I learned programming with Python several years ago and never had contact to lower level languages until I touched Blueprints about 15 month ago. Some things needed some getting used to but there is no way I would consider Blueprints a low level language. The casting system might look like it and I am a big fan of Duck-Typing but in this context I think it is a blessing: In my opinion, The biggest strengths of blueprints are the context sensitive node suggestions that help you find what you want even though you don’t exaclty know what the technical term is or how it is called in the engine. I am not sure if this would be possible without static typing. Maybe it would. In that case I stand corrected.
However what makes you feel Blueprints are a low level language? You don’t have to do any memory management and you don’t have to manipulate pointer.
And I think that is the misconception. Blueprints is a high level language, not a low level language.
High/Low level does not necessary mean the level of language design, but the level of what the language can do.
Blueprints are as high level as VBA is for MSOffice. Typical trademark of low level languages are that they compile to machine code and mostly provide a basic library from which further functionality is derived.
So, C, C++, Delphi are low level language, although latter are “high level” in terms of OOP and such.
Java on the other hand is a high level language, because its bytecode is interpreted…
It are exactly features like: garbage collection, hiding of pointers, etc that make a language a high level language. 
assembly is an example of low-level language!
This is a feedback section for Epic. Any honest feedback should be considered.
:3