Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go research Yale law school in 2021. There is a PDF out there that showed how many kids at Yale by undergraduate institution. It’s the only time I have seen this in writing from a top law school (and they stopped reporting it)…so don’t try to claim Yale is different so ignore it. It’s really the only referencable document.

63% of the law school came from top 20 schools and the rest of the class was just one or two students tops spread across like 200 schools.

The top feeder by far was Yale undergrad. The top feeder by far of all top law schools is their own undergrad.

Wow that left a gross taste in my mouth. I attended one of the higher schools on the list, but Harvard and Yale being 25% of the admits that year is disgusting.

Harvard takes 30% of its class frim Harvard undergrad. It doesn't want you to know that so it posts where only 147 of a class of 569 come from. If you want to go there you go Harvard undergrad or an Ivy or Stanford, U of Chicago, etc.

Anonymous wrote:Only about 5-10% of students go on to graduate school. Most start work right away. Whether the college name matters or not has nothing to do with graduate programs.

It matters for students who do plan for graduate or professional school: the undergrad college name matters the most to this group of students, and they are not rare at top colleges. More than half the graduates from most ivy/plus schools and top LACs go on to grad or professional school, either immediately or after a couple of years, and looking at the rosters of top echelon of MD, MBA, JD, and fully-funded phD programs one will find that T30s/T15LACs undergrads are far overrepresented. I am not speaking of high cost terminal masters that lead nowhere for some mid-level professions, I mean the top degrees. These top-echelon grad/prof schools are over-represented in academic tenure positions, top-hospital MD positions, top research, top industry(jobs that require top-program MBA, phDEngineers). It is not just Big Law that cares about undergrad. For students who are interested in aiming for the top, undergrad very much matters. There are students who want to try for the top: they need to realize that path is much easier from top undergrad programs, because they do not have to be the very top of their school, they just have to be top 1/3 to top 1/2, or even below average depending on the goal and the field. These students would be wise to look at the JD and MD-feeder lists, the phD feeder lists, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A spinoff of sorts from the chasing merit thread.

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Look at all the schools that are represented in Harvard’s L1 class for 23-24.

You don’t need a highly ranked school to get into an excellent grad program. This isn’t 80% of the class from T50’s. These schools are all over the board in ranking.

You clearly didn't go there or you would know what is wrong with your post. There are only 147 undergrad institutions given there. The entering class of Harvard Law is 560. The remaining 413 come predominantly from only from the Ivies + Stanford with Harvard undergrads making up about 30% of the entire class (in my year). So if you really want to go there you go to Harvard undergrad, then Yale, Stanford, etc. The leftover 147 are the valedictorians or token reps to fill in the rest of the class.

Point taken about the class size. But the point still stands (from the misconception on the other thread) that almost all of the class is not from top schools.

And this 147 you speak of - you know it’s only 1 person from each of these schools?

Yes, I was one of them. Like you, from an unimpressive SLAC, but no 1 in my class, Rhodes, 4.0, high LSAT, etc.

So wait - your rational is because you are the only one that came from your specific school, this must be the case for every other school on the list? You can’t be serious.

That was certainly the case when I attended HLS. 560 in a class. Most from Harvard and Ivy and Stanford undergrad. And yes 140 or so valedictorians from SLACs. I was certainly the only one from mine. My SLAC sent someone to HLS only once every ten years or so. Maybe 15.

DP. My T10 send many to HLS, and many to similar law schools. The bottom of the T14 is considered “mid” from this university. It is just how it is, a pipeline. Undergrad matters.

This is a weird WSJ listing, but here are the Top 20 private undergraduate schools and public undergraduate schools that produce law schools grads with the highest median lawyer incomes.

In theory, this reflects both the numbers of kids from these schools attending law school (and likely top law schools) and the jobs they receive after law school.

For private colleges, only Brigham Young is an outlier...the remainder are all the top undergraduate colleges.

Folks...everyone who claims an undergraduate degree doesn't matter...please, find something empirical to back it up. The problem is it seems impossible. Even if you look at the number of Fortune 500 CEOs, yes like 80% didn't go to a top 10 school (though like 50% did attend a Top 100)...however, statistically, that still means like 10 schools account for 20% of all Fortune 500 CEOs...which implies that it is a massive benefit to attend one of those Top 10 schools.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-berkeley-top-colleges-for-high-paying-jobs-in-law-457cc225?mod=ig_collegepay

Those 20% of Fortune 500 CEOS that attended a T10 school most likely came from wealthier backgrounds, so the real reason the "succeeded" has to do with their upbringing (they grew up with relatives who are executives and strivers), family money and connections and ability to financially take risks. Those same people were very likely to go on the same path no matter where they attended undergrad.

Also those who can afford to attend T10 undergrads are the ones who think "oh, I can afford $400K for law school" The MC/LC student with the same smarts who doesn't think of T10 because it's not affordable is not now thinking "oh, let's spend $400K on law school". They are going to the best state law school they can get into, and possibly living at home with parents while doing this to minimize debt. Doesn't make them any "less smart" Just means they have to worry about finances and that impacts many of their decisions

Once more…show me any empirical evidence to support this, not just your made up conjecture.

Literally, nothing you wrote above is supported by anything. You pulled it directly out of your a**.

False. The difference between top private law schools and state programs has become negligible. UVA law is now $105,335 instate and is $108,348 OOS. UCLA law is $98,696 instate and $119,000 OOS. Berkeley Law is $100,000 instate and $112,000 OOS.

You’re not responding to the correct post. I don’t think anyone cares about the cost of law school in this entire thread.

Read further up highlighted portion in thread

Anonymous wrote:Only about 5-10% of students go on to graduate school. Most start work right away. Whether the college name matters or not has nothing to do with graduate programs.

[b]


False as pertains to Law School, MBA prigrans, med school, most grad programs. Quality of undergrad matters

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A spinoff of sorts from the chasing merit thread.

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Look at all the schools that are represented in Harvard’s L1 class for 23-24.

You don’t need a highly ranked school to get into an excellent grad program. This isn’t 80% of the class from T50’s. These schools are all over the board in ranking.

You clearly didn't go there or you would know what is wrong with your post. There are only 147 undergrad institutions given there. The entering class of Harvard Law is 560. The remaining 413 come predominantly from only from the Ivies + Stanford with Harvard undergrads making up about 30% of the entire class (in my year). So if you really want to go there you go to Harvard undergrad, then Yale, Stanford, etc. The leftover 147 are the valedictorians or token reps to fill in the rest of the class.

Point taken about the class size. But the point still stands (from the misconception on the other thread) that almost all of the class is not from top schools.

And this 147 you speak of - you know it’s only 1 person from each of these schools?

Yes, I was one of them. Like you, from an unimpressive SLAC, but no 1 in my class, Rhodes, 4.0, high LSAT, etc.

So wait - your rational is because you are the only one that came from your specific school, this must be the case for every other school on the list? You can’t be serious.

That was certainly the case when I attended HLS. 560 in a class. Most from Harvard and Ivy and Stanford undergrad. And yes 140 or so valedictorians from SLACs. I was certainly the only one from mine. My SLAC sent someone to HLS only once every ten years or so. Maybe 15.

DP. My T10 send many to HLS, and many to similar law schools. The bottom of the T14 is considered “mid” from this university. It is just how it is, a pipeline. Undergrad matters.

This is a weird WSJ listing, but here are the Top 20 private undergraduate schools and public undergraduate schools that produce law schools grads with the highest median lawyer incomes.

In theory, this reflects both the numbers of kids from these schools attending law school (and likely top law schools) and the jobs they receive after law school.

For private colleges, only Brigham Young is an outlier...the remainder are all the top undergraduate colleges.

Folks...everyone who claims an undergraduate degree doesn't matter...please, find something empirical to back it up. The problem is it seems impossible. Even if you look at the number of Fortune 500 CEOs, yes like 80% didn't go to a top 10 school (though like 50% did attend a Top 100)...however, statistically, that still means like 10 schools account for 20% of all Fortune 500 CEOs...which implies that it is a massive benefit to attend one of those Top 10 schools.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-berkeley-top-colleges-for-high-paying-jobs-in-law-457cc225?mod=ig_collegepay

Those 20% of Fortune 500 CEOS that attended a T10 school most likely came from wealthier backgrounds, so the real reason the "succeeded" has to do with their upbringing (they grew up with relatives who are executives and strivers), family money and connections and ability to financially take risks. Those same people were very likely to go on the same path no matter where they attended undergrad.

Also those who can afford to attend T10 undergrads are the ones who think "oh, I can afford $400K for law school" The MC/LC student with the same smarts who doesn't think of T10 because it's not affordable is not now thinking "oh, let's spend $400K on law school". They are going to the best state law school they can get into, and possibly living at home with parents while doing this to minimize debt. Doesn't make them any "less smart" Just means they have to worry about finances and that impacts many of their decisions

Once more…show me any empirical evidence to support this, not just your made up conjecture.

Literally, nothing you wrote above is supported by anything. You pulled it directly out of your a**.

False. The difference between top private law schools and state programs has become negligible. UVA law is now $105,335 instate and is $108,348 OOS. UCLA law is $98,696 instate and $119,000 OOS. Berkeley Law is $100,000 instate and $112,000 OOS.

You’re not responding to the correct post. I don’t think anyone cares about the cost of law school in this entire thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A spinoff of sorts from the chasing merit thread.

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Look at all the schools that are represented in Harvard’s L1 class for 23-24.

You don’t need a highly ranked school to get into an excellent grad program. This isn’t 80% of the class from T50’s. These schools are all over the board in ranking.

You clearly didn't go there or you would know what is wrong with your post. There are only 147 undergrad institutions given there. The entering class of Harvard Law is 560. The remaining 413 come predominantly from only from the Ivies + Stanford with Harvard undergrads making up about 30% of the entire class (in my year). So if you really want to go there you go to Harvard undergrad, then Yale, Stanford, etc. The leftover 147 are the valedictorians or token reps to fill in the rest of the class.

Point taken about the class size. But the point still stands (from the misconception on the other thread) that almost all of the class is not from top schools.

And this 147 you speak of - you know it’s only 1 person from each of these schools?

Yes, I was one of them. Like you, from an unimpressive SLAC, but no 1 in my class, Rhodes, 4.0, high LSAT, etc.

So wait - your rational is because you are the only one that came from your specific school, this must be the case for every other school on the list? You can’t be serious.

That was certainly the case when I attended HLS. 560 in a class. Most from Harvard and Ivy and Stanford undergrad. And yes 140 or so valedictorians from SLACs. I was certainly the only one from mine. My SLAC sent someone to HLS only once every ten years or so. Maybe 15.

DP. My T10 send many to HLS, and many to similar law schools. The bottom of the T14 is considered “mid” from this university. It is just how it is, a pipeline. Undergrad matters.

This is a weird WSJ listing, but here are the Top 20 private undergraduate schools and public undergraduate schools that produce law schools grads with the highest median lawyer incomes.

In theory, this reflects both the numbers of kids from these schools attending law school (and likely top law schools) and the jobs they receive after law school.

For private colleges, only Brigham Young is an outlier...the remainder are all the top undergraduate colleges.

Folks...everyone who claims an undergraduate degree doesn't matter...please, find something empirical to back it up. The problem is it seems impossible. Even if you look at the number of Fortune 500 CEOs, yes like 80% didn't go to a top 10 school (though like 50% did attend a Top 100)...however, statistically, that still means like 10 schools account for 20% of all Fortune 500 CEOs...which implies that it is a massive benefit to attend one of those Top 10 schools.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-berkeley-top-colleges-for-high-paying-jobs-in-law-457cc225?mod=ig_collegepay

Those 20% of Fortune 500 CEOS that attended a T10 school most likely came from wealthier backgrounds, so the real reason the "succeeded" has to do with their upbringing (they grew up with relatives who are executives and strivers), family money and connections and ability to financially take risks. Those same people were very likely to go on the same path no matter where they attended undergrad.

Also those who can afford to attend T10 undergrads are the ones who think "oh, I can afford $400K for law school" The MC/LC student with the same smarts who doesn't think of T10 because it's not affordable is not now thinking "oh, let's spend $400K on law school". They are going to the best state law school they can get into, and possibly living at home with parents while doing this to minimize debt. Doesn't make them any "less smart" Just means they have to worry about finances and that impacts many of their decisions

Once more…show me any empirical evidence to support this, not just your made up conjecture.

Literally, nothing you wrote above is supported by anything. You pulled it directly out of your a**.

False. The difference between top private law schools and state programs has become negligible. UVA law is now $105,335 instate and is $108,348 OOS. UCLA law is $98,696 instate and $119,000 OOS. Berkeley Law is $100,000 instate and $112,000 OOS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HLS grad here. Law school admissions are mostly numbers driven. If your GPA and LSAT are at or above the school's 75th percentile, you will probably get in regardless of where you went to undergrad.

This is completely untrue in today's hyper-competitive law school admissions landscape

Admission to Top 10 law schools is now like admission to Top 10 undergraduate schools. Top GPA and LSAT are just the first hurdle to clear to make it into the pile of applications that are actually considered. And then applicants need that something extra to get them in the door

+1. This

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A spinoff of sorts from the chasing merit thread.

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Look at all the schools that are represented in Harvard’s L1 class for 23-24.

You don’t need a highly ranked school to get into an excellent grad program. This isn’t 80% of the class from T50’s. These schools are all over the board in ranking.

You clearly didn't go there or you would know what is wrong with your post. There are only 147 undergrad institutions given there. The entering class of Harvard Law is 560. The remaining 413 come predominantly from only from the Ivies + Stanford with Harvard undergrads making up about 30% of the entire class (in my year). So if you really want to go there you go to Harvard undergrad, then Yale, Stanford, etc. The leftover 147 are the valedictorians or token reps to fill in the rest of the class.

Point taken about the class size. But the point still stands (from the misconception on the other thread) that almost all of the class is not from top schools.

And this 147 you speak of - you know it’s only 1 person from each of these schools?

Yes, I was one of them. Like you, from an unimpressive SLAC, but no 1 in my class, Rhodes, 4.0, high LSAT, etc.

So wait - your rational is because you are the only one that came from your specific school, this must be the case for every other school on the list? You can’t be serious.

That was certainly the case when I attended HLS. 560 in a class. Most from Harvard and Ivy and Stanford undergrad. And yes 140 or so valedictorians from SLACs. I was certainly the only one from mine. My SLAC sent someone to HLS only once every ten years or so. Maybe 15.

DP. My T10 send many to HLS, and many to similar law schools. The bottom of the T14 is considered “mid” from this university. It is just how it is, a pipeline. Undergrad matters.

This is a weird WSJ listing, but here are the Top 20 private undergraduate schools and public undergraduate schools that produce law schools grads with the highest median lawyer incomes.

In theory, this reflects both the numbers of kids from these schools attending law school (and likely top law schools) and the jobs they receive after law school.

For private colleges, only Brigham Young is an outlier...the remainder are all the top undergraduate colleges.

Folks...everyone who claims an undergraduate degree doesn't matter...please, find something empirical to back it up. The problem is it seems impossible. Even if you look at the number of Fortune 500 CEOs, yes like 80% didn't go to a top 10 school (though like 50% did attend a Top 100)...however, statistically, that still means like 10 schools account for 20% of all Fortune 500 CEOs...which implies that it is a massive benefit to attend one of those Top 10 schools.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-berkeley-top-colleges-for-high-paying-jobs-in-law-457cc225?mod=ig_collegepay

Those 20% of Fortune 500 CEOS that attended a T10 school most likely came from wealthier backgrounds, so the real reason the "succeeded" has to do with their upbringing (they grew up with relatives who are executives and strivers), family money and connections and ability to financially take risks. Those same people were very likely to go on the same path no matter where they attended undergrad.

Also those who can afford to attend T10 undergrads are the ones who think "oh, I can afford $400K for law school" The MC/LC student with the same smarts who doesn't think of T10 because it's not affordable is not now thinking "oh, let's spend $400K on law school". They are going to the best state law school they can get into, and possibly living at home with parents while doing this to minimize debt. Doesn't make them any "less smart" Just means they have to worry about finances and that impacts many of their decisions

Once more…show me any empirical evidence to support this, not just your made up conjecture.

Literally, nothing you wrote above is supported by anything. You pulled it directly out of your a**.

Here's the data; see for yourself: https://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/2223

Of people who had a 3.93/176 or better on lawschoolnumbers, around 20 were admitted, 3 were rejected, and 3 were waitlisted.

Anonymous wrote:HLS grad here. Law school admissions are mostly numbers driven. If your GPA and LSAT are at or above the school's 75th percentile, you will probably get in regardless of where you went to undergrad.

This is completely untrue in today's hyper-competitive law school admissions landscape

Admission to Top 10 law schools is now like admission to Top 10 undergraduate schools. Top GPA and LSAT are just the first hurdle to clear to make it into the pile of applications that are actually considered. And then applicants need that something extra to get them in the door

This thread is chock full of copium.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A spinoff of sorts from the chasing merit thread.

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Look at all the schools that are represented in Harvard’s L1 class for 23-24.

You don’t need a highly ranked school to get into an excellent grad program. This isn’t 80% of the class from T50’s. These schools are all over the board in ranking.

Please tell us what undergrad you went to, so we can avoid it, since they don't teach basic statistics or critical thinking there.

Someone on the other thread said most, IF NOT ALL of the students at top programs come from top undergrad schools. This simply refutes that.

It doesn’t refute anything. That’s your problem.

Show us how many kids from each school (as Yale used to provide) feed into Harvard Law.

Oh yeah…you can’t.

BTW, why is number of schools represented at Harvard Law even the yardstick for this thread that “undergrad doesn’t matter”? Law school sucks and being a lawyer generally sucks…so 98% of graduates of any school avoid it.

So if someone basically says “all students at top grad programs come from top undergrad programs”, you’re saying this info does NOT refute that? Info that shows there are indeed students that came from low ranked undergrad programs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A spinoff of sorts from the chasing merit thread.

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Look at all the schools that are represented in Harvard’s L1 class for 23-24.

You don’t need a highly ranked school to get into an excellent grad program. This isn’t 80% of the class from T50’s. These schools are all over the board in ranking.

You clearly didn't go there or you would know what is wrong with your post. There are only 147 undergrad institutions given there. The entering class of Harvard Law is 560. The remaining 413 come predominantly from only from the Ivies + Stanford with Harvard undergrads making up about 30% of the entire class (in my year). So if you really want to go there you go to Harvard undergrad, then Yale, Stanford, etc. The leftover 147 are the valedictorians or token reps to fill in the rest of the class.

Point taken about the class size. But the point still stands (from the misconception on the other thread) that almost all of the class is not from top schools.

And this 147 you speak of - you know it’s only 1 person from each of these schools?

Yes, I was one of them. Like you, from an unimpressive SLAC, but no 1 in my class, Rhodes, 4.0, high LSAT, etc.

So wait - your rational is because you are the only one that came from your specific school, this must be the case for every other school on the list? You can’t be serious.

That was certainly the case when I attended HLS. 560 in a class. Most from Harvard and Ivy and Stanford undergrad. And yes 140 or so valedictorians from SLACs. I was certainly the only one from mine. My SLAC sent someone to HLS only once every ten years or so. Maybe 15.

DP. My T10 send many to HLS, and many to similar law schools. The bottom of the T14 is considered “mid” from this university. It is just how it is, a pipeline. Undergrad matters.

This is a weird WSJ listing, but here are the Top 20 private undergraduate schools and public undergraduate schools that produce law schools grads with the highest median lawyer incomes.

In theory, this reflects both the numbers of kids from these schools attending law school (and likely top law schools) and the jobs they receive after law school.

For private colleges, only Brigham Young is an outlier...the remainder are all the top undergraduate colleges.

Folks...everyone who claims an undergraduate degree doesn't matter...please, find something empirical to back it up. The problem is it seems impossible. Even if you look at the number of Fortune 500 CEOs, yes like 80% didn't go to a top 10 school (though like 50% did attend a Top 100)...however, statistically, that still means like 10 schools account for 20% of all Fortune 500 CEOs...which implies that it is a massive benefit to attend one of those Top 10 schools.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-berkeley-top-colleges-for-high-paying-jobs-in-law-457cc225?mod=ig_collegepay

Those 20% of Fortune 500 CEOS that attended a T10 school most likely came from wealthier backgrounds, so the real reason the "succeeded" has to do with their upbringing (they grew up with relatives who are executives and strivers), family money and connections and ability to financially take risks. Those same people were very likely to go on the same path no matter where they attended undergrad.

Also those who can afford to attend T10 undergrads are the ones who think "oh, I can afford $400K for law school" The MC/LC student with the same smarts who doesn't think of T10 because it's not affordable is not now thinking "oh, let's spend $400K on law school". They are going to the best state law school they can get into, and possibly living at home with parents while doing this to minimize debt. Doesn't make them any "less smart" Just means they have to worry about finances and that impacts many of their decisions

Anonymous wrote:HLS grad here. Law school admissions are mostly numbers driven. If your GPA and LSAT are at or above the school's 75th percentile, you will probably get in regardless of where you went to undergrad.

When I was at HLS, about a third of the class had attended Ivies for undergrad, a third had gone to other well known schools (including top state schools like Berkeley and Michigan), and a third or perhaps a bit less had attended other schools. That's mostly because people who go to top undergrads are disproportionately likely to get high LSAT scores. HLS sometimes offers a bit of leeway (especially on GPA) for people who went to a few tippy-top undergrads, but a 3.9/175 from a random undergrad will almost always get in over a 3.5/170 from Stanford.

YLS is different because it has a very small class and professors play an important role in admissions (and, as you might expect, some YLS professors are snobs). But for every school from HLS on down numbers are king.

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/

https://www.lsac.org/sites/default/files/media/lsat-percentiles-2020-2023_accessible.pdf

LSAT 25%ile: 171 50%ile: 174 75%ile: 176
GPA 25%ile: 3.84 50%ile: 3.93 75%ile: 3.99

171 LSAT is top 3%
3.8 GPA is is top 75% at Harvard undergrad! https://features.thecrimson.com/2023/senior-survey/academics/

Fun bonus note:

"[In 2023] Nearly 20% of respondents who said they had a rounded GPA of 4.0 admitted to having cheated in an academic context, compared to just 10% in 2022. "

Only about 5-10% of students go on to graduate school. Most start work right away. Whether the college name matters or not has nothing to do with graduate programs.