@scotlandcalling, from what I’ve seen, the only push back has been when a poster brings up things that are pure conjecture and can’t be substantiated by evidence. The most common example is that Cal Poly has a secret plot to reject high stats kids to protect yield without any proof, typically from a parent who had a student rejected. The evidence certainly points to the contrary. Otherwise, Cal Poly wouldn’t yield 33% and the stats for the CENG could not average at 4.13/1400+. It became clear in this year’s cycle why high stats students got rejected, if they had an MCA where others were getting in. They forgot to include their 7th and 8th grade maths and lost 500 rigor points. This their MCA was lower than they thought. That is 10% of the total algorithm.
As for what’s wrong, no school is perfect. Anyone suggesting otherwise isn’t being honest. The campus food at Cal Poly is terrible (according to my son, and he’s not alone). Students can get full schedules, but have to tolerate odd schedules like early mornings or evening labs. Some of the professors are bad, but where are they not? They suffer from administrative bloat, like very single UC and CSU. Off campus housing is a pain to get and is stupidly expensive in SLO, for what is frequently dirty and run down.
It’s certainly not all roses. On balance though, it does offer a lot of positives, at least for engineers.
If you are going to correct inaccurate information, which to this point, other than saying ME is hard, because it is, has been pure conjecture, why not do it here? It’s how we all learn. I’d love to know if athletes have an MCA advantage at Poly and if so, which sports. The only thing I know for certain is that athletes get priority registration. Beyond that…clueless.