i am using this becsuse there is a breakdown of lower and upper division students.
http://www.seasoasa.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/seasoasa/2009-UCEE-Report-Final-Web.pdf
The above includes the unstated assumption that students from “sketchy high schools” (and presumably lower SES or first generation backgrounds) are automatically unprepared to study engineering, even if they did well in the most rigorous courses they could choose in their high schools (including high levels of English, math, physics, and chemistry, as available). What evidence do you have that there are no such students entering and succeeding in UCLA engineering, as they do in other divisions of UCLA?
Admission by exam is also how many OOS’ers qualify for admission if they don’t have a VAPA course. But being admitted still requires high grades.
“The above includes the unstated assumption that students from “sketchy high schools” (and presumably lower SES or first generation backgrounds) are automatically unprepared to study engineering, even if they did well in the most rigorous courses they could choose in their high schools (including high levels of English, math, physics, and chemistry, as available).”
On top of this, I have also encountered some really bright female kids that they simply just don’t have interests in science and engineering. There are also some average female kids, although they like science/engineering, choose just science or even liberal arts because they don’t want to go through four years of hell.
Many of the females just chooses to be, for example, numbers-crunchers and bean counters.
Like @katliamom had pointed out.
“I repeat what I said above: this is the free market. It’s the way America works.”
No, not automatic, not by any means. But it seems that students from this pool would be riskier (in terms of graduation potential in engineering) because they have not been challenged and groomed the way kids from a top 10 CA public school have been. A percentage of these kids can enter UCLA and excel and do well, but wouldn’t a higher percentage than at the top 10 CA high schools find they need to switch majors because their high school was not rigorous enough to prepare them to succeed at UCLA? This information must be available, what percentage of UCLA COE students are from low SES backgrounds?
"On top of this, I have also encountered some really bright female kids that they simply just don’t have interests in science and engineering. "
@StevenToCollege Ever ask yourself why? Because I have this theory: boys HATE to compete against girls. Really, really hate it. I’ve seen it on the soccer field, where a boy would rather miss an opportunity for a goal rather than to pass to a girl who might score it. My daughter was a competitive squash player and in her young days had to play boys. Sometimes boys older than her. The extent to which they couldn’t handle it was stunning to me. (One kid ran away and hid so as not to have go back on the court to be beat by her.) Friends who had a daughter who played competitive chess reported similar stories. I personally believe the very same (often unconscious) competition turns girls off in the classroom. My suspicion is confirmed by the number of women who do very well in the sciences and math in all-women’s schools, BTW. My further suspicion is confirmed by the stories women in science and technology in academia and in the workplace have shared, in person, in the media and online. There’s even a thread on CC about sexism in the sciences.
So don’t go around making assumptions based on your very, very limited experience. It’s silly. And it doesn’t add anything to a serious discussion. You’ve heard that line about assumptions? That when you assume you make an ass of you and me? Well, I am not an ass. And I’ve been around too long to be fooled by those who are.
There are 1,337 public high schools in California (not counting continuation schools and other special ones) and around 3,000 private high schools in California (though some are very small or special purpose). Surely the top 10 of them are unable to provide enough students to fill UCLA engineering, so all of the other ones that you apparently consider inferior need to contribute students.
Decades ago, I, graduated from a mediocre CA public high school, went to Berkeley with the intent of majoring in some sorts of sciences. I spent few semesters taking computer science, physics, and math. As I advanced through the course series, I realized that I just couldn’t handle the materials. I ended up with a social science degree. Even though the sample size is small, I am pretty sure that others have also gone through the same situation as I had first-hand experience.
Wow, take it easy. Where did that come from?
You must have been taken advantage of by males all of your life.
But I am not one of them. Please note that I am just some random person on the forum.
“Because I have this theory: boys HATE to compete against girls.”
Wasn’t this based on your limited assumption and experience as well?
@ucbalumnus - I meant top 10%. Show me data that more than 20% of the UCLA COE students are from low SES and I will withdraw my argument that UCLA is not doing enough to fulfill their mission of granting opportunities fairly.
@StevenToCollege That used to be a common experience. The important thing was that you had the opportunity to tackle those courses. It appears at present that UC is not granting that same opportunity, unless someone has data to show that low income kids are equally represented as admits to the COE as the campus as a whole. “First generation” is less meaningful as many of those kids come from wealthy families.
I believe UCLA has the highest number of Pell Grant recipients at 39%. UC Berkeley is at 34%. Not sure of the breakdown for COE specifically though.
momsquad, California kids still have plenty of opportunities to tackle those courses. It just might not be at their first choice school, if that happens to be UCLA or UC Berkeley. There are just more qualified applicants than there are spots for the most desirable schools. Cal Poly graduates lots of engineers, UCSC seems to have good programs for women, there is a good community college system, etc. California seems to have lots of options for aspiring engineers.
Given that you have been making this argument based on an assumption, you need to support your argument by showing that there are few or no low SES students in UCLA engineering.
I was certainly grateful to Berkeley that they gave me the opportunity to try.
Even though there’s some truth to your argument, imagine, If I was admitted to Berkeley Engineering instead, would I also become the one to contribute to their dropout rates?
As @dstark has suggested:
“Engineering programs nationwide grapple with sky-high dropout rates. According to the American Society for Engineering Education, about 40 percent of U.S. engineering students didn’t finish their four-year programs. But at Berkeley, fully 80 percent go on to get their degree.”
Usually the UCs are not criticized for the lack of educating low SES students.
The stuff I learn here on CC. Maybe learn is the wrong word. 
If we start criticizing the UCs for not educating enough low SES students, almost all the other major universities in the country are toast. Lol
I agree completely with your statement.
That’s why the average GPA and SAT ranges of the admitted students at Berkeley and UCLA are usually lower than most the of elite private universities.
I would guess that the GPA is roughly comparable, though it is hard to compare due to differences in calculating GPA as reported by different schools. However, no question that SAT/ACT scores are lower.
Note that the lower SAT/ACT scores at UCs appears to be a point of deception for applicants who incorrectly assume that their sky-high SAT/ACT scores will make a given UC a “safety” for them even though their GPAs are on the low side by a few tenths of a point (or in the middle of the range but they are applying to a more selective major).
The SAT scores for engineering students at ucb and ucla look pretty high to me.
“Note that the lower SAT/ACT scores at UCs appears to be a point of deception for applicants who incorrectly assume that their sky-high SAT/ACT scores will make a given UC a “safety” for them even though their GPAs are on the low side by a few tenths of a point (or in the middle of the range but they are applying to a more selective major).”
This is very true. That’s why I always tell my friends that their kids should be looking at the Naviance, if their schools utilize it, rather than relying on the published SAT ranges of colleges. Even though it’s not perfect, but at least it will give the kids more realistic chances at each colleges as comparing to their peers from the same high schools.
I can’t find that information. I did find this breakdown of income for each campus:
http://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2014/index/3.2.2
Looks like UCLA has close to 40% campus wide enrollment of Pell grand eligible kids; family income $53K or less.
UCLA, UCB (and UCSB) also have the highest percentage of kids from families earning more than $158K- probably the kids in engineering.
Again the claimed assumption with no specific evidence or reason for believing such an assumption.