<p>Hey guys. So I’m going to start my first quarter at UCLA as a freshman this fall and I was wondering how difficult it is to achieve a REALLY good GPA for a south campus major. I’m looking at electrical engineering and I want to go to a top law school (hopefully harvard/stanford/berkeley law school) afterwards to do patent/intellectual property law. I did my research and the GPA range for law school students at harvard is a 3.78 - 3.96. So my question is how difficult would it be to achieve a GPA in this range as an engineering major? Since the majority of law school students major in political science or english, I know it will be much harder for me, as an engineering major, to obtain a GPA competitive with theirs. So what do you guys think? Will it be possible for me to get around a 3.87? I know UCLA is a VERY competitive school. Any insight?</p>
<p>[Degree</a> Audit — UCLA Engineering Office of Academic and Student Affairs](<a href=“http://www.seasoasa.ucla.edu/seniors/degree-audit#latin-honor-s-at]Degree”>http://www.seasoasa.ucla.edu/seniors/degree-audit#latin-honor-s-at)</p>
<p>Roughly 5% of engineering students graduate with a 3.87 or higher. So, yes, it’s possible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Difficult, but not easy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you won’t go to law school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. (note: possible > 0.0%)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. UCLA is not a VERY competitive school. It is only VERY competitive to slackers. So, if you study VERY hard, it will not be VERY competitive. If you get distracted VERY easily, it is VERY impossible for you to do VERY well. Have a VERY dice day.</p>
<p>I guess it’s all relative. You may end up being in that 5%; however, I guess you wouldn’t really know if you enjoy EE unless you start taking upper divs. During your first year you will be taking the weeder classes. I’ve taken classes in the EE department and from my experience everyone is on point and pretty smart. Slight mistakes on exams could potentially cost you an A since everyone is very sharp. If law school is your final goal, then I would recommend switching into a North campus major that you find enjoyable and interesting. South campus is not worth the sweat and tears unless you truly love your major.</p>
<p>High GPA/south campus major = oxymoron</p>
<p>If you got in to EE then you’re smart enough to succeed. However something like 1/2 of all those that start as engineering majors end up changing to something else. Some discover it isn’t for them, but I think many were HS stars and never learned good study habits – both specific skills needed, and the willingness to spend enough time. A rule of thumb for math & science classes is 9-10 hours outside of class doing homework and studying each week. Maybe you’ll need less, but this gives you at least a goal to start with.</p>
<p>Since math/science classes are cumulative, what you don’t learn in the 3rd week will come back to bite you in the 8th week, and in subsequent classes that assume you know the prerequisites. </p>
<p>UCLA has free tutoring, but you need to sign up the 1st week of classes. You can find study skills info on the web; here are 2 links to get you started [How</a> to Ace Calculus: The Art of Doing Well in Technical Courses](<a href=“How to Ace Calculus: The Art of Doing Well in Technical Courses - Cal Newport”>How to Ace Calculus: The Art of Doing Well in Technical Courses - Cal Newport) and [On</a> Becoming a Math Whiz: My Advice to a New MIT Student](<a href=“On Becoming a Math Whiz: My Advice to a New MIT Student - Cal Newport”>On Becoming a Math Whiz: My Advice to a New MIT Student - Cal Newport)</p>
<p>See also the Tips I posted about succeeding that are on the top of the UCLA page.</p>
<p>does anyone know if your shy of the minimum GLOBAL GPA your in trouble to graduate?</p>
<p>^You need at least a 2.0 global GPA to graduate. This shouldn’t be that hard to get.</p>
<p>Fizast and mobilemayhem: You see, I really want to do engineering AND law. And patent law requires an engineering degree. So that’s what my main target is. And law schools see a science degree as a plus because it’s something the vast majority of their students do not have. And who knows, maybe I will decide law school is not for me, but as of now I am really feeling the idea of being a engineer and a lawyer.</p>
<p>Thanks everyone for the insight! I definitely am willing to put in the hard work and study my butt off. Already did that all throughout high school… haha</p>
<p>Oh and thanks mikemac for the links! I am reading them right now :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe for you. Just because you can’t do it, doesn’t mean everyone else can’t do it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Negative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>■■■■■. That’s what everyone says their first quarter.</p>
<p>Just keep taking all the math (32A, 32B, 33A, 33B) and physics (1A, 1B, 1C) courses each quarter. If those classes drive you absolutely crazy, and you can’t place yourself above average in those classes for your life, then I recommend that you not pursue EE. </p>
<p>Now, I don’t know what sort of brain you have, but as for the 3.87 gpa, let me say this. A gpa like that is reserved for the those with no limit. And who are those with no limits? Those that are addicted to math, physics, and engineering like crack. You ever think about how much a crack addict does crack (given that he got the $)? AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT. Because they only want to do one thing, and that is to smoke crack. Same goes for EE. These top tier students breathe EE, smoke EE, and snort EE. These crazy people are able to study 60-70 hrs/week (some of them don’t have to, but they do it anyway), because of they have no limits. So if you find yourself, addicted to math or physics in your beginning quarters here at ucla, then you might have a shot at this gpa.</p>
<p>Haha, if you’re trying to scare me out of pursuing EE it’s really not working. Thanks for the advice though. And btw it seems like you’ve had some past experiences with EE? Did you try it out? Or are you still pursuing a degree in it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is laughing. I’m not saying that you need to be addicted to EE to do well. I’m saying that you need to be addicted to EE if you want a 3.87. Understand?</p>
<p>
Not for me, but for the majority of students. That’s how the grading curves are designed.</p>
<p>
Not true. I know a few people who were just geniuses who double majored and still had a GPA above that range, yet still time for extra curriculars.</p>
<p>I think that you both are right to some extent. I’d say 50% of the people who have below a 3.7 south campus GPA are lazy and the other 50% are physically incapable of studying enough to beat the curve (they lack innate intelligence). However, I think it goes to about 10% lazy and 90% incapable by the time you get to the upper (top 5%+) GPA range. </p>
<p>Also, kind of off topic, but the assumption that engineering pre-reqs are harder than the pre-med core is invalid in my opinion. I’ve taken both engineering pre-reqs (math and physics) as well as classes in the ls core (math and chem) and from my experience the material in the engineering classe is harder, but it’s harder to get an A in pre-med classes. I got a B+ in Chem 14A, an A- in 14B, and an A- in Math 3C but I got an A in Physics 1A, an A in Math 31B, and an A- in Math 33A.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nevertheless, they did what they enjoyed (assuming that they did EE) and had good time management skills. But even geniuses need to study believe it or not. Also, if the op was a genius, (s)he wouldn’t be on collegeconfidential asking this question, because (s)he would already know the answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is probably true. All the math and physics classes had sometimes difficult exams (where averages were at ~40%) but all the teachers that I had were pretty generous. Which allowed me to get A’s in all of them without much effort. This is because I enjoyed the subjects but also because more than half of the students in the class are slackers or don’t belong there. But when we get into the higher EE classes where some professors are very stingy with their grading, it gets significantly harder to grab that A that you did so easily in the lower division math and physics. And material gets considerably difficult, but nothing you can’t handle. So I’m not saying it’s impossible. But you must multiply your efforts for an A.</p>
<p>So if you can rank in the single digits in all your lower division math and physics classes with good amount of effort. I’d say you have a decent shot at getting that gpa.</p>
<p>Also some pathways and options of EE are harder than others…</p>
<p>I major in math, and I have a 3.98 or something. It’s definitely doable; I have a handful of friends who get only A+/A/A- grades, and who take all honors courses, etc. I’m addicted to math like crack (as Fizast put it), but I definitely don’t think you need to be. There are plenty of double majors and people I know who are more into physics, computer science, or engineering than pure math, but who nonetheless pull A’s in all the honors courses and so on. In short, yes it can be done.</p>
<p>Honestly, Harvard law is likely to be much more competitive than undergrad at UCLA, so if you don’t have the drive to do well here, you probably wouldn’t enjoy it there anyways. (I say this, of course, having never attended Harvard law…)</p>
<p>My son’s a math major (addicted to it like crack as above posters call it), and he says that the upper div math grade distributions on every test are bimodal–not a normal distribution at all. There’s always one group clustered in the A+/A/A- range, and then one group clustered lower. How much lower depends upon the class. So basically there’s the group that ‘gets’ it, and the group that gets by. So if you find yourself ‘getting it’ you’ll be fine. Otherwise you’ll just have to put in a lot more work to come on the lower tail of the top group.</p>
<p>I’m a fourth year EE. I’ve gotta say that while the quality of ee majors varies across a pretty big range, the guys getting that kind of gpa are truly exceptional. They work their asses off but they’re also brilliant on some level. I’d say hard work can get an avg ee student(talent-wise) to the 3.5-3.6 range. 3.8+ is another story. There are a lot of slackers here but also many who work very hard, and to get 3.8-3.9 youll need to consistently be top 10-15%. That’s where raw talent makes a difference.</p>
<p>I’m a physci major, so I’m sure the other posters know a lot more about being an EE major than I do. But, my roommate and her boyfriend are both EE majors (kinda weird). She has a gpa in the range you are looking at and he is just below that range. I see them studying all of the time. He seems to get things quickly…He’s always over (obviously to spend time with her) studying, and it seems like he’s “tutoring” her. But, when the grades come in, she usually does better. I think she really sits down and puts in solid effort. He’s probably more “talented” (I hate that word), but she’s more into it. Anyway, my point is that if you are able to get in as an EE and put real effort into it, I don’t think that it’s as much “talent” as people say. Again, I’m not an EE major, but I do have a ~3.93 gpa (PhySci) which isn’t super easy.
The difference between me some of my buddies who do not have as high a gpa is not talent. I’ll be the first to say that some of them are smarter than me- it’s HARD work :).</p>