schools that allow OOS kids in - are a money grab - and it makes sense.

9

California has a budget surplus and built up a rainy day fund. It’s also one of if not the most diverse states in the country.

Personally I’d rather see it educate its constituents more and it’s already underway. The OOS student population is being reduced as we “speak.”

8 Likes
10

Many states do have surpluses but they don’t forget when they had deficits, etc. and many want to build up, not spend every nickel they have.

There’s no right answer - every viewpoint is valid on subjects like this - just depends your perspective.

11

CA has built up over years and years a “rainy day” fund AND also has a budget surplus and the legislature has and/or is passing bills to fund the UC’s to educate more of its citizens.

All this is past tense for the most part. The UC’s are already lowering OOS admissions. Fait accompli.

Sure you can have a your viewpoint on what CA taxpayers are doing with their tax dollars. Have at it.

1 Like
12

I’ll try to present a longer version why I believe the state legislature shouldn’t have any authority over UC. Let me give one reason initially: They don’t know what they’re talking about in their presentation to reduce non-res enrollment. There’s one state legislator who said that he “didn’t want out-of-state students taking the spots of more qualified California students.”

But the overall qualifications (read: stats) of OOS and International students is higher than the CA cohorts at UCLA, UCB, and UCSD, per law enacted by the previous governor. I have no idea about UCI, with it admitting 73.7% OOS students compared to 20.1% CA students, but too, it takes a 3.4 to apply from OOS and a 3.1 to apply from CA for the high school cohort.

If the University of California has to guarantee a CA student with a 3.1 gpa admission – I don’t know if this is UC-, UW- or W-GPA – then this is the reason why a good 20%+ of California high-school graduates now qualify for UC, per the article that said that 50% of high school graduates qualify for CSU and UC, with UCs being more stringent than CSU. That’s too low a standard, and admission to the university is now like grabbing at low-hanging fruit. Plainly, the standard of admission to UC needs to be considerably higher.

But if the state legislature affects the national and international ranking of UCB, UCLA, and UCSD, then the others will fall farther down the list too. And again as I stated above, the state legislature has no intention of paying the difference between the fees which in-state students pay and the cost of a UC education. There’s a shortfall I believe of ~ $6,000, a great deal because of the frozen in-state fees paid by CA students for 5+ years.

As proof of the ever-rising costs of a UC education and at all universities and colleges, here’s a link to faculty salaries paid at public universities. It shows full professor salaries at UCLA as follows:

2016-17, $193k
2017-18, $206k (an increase of 6.7%)
2018-19, 217k (an increase of 5.3%)

So the cost of a UC education is increasing markedly, but there’s no increase in in-state resident fees. And don’t expect the state legislature to increase its contribution to UC of reimbursement cost. They’ve probably always shorted it. And again, non-resident students paying over cost benefits all students, besides adding the International and cross-sectional US diversity to the campuses.

13

A lot of the surplus is from COVID funds in which Pelosi awarded California billions of $$$ – when smaller states could have used a greater proportion of funds. Additionally, the taxes all across the board in CA are highest within all states in the US. Add that not a lot of people in the state have any sentiments towards giving the UC and CSU more funds, and effectively none of the state assembly and senators have any understanding nor connection to UC, as seen by their wildly off-base statements. And what kind of authority should these politicians have over UC – and especially their singling out UCB, UCSD and UCLA, when there have been worse offenders in the admittance process by the other UC campuses, especially with respect to Internationals?

There are ways around this, especially with the percentage of Internationals from CA’s community colleges having decreased significantly for 2022-23.

14

The bottom line here is to let California’s incredible three-tier college system do its job. We have the best university system in the world, UC, and the best community- college system with practically a CC in every town. Every student has a second chance at universities which are top 20 in the world.

And additionally, 55% of UC students pay no fees/tuition. There should be a standard based on this, because if it educates lower end students who are prone to dropping out, then that’s sunk cost.

2 Likes
15

Why is the Legislature involved? Because they represent the people of California? Approve the budget? Draft laws? Hold hearings on higher education and push for policy changes on access? Confirm the Regent appointees? Take your pick.

3 Likes
16

@firmament2x you said “And additionally, 55% of UC students pay no fees/tuition. There should be a standard based on this, because if it educates lower end students who are prone to dropping out, then that’s sunk cost.”

This is an incredibly ignorant and offensive comment. In no way are low-income students “lower end students.”

2 Likes
17

And most importantly, we the CA taxpayer may get a tax rebate!

The OOS UC student reduction plan is underway.

1 Like
18

This is in turn an extremely ignorant if not offensive comment. I quoted a state legislator who said that, '{H}e “didn’t want out-of-state students taking the spots of more qualified California students.” ’ This is a patently false statement probably even for UCI OOS admits vis-a-vis those from CA.

The problem with some of you who just flash in and out of these threads with no history on these boards is that you only address a few things, because you have no answer, e.g., for the shortage of funding that UC is experiencing with frozen in-state fees, which the state legislators have not addressed – they’ve only addressed infrastructure and adding more CA students without correcting the underfunded {state reimbursement} of education at UC. Why don’t you address my writeup five posts back? I would like to see if you have a competent answer for some of the things I addressed with respect to UC and state legislators in that post.

And let me expound in {squiggly} brackets your last post in which you quoted me as stating {-- and I keep having to make edits because square brackets has some sort of stealthy effect}:

“And additionally, 55% of UC students pay no fees/tuition. There should be a standard based {on who receives these grants which is higher than the 3.1 threshold}, because if it educates lower end students {at around the 3.1 gpa range who in addition are not paying any tuition/fess] who are {or would be} {certainly more} prone to dropping out, then that’s sunk cost.”

I don’t make any claim that the 55% of students who pay no tuition/fees are all {worse} students as you claim that I am. That would be patently false, because there are lots of poor students who attend UC who are brilliant students. But absolutely, the 3.1 floor is problematic. So stop with your trying to cancel me with your hypersensitive misconstruing of what I stated.

19

Let’s assume that the courts overturn the local Berkeley politicians’ ability to restrict UCB’s enrollment to a prior year, which would/{will} have necessitated B’s reduction of the 2022 incoming class by 1,000s of students.

The state legislature passed a law without much forethought and signed by Newsom that specifically stated that UCLA, UCB, and UCSD {will} add 900 more CA students in its freshman class and simultaneously reduce non-resident enrollment by that same amount. Or this was how it was presented by the LA Times, etc.

I would be surprised if it comes close to that number. The medium term goal is to get undergrad enrollment at the three to 18% non-residents by 2026, I believe it was. The writeup by the LA times and other publications was so poor that it seemed that each campus was to do the 900-student switch.

Let’s look at the numbers for the three campuses with these proposed changes for 2022 using 2021 figures involving the 900-student switch:

Campus Cohort Enrolled % of Total
UCB High School 5,775 83.3%
660 9.5%
496 7.2%
6,931 100.0%
Transfer 2,209 83.4%
22 0.8%
417 15.7%
2,648 99.9%
Combined 7,984 83.3%
682 7.1%
913 9.5%
9,579 99.9%
Campus Cohort Enrolled % of Total
UCLA High School 5,445 82.7%
754 11.5%
385 5.8%
6,584 100.0%
Transfer 2,944 85.7%
21 0.6%
469 13.7%
3,434 100.0%
Combined 8,389 83.7%
775 7.7%
854 8.5%
10,018 99.9%
Campus Cohort Enrolled % of Total
UCSD High School 6,099 80.9%
785 10.4%
659 8.7%
7,543 100.0%
Transfer 2,868 79.8%
47 1.3%
679 18.9%
3,594 100.0%
Combined 8,967 80.5%
832 7.5%
1,338 12.0%
11,137 100.0%

{Let me add that these legislators somehow forgot to include transfer students’ importance in calculating total undergrad enrollment with respect to the percentages of each of the three residential cohorts. This egregious mistake showed how ignorant they were of UC. I believe that since the summer when this bill was passed, they’ve quietly made the correct adjustment to include xfers. And so it doesn’t appear that the 900-student switch still applies for the 2022 entering classes. And I mistakenly hid the CA, Xfer, and Int’l side headings, but this is the order as per my spreadsheet above.}

But again, International student apps have declined quite a bit for the class entering 2022. So it looks as though all three universities can still enroll 23% non-resident students in its frosh classes because the trend would be to enroll even more predominant CA-res students in their xfer classes, with say, < 8% or even < 6% International students. But it won’t be 30% non-res enrollment {for high-school grads} as in 2021. {I may do a “forecast” of what I believe UCLA’s enrollment may look like for the incoming 2022 classes (hs & trx) wrt these three residential cohorts.}

I still think it would be best if the state legislature would prop up UCM, UCR, and UCSC and maybe add another UC campus, because increasing CA-res students at UCB, UCLA, and UCSD could cause the other UCs to fall wrt prestige, because the CA students they do get won’t be as accomplished. {Additionally, UCLA has only 400+ acres and is already overbuilt, and UCB and UCSB are hindered by slow- or no-growth ordinances.}

20

The only UC that a 3.1 student would be able to get into would be Merced. From what I understand, and I admit I am fairly new to this whole college admissions world, all the other UC’s are going to take only the best applicants thereby making the published admission minimums a moot point. I strongly believe our in state top tier students should have priority over oos admits. We pay incredibly high taxes and for our high-stats kids to be forced to go to oos public schools or to go to high-cost private schools just seems wrong to me. Not all kids want to go the cc route, I believe most want to experience the full four year college experience.

2 Likes