Prospective Law Student -Advice needed

Graduate School Law School
21

<p>Jonri, </p>

<p>I spoke to Evergreen's OCD recently. The guy I talked to told me..."They can't say anything if you kill them on the LSAT." He said that there is a place in the LDAS where you can submit written evaluations, and that if a Top Law School was my goal, I should work very close with Faculty and the OCD from the very beginning, in order to be successful. </p>

<p>I did ask him what other Graduate and Professional schools they have sent people to, and he gave me this list:</p>

<p>National: American University, Arizona State University, Boston University,
California Institute of Integral Studies, Case Western University, Claremont
Graduate University, Dominican College, Drexel University, Golden Gate
University, Lesley College, Louisiana State University, Mankato State
University, Mills College, Mississippi State University, New York University,
Northeastern University, Southern Illinois University, Southwestern College,
Suffolk University, Temple University, Texas A & M University, University of San
Francisco, University of Tulsa, Wesleyan University, Brandeis University, Brown
University, Carnegie Mellon University, Columbia University, Cornell University,
Dartmouth College, Duke University, Emory University, George Mason University,
Georgetown University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, MIT
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Princeton University, Purdue
University, Rutgers ( The State University of New Jersey), Stanford University,
Tufts University, and Yale University.</p>

<p>University of Arizona, University of Alaska, University of Arkansas, University
of California (Berkeley, Davis, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego,
Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz), Humboldt State University, University of Colorado,
University of Florida, University of Georgia, University of Hawaii, University
of Idaho, University of Illinois, University of Iowa, University of Kansas,
University of Kentucky, University of Maine, University of Maryland, University
of Massachusetts Amherst, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota,
University of Minnesota, University of Missouri, University of Montana,
University of Nebraska, University of New Mexico, University of Ohio, University
of Oklahoma, University of Oregon, University of Pennsylvania, University of
Tennessee, University of Texas, University of Utah, University of Virginia, and
University of Wisconsin.</p>

<p>Theological Seminaries: The Catholic University of America, Chicago Theological
Seminary, Concordia Seminary, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Golden
Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Luther Seminary, Pittsburgh Theological
Seminary, and Warner Pacific College.</p>

<p>International: London International Film School, London School of Economics,
McGill University - Montreal, Oxford University, The Sorbonne - Paris, and the
University of Fribourg - Switzerland.</p>

<p>Personally, I am pretty impressed with this list. As of now, I feel a little more peaceful about ending up at TESC. However, I still await a response from other schools. </p>

<p>On a different topic, how "beneficial" is being a URM? Does it really make a difference in the Admissions process? Why?</p>

<p>I've been "Shopping Around" and these are the Academic Programs that attract me the most for Law/ Graduate Studies:</p>

<p>1) Harvard/ U. of Cambridge JD/LLM
2) Yale JD/MA Joint-Degree
3) Stanford/ John Hopkins University JD/ MA from SAIS-JHU
4) Columbia/ London School of Economics JD/LLM</p>

<p>Please feel free to share any advice. If I end up going to TESC, I will pursue the double degree BA/BS, and a Distance LL.B from The University of London.</p>

<p>Once again, thank you for everything! I will keep you updated if I go Green or not.</p>

22

<p>Another view:</p>

<p>"Cardozo,</p>

<p>I'm not sure what you mean. I've read interviews with Ivy l.s. admissions deans, which is how I've come by my information. Without grades or without good grades? The latter is easy - i'ts a rough road. Without any grades - like pass/fail? That's also tough - because there's no real means to evaluate the applicants. </p>

<p>If you are referring to colleges that just don't grade, period... your guess is as good as mine. But, you asked for my guess, so I'll give it. Applicants are thrown in an alpha-order based on their grades and LSATs, with something for the quality of the university sometimes thrown in. The usually accept from the top down, reject from the bottom up, and make the tough decisions in the middle. If you don't have grades, there is really no way to put you in that pile. So I don't know what would happen then. My guess is that the LSAT becomes really important (which can be problematic, because the student <em>has</em> to do extremely well to get attention). My second guess is that, unless the law school has a good understanding of what those undergrads are like, it might be easier for admissions to just waitlist or reject, rather than figuring out exactly how good a student this person is. All other things being equal, I tend to advocate doing the mainstream thing, simply because that is what law school admissions is used to dealing with. </p>

<p>In short, I really can't answer that question besides to say that they'll probably have a harder time getting into certain schools."</p>

23

<p>"On a different topic, how "beneficial" is being a URM? Does it really make a difference in the Admissions process? Why?"</p>

<p>Being an underrepresented minority can be very beneficial in admissions, and it really does make a difference. </p>

<p>The reason for this is somewhat complex, but it pretty much boils down to the fact that there are few african americans and hispanics in law school, especially at the top schools. Because there are so few, admissions people at most top schools will generally accept URM's with somewhat lower numbers. (I make no value judgements about this practice, but I think few would disagree that it occurs.) </p>

<p>Adcoms probably do this for a number of reasons. First off, they may actually value diversity in the classroom, which is the primary stated reason for most affirmative action programs. Many feel that having people from different ethnic backgrounds in the class will make for a more engaging and thoughtful educational context, with different viewpoints. Secondly, they may feel they are accounting for differences in educational and economic opportunities, though without controlling for family income, this is arguably a flawed approach. Finally, they may feel they are compensating for historical discrimination (though again, not all beneficiaries have necessarily suffered from such discrimination). </p>

<p>The bottom line is that for various reasons, URM's in the U.S. generally (not always) have somewhat lower student numbers than non-URM's, and therefore, if you are a URM with superior numbers, you should have some good opportunties in front of you. </p>

<p>(As noted, even if there are issues with attending a school without grades, the fact that you are URM may encourage them to give your application the additional review time it might require.)</p>

<p>P.S.: I think the OCD guy is right. If you ace the LSAT, the grade thing should become almost irrelevant, especially for you. LSAT is usually the most important factor anyway, and it will probably become even more important if you don't have grades. Just make sure you prep well for the exam, giving yourself plenty of lead time.</p>

24

<p>"I won't argue any further with you on this after this post, but I think your reasoning is entirely illogical. I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves whether or not I'm right."</p>

<p>That's fine. I think most readers can follow my reasoning, and see my concern, and why I shared it. We actually don't even disagree that the OP should research this issue further. I simply think that a nontraditional educational background warrants extra scrutiny when applying to institutions as traditional and conservative as law schools. </p>

<p>"There are two concepts here:</p>

<p>"1. Top LSs are more likely to accept URMs with lower GPA's than they are to accept whites with lower GPA's. I agree. (But there are many whites accepted at LS with below median GPA's and a wide variety of reasons they are accepted.)"</p>

<p>Okay, so we agree on this first part. As for the second part, below median is one thing, but significantly below the 25th percentile (which is what I mean by "lower grades") is something else. I'm not really sure if there are "many" traditional applicants that are accepted at that level. Either way, we apparently agree that law schools are more likely to afford grade flexibility to non-white applicants. </p>

<p>"2. Top LSs will "usually only" accept students from colleges that don't give grades if they are URMs. </p>

<p>You say that #2 follows logically from #1 and that's "common sense.""</p>

<p>I believe what I actually said is that top LS's are probably more likely to accept grade-less students if they are URM's, because top LS's usually only extend grade flexibility to URM's. I guess we can debate how frequently top LS's let in traditional applicants with low grades, but I would bet it's extremely rare. And if this is the case, then it would also seem to follow that top LS's would be more likely to extend the extra time, effort, and consideration required with a grade-less student if that student were a URM. </p>

<p>Again, traditional applicants are a dime-a-dozen, so I'm not really sure why an adcomm would bother spending extra time on one, where there are plenty of similar candidates with more concrete indicia of achievement in front of them. </p>

<p>(Now, if the traditional applicant aced their LSAT, that might be another reason the committee would invest extra time. However, such a score would also probably ensure admission with a good GPA, and not having grades probably simply means even more emphasis is placed on the exam -- not necessarily a desirable thing.) </p>

<p>"I don't think #2 follows from #1 and it is wholly illogical to argue that it does. You can claim that my paraphrasing does you an injustice, but you leapt to the conclusion that the Evergreen grad at HLS is a URM with absolutely no other evidence of that fact than point #1 above."</p>

<p>No, again, I simply concluded, in light of all the available evidence about law school admissions, that the Evergreen grad was more likely to be a URM -- since top LS are more likely to make extra efforts with regard to them, including perhaps poring over lengthy transcripts. We can debate and disagree about whether this belief necessarily follows from the available evidence, but I don't think you can claim it's wholly illogical. It certainly seems likely. </p>

<p>"I think that DEFIES common sense, rather than illustrating it."</p>

<p>Okay, that's your personal opinion. But again, while I can see why someone might disagree with my conclusion, I'm not sure how it really "defies" common sense. </p>

<p>"You now rephrase your point #2 as follows:</p>

<p>"What it did imply is that non-URM's from non-grade schools will probably have a harder time getting into top law schools -- and this is most likely true. ""</p>

<p>(Just to note, I'm not actually "rephrasing" "#2", which were your words, not mine.)</p>

<p>"#1 is the ONLY evidence you have of the truth of #2, even as [ ]phrased by you. Readers can decide for themselves whether #2 even as [ ]phrased follows logically from #1 and if that's so evident it's "common sense." You are GUESSING that it's true...but your earlier posts certainly made it seem as if you KNOW it's true--why else post that the only Evergreen student currently enrolled at HLS is "very likely" a URM?""</p>

<p>I guess when something seems self-evident, my observation of it might come across that way. A better phrase then "very likely" might be "probably". Again, I'm simply speaking in terms of probabilities. And there is the fact that there are generally many more non-URM applicants than URM applicants, which would potentially offset the fact that URM applicants are probably far more likely to get extra consideration. </p>

<p>However, in the light of all the available evidence, it does seem strange to me that an adcomm would ever spend the extra time necessary to evaluate a grade-less non-URM -- unless that student had a spectacular LSAT score, higher even than most Harvard admits. </p>

<p>"I honestly think that some high school kid could read your posts and receive the impression that he should pass up Evergreen or Goddard or Hampshire for a college of lesser quality, that costs more money and is a worse "fit" simply because it gives grades. I think that's bad advice."</p>

<p>Well, in all honesty, it MIGHT well benefit the student, from a strategic perspective, to pass up those schools in favor of a more traditional program, given how numbers-driven law school admissions might be. That's one reason I raise the point. </p>

<p>However, all I'm really saying is that given the nature of law school admissions, and the non-traditional nature of grade-less colleges, the students should probably take a harder look at these programs before attending, and determine how much of an issue the lack of grades really creates (if any). It may not be that much -- maybe the top law schools actualy have a soft spot for those programs. But some adcomms might be concerned that such schools might attract less competitive students, seeking to avoid concrete evaluation. Given that LS is very competitive, some adcoms might be leery of such programs. Or maybe not. </p>

<p>The one thing we do know is that adcoms have thousands of applications to look through, and are probably looking for a reason to toss out apps. Having to review a 50-page transcript to try to get a sense of someone's academic ability might constitute an adequate reason for many. That's why I recommend prospective students look more carefully into this issue -- as opposed to simply blindly accepting either of our perspectives. </p>

<p>"You say: "Yes, lots of kids read these boards, and that's why I think it's important that they have good information. Given that it probably will be more difficult for them to go to a top law school from a school that doesn't give grades, it probably is important that they're aware of this when choosing their colleges. I guess we're in agreement on this."</p>

<p>No, we disagree somewhat. I agree with you that kids who read these boards need good information. I think the next sentence I've quoted above is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, not "good information" and that they most definitely should not rely on your personal opinion that "it probably will be more difficult for them to go to a top law school from a school that doesn't give grades..." At least now you say it MAY be a problem. Your earlier messages clearly state it IS a problem."</p>

<p>No, my earlier post indicated that it probably is a problem. For the reasons I've stated, I'd be surprised it if weren't, at least to some extent. (I've already expressed myself on the issue of your evaluations and "restatements" of other people's statements. I understand that you may come away with an emotional reaction after reading a post, but if you don't actually address what the person is actually saying, you're not going to accomplish much in a reply.)</p>

<p>But what I really believe is that students should read everything I (and everyone else) has to say, and conclude for themselves if it makes sense or not. Given the competitive, grade-driven nature of law school, are law schools more likely to favor someone from a competitve, grade-driven college, or someone from a school that has no grades whatsoever? Given the competitive, numbers-driven, and high-volume nature of law school admissions, are law schools more likely to favor applicants with concrete numbers, or those with more subjective and interpretive transcripts? I honestly don't know, but it's certainly worth the student taking a second look before deciding. </p>

<p>(Continued:)</p>

25

<p>(Continued:)</p>

<p>"I think how successful the candidate from a school that gives detailed evaluations rather than grades will be in the LS admissions process depends upon what mechanisms the particular college in question has developed to deal with the "handicap" of getting detailed analyses of your work rather than a letter grade. I think it's "common sense" that those mechanisms will have a LOT more bearing on how successful applicants from any given school will be than whether or not they are URMs."</p>

<p>I would certainly agree that whether or not a school has created effective mechanisms for overcoming this "handicap" will certainly be important for applicants. </p>

<p>However, given how important URM status is (wherever you study), I'm not really sure how you can conclude the latter. Whatever the mechanisms in place, being a URM is still going to garner you additional attention, and is pretty much the one thing, outside of a stellar LSAT, that will guarantee careful review by adcoms. Moreover, I'm not sure what mechanisms would be completely effective in this regard, beyond developing personal relationships with the law schools that will guarantee comprehensive and detailed review of all such student transcripts. (Evergreen does appear to have some current connections with HLS, although it's not clear if this means that all Evergeen applicants consequently get such a review.) </p>

<p>"Again, I urge the OP to talk to OCD or the equivalent at the colleges at which he is accepted to find out how they fare in LS admissions and that anyone else who is interested in a college that doesn't give grades do the same."</p>

<p>This isn't bad advice. However, it would probably be even better for the students to contact law schools directly, and ask how they view the colleges in questions, especially colleges which don't give grades. Colleges themselves have an incentive to lie and exaggerate, in order to attract students. Law schools are more likely to give you valid information (at least about admissions), and since they are the people you are ultimately concerned with, they are the only people who's opinions really matter. </p>

<p>Ultimately, neither Jonri nor I really have any idea what we're talking about, so it's vital that you do this research for yourself. As noted, it's certainly possible that law schools, for some reason, have a soft spot with certain grade-less schools, or have personal relationships with them, that guarantee thorough consideration -- at least from certain favored applicants who have developed relatioships with faculty. It's even theoretically possible that the top law schools set aside a few spots every year for applicanst from such schools, as there are probably fewer of them. </p>

<p>However, it's also possible, for the reasons noted, that a graduate from such a program might be at a disadvantage. Someone considering such a program should therefore conduct further research, including communicating with law schools themselves about the pros and cons of such programs, and how they evaluate such students in the absence of specific grades.</p>

26

<p>I think the best advice anyone gave you was that from Greybeard, who told you that you can be a very successful attorney and do a lot of good even if you don't go to a top law school. You need to understand that the odds of getting into one of the programs you've mentioned are slim; that's not a reflection on you, it's just fact. The odds are slim for everyone and especially for those who do not perform well on the LSAT. Given your SAT scores, I think it's going to difficult for you to get a score at least at the 25th percentile at the law schools you've mentioned. Again, please understand that I'm NOT discouraging you from trying; I think it's great that you want to do so. I'm just a bit worried that you will take it as a crushing defeat if you don't end up at one of the half-dozen most selective law schools in the nation. You shouldn't. If that happens, go to another law school and succeed there.</p>

<p>I have my fingers and toes crossed for those transfer applications of yours,
but if you do end up at Evergreen, you can succeed there. In the same way, if you end up at U of Washington Law School--which is an excellent law school, BTW-- you can succeed. You can "even" succeed if you end up at U of Seattle or Puget Sound or Willamette. I just want you to keep that thought in the back of your head, in case you don't get into the law schools on your list. </p>

<p>As for the grades/no grades thing, I personally don't think it's that big a deal in terms of getting into law school if you attend a college that has a good process for helping its students get into top law schools, but as you know, others think it's "common sense" that it will be. In trying to see if I could find some information on line, I stumbled across the Wall Street Journal's fairly recent article about "feeder" colleges. Now, I find myself torn, because I think the Journal's methodology was flawed, but what it tried to do was figure out which colleges did the best job getting people into top law, med and business schools. </p>

<p>The WSJ article has a separate ranking for public universities and colleges. #1 on that list (and #30 overall) is the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. (Yes, #1-29 were private universities and colleges; with Harvard being first and Yale second.) #2 (and #31 overall ) on that list is New College of Florida, which, like Evergreen State, gives no grades. That's right, a higher percentage of New College grads went on to top law, med and business schools (as defined by WSJ; it wouldn't have been my list) than graduates of the University of Virginia or the U of California at Berkeley. </p>

<p>Evergreen State is NOT on the WSJ list; the U of Washington is , so keep that in mind if you get in there.</p>

<p>Again, wait to see the results of your transfer applications and the financial aid you are offered before making any decisions. And, again, I would suggest that you spend MORE time as an undergrad, trying to get a good gpa, rather than racing through and going to some master's program in the hope that a master's degree will boost your odds of getting into a top law school. </p>

<p>Again, good luck!</p>

27

<p>Jonri, I don't mean to get defensive, especially when I believe you have been so helpful, but nonetheless, I must reply to your post.</p>

<p>"You need to understand that the odds of getting into one of the programs you've mentioned are slim"
They are for everyone. I wouldn't bother to consider them if I didn't think I could handle them. At the same time, I do agree with Greybeard, one can make a difference regardless of the school attended. It is a matter of choice, and I am not trying, it’s where I am going.</p>

<p>"Given your SAT scores, I think it's going to difficult for you to get a score at least at the 25th percentile at the law schools you've mentioned. Again, please understand that I'm NOT discouraging you from trying; I think it's great that you want to do so. I'm just a bit worried that you will take it as a crushing defeat if you don't end up at one of the half-dozen most selective law schools in the nation."
Well, in all honesty, this sounds too condescending. I realize though, that it may or may not be your intention. First, my SAT scores are crap, I know that. However, a 580 verbal score for a person who learned English only two years before taking the test is somewhat decent, if not good. Furthermore, I took it with absolutely NO preparation. Not because I didn't feel like studying, or because I chose to procrastinate and/or to be lazy. Instead, I wasn’t able to prepare because I was working a little over full time in order to provide for my family. I was paying for rent and food on my own. And in regards to my math score (480), well that’s just sad. I took trigonometry before arriving at the US, but the procedures I learned were completely different. That and a time limit in which I had to use procedures I wasn’t used to really affected my score. Nonetheless, I don’t complain. At my current college, I have a 3.77 GPA taking the most rigorous courses.</p>

<p>“I'm just a bit worried that you will take it as a crushing defeat if you don't end up at one of the half-dozen most selective law schools in the nation”
Well, I am actually aiming at the top five, ha ha! But regardless, I don’t think that being denied admissions to a Top School is a “crushing defeat” --at least not to me. I don’t think it compares to having to leave your native country where your dad was a Governor, to then have to work in menial manual labor to provide for your family. It definitely doesn’t compare to being ambushed on your way home, and having people attempting to kidnap you on a regular basis. It doesn’t compare to being so nervous that your body doesn’t let you sleep for a whole week. Furthermore, it doesn’t compare to losing your life (as you knew it) and identity because a group of people, now in power, didn’t like your family and the obstacle it posed to their plans. Oh well, may be it’s just me, but I don’t think that not getting into Harvard, Stanford, or Yale will be nearly as bad and/or traumatic. So rest calmly jonri, I will be “OK” even if I don’t go to a TLS. </p>

<p>“I have my fingers and toes crossed for those transfer applications of yours,
but if you do end up at Evergreen, you can succeed there. In the same way, if you end up at U of Washington Law School--which is an excellent law school, BTW-- you can succeed. You can "even" succeed if you end up at U of Seattle or Puget Sound or Willamette. I just want you to keep that thought in the back of your head, in case you don't get into the law schools on your list.”
I appreciate your support. Depending how I perform on the LSAT, I may consider UWLS and SULS. In regards to my current applications,and with no intention of sounding cocky (not like I could with my SAT Score, haha), I am not too concern with my applications. My main concern is how to afford my undergraduate education. Law School will be expensive as it is, so, I am not sure if I should go into debt for an Undergraduate degree. </p>

<p>“Again, wait to see the results of your transfer applications and the financial aid you are offered before making any decisions. And, again, I would suggest that you spend MORE time as an undergrad, trying to get a good gpa, rather than racing through and going to some master's program in the hope that a master's degree will boost your odds of getting into a top law school.”
Yes, point taken. I spoke to my CC counselor and she agrees. I should go directly into Law School, rather than going to get a master’s. As I said before though, I only need to years to graduate in a WA school (either public or private), and I don’t intent to go out of state unless it is a top school, which will also mean more debt.</p>

<p>Having said all this, I want to thank you once again for your assistance Jonri –and all others. It means a lot to me.</p>

28

<p>Well, I just got back my ACT scores. Although not great, these are a little better than my SAT ones: Composite of 27. I Performed Strong on reading, english, and science. Somewhat weaker in math. However, due to financial reasons I may still end up going green, Evergreen that is. I should be hearing from schools around May though, and then I'll make a final, educated, decision. I guess now I must start focusing fully on the LSAT. Anyway, I just wanted to update you guys.</p>

29

<p>Got my first acceptance thus far-- American University's School of International Service, and their Honors Program. Any word on their Law School --and/or the school--? Thanks!</p>

30

<p>Wow, sounds good. </p>

<p>AU has a great location in a nice part of D.C., with lots of restaurants and bars. Safe, too. </p>

<p>Their law school is pretty well respected in D.C., and has a good intl program.</p>

31

<p>Ok guys, second letter in the mail. I got into The University of Washington's Honors Program. It also comes with a full tuition waiver for the year. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>I am starting to feel good, as that's two of two:D</p>

32

<p>Excellent. UW's a great school, and Seattle's a great town. I'd take that over American myself. (Plus, you'd be closer to home.)</p>

33

<p>WCL (American's law school) is fairly well-regarded - it's second-tier, but there are some neat things about it. It's one of the "happy" law schools, where the students really like each other. If you are interested in gov't work, DC is a great place to study law. WCL has one of the few IP law clinics in the country, and has one of the few IP journals. I think there are 9 or 10 law journals for students to participate in, with a few different ways to get on (straight grades and two writing competitions), which, generally, tends to reduce competition among classmates - they dont' feel as if helping someone else out is jeopardizing their chances at law review. It's also about 63% female and the only l.s. in the country founded by women.</p>

34

<p>Few schools offer better programs in that area than Notre Dame. Their law school includes a London (2nd year law student) program, where human rights can be studied almost exclusively. Avoid places like the London school of economics - their version of human rights is lending abusive third world governments more money through international banks funded mostly by western governments taxpayers on the hope they will get better.</p>

<p>Bear in mind that law school is far from "just" studying your one subject. The first year will be pre-set for you, with no choices, and you must do as well as possible - all schools pretty much make you take the same courses. It is difficult, and NOT romantic. Go to a private school, since human rights work pays ****, and you will NEED loan forgiveness.</p>

<p>Don't be so starry eyed about Harvard, yale, stanford. There are negative aspects of all three, some of which cause students (who are good) to transfer. A middle level student at Harvard is often NOT chosen by a particular-geographically-centered employer who has the choice of geographically closer top student from a regional law school (which of course could still be in the top 20, like the University of Texas, or BC).</p>

<p>Get ready to stop supporting your family. I don't know your exact sitatuion, but they cannot rely on you once you begin a serious education. Visit, write, talk, communicate regularly, but financial support must end.</p>

<p>Your story would get a lot of pull at Notre Dame on an admissions essay. ND law school loves "double domers" - people who did undergrad there.</p>

<p>I speak from experience, and hope this helps. I admire your grit, but avoid overconfidence. Be ready to seriously change aspects of your life, especially for a serious undergrad. You absolutely want to challenge yourself heavily at undergrad, and want to get at least a 3.75+ GPA.</p>

35

<p>Thank you for your post CT. It is very motivational.</p>

<p>I will keep your advice in mind. Once again thanks :D</p>

<p>One last thing...are you advising me to consider Notre Dame for undergrad?</p>

36

<p>Well, Evergreen came with a full tuition scholarship. So...UW vs Evergreen? I'd still have to pay for room and board at the U of WA. At Evergreen however, my only expense would be getting haircuts:D -What do you guys think?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>WF</p>