<p>anyways (since who really cares about what LAX has to say)</p>
<p>can anyone answer me why ucla oppresses all colored people in the bear wear magazine?</p>
<p>also, why does a white guy get to be on the cover?</p>
<p>and why is a white guy wearing an afro? Is that a mockery of AA oppression?</p>
<p>Laxattack. Contrary to popular belief the undergraduate school you go to does have an effect on grad school admition.</p>
<p>Choose to beleive it or not. There IS a reason why hypscm grads end up going to hypscm grad programs.</p>
<p>Also, if your going for an MBA, undergrad plays the biggest part indrectly of getting in.</p>
<p>hypscm are the best of the best, nobody is arguing ucla is better then those schools…those students are the cream of the crop and, subsequently, will get into the best of the grad programs. </p>
<p>Look @ law school, where you go to UG doesn’t matter a bit, unless it’s a harvard -v- southern methodist kid or something, inside the top 50 there’s really no difference.</p>
<p>Once again, that’s why I said with the exception of finance. UG means everything for finance, from where you can get an internship to where you get an mba (which, is largely a result of where you did your 2-3 years of work)</p>
<p>ucla students are not the cream of the crop, they are rejects of other good schools.</p>
<p>nobody is arguing ucla is “cream of the crop.” I dont think anyone, at least me, would take UCLA over a top 5 school.</p>
<p>yeah you would. You just love being a part of the white supremacy!</p>
<p>you got in on AA…be proud :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That generalization is far too broad. For law school, you will find that is not the case. The LSAT and one’s GPA are by and large the two major factors (one could say they account for ~95% of your application’s strength), followed by LORs, the PS, and any optional essays. One’s undergraduate school does not give them a natural advantage unless you are talking about Harvard vs. Iowa State. There is no substantial difference between Penn and UCLA for law school admission purposes.</p>
<p>FWIW, Harvard and Yale have the highest percentage heading to HLS and YLS, but they also have the highest average LSAT scores (166) and Harvard is known for its incestuous habits. Most top law schools do not care where you went for undergrad, unless of course you went to an obscure school with massive grade inflation, in which case you’d better kick ass on the rest of the package.</p>
<p>u wish! dont be getting all KKK on me!</p>
<p>ucla sucks</p>
<p>-mojojojo</p>
<p>What you don’t understand, TWS, is that you don’t have to be an IBanker/Consultant to get into top MBA. So many people have misconception that only those who get the best of the best kind of job have chance of getting into MBA program. </p>
<p>And really, don’t think all other grad schools (law, medical, engineering, etc.) use the same method as MBA schools for picking its applicants</p>
<p>i’d take ucla over cal, not stanford</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t hate on Iowa :)</p>
<p>your point prospect? This girl took Clemson over Harvard…</p>
<p><a href=“979Vn 🎖️ Link Tải App Mới Nhất 🎖️ Game Online #1”>979Vn 🎖️ Link Tải App Mới Nhất 🎖️ Game Online #1;
<p>dhl3, are you at MIT? UG? Grad?</p>
<p>dhl3-</p>
<p>I never said that, quit putting words into my mouth. Sure you don’t have to be an ibanker or consultant to get into a top MBA…you can even major in music at Iowa State and get into harvard law school.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that you have a large advantage comming from an IVY with 3 years bulge bracket analyst experience for MBA admissions. Thats a fact. Sure you can get lucky and make a great business and get in, but a clear and safe route would be to go into consulting or banking. You think I’m wrong?..then please enlighten our councelors here at wharton. Thanks</p>
<p>dhl is going to ucla…</p>
<p>I agree with TWS, you don’t need consulting/banking but it deff helps…</p>