We use many quantitative undergraduate metrics to help select our graduate students, but which of these usefully discriminate successful from underperforming students and which should be ignored? Almost everyone has his or her own pet theory of the most predictive criteria, but I hoped to address this question in a more unbiased manner. I conducted a retrospective analysis of the highest- and lowest-ranked graduate students over the past 20 years in the Tetrad program at the University of California at San Francisco to identify undergraduate metrics that significantly differed between these groups. Only the number of years of research experience and subject graduate record exams (GREs) were strong discriminators between the highest- and lowest-ranked students, whereas many other commonly used admissions metrics (analytical, verbal, and quantitative GREs, grade point average, and ranking of undergraduate institution) showed no correlation with graduate performance. These are not necessarily the same criteria that matter at other graduate programs, but I would urge faculty elsewhere to conduct similar analyses to improve the admissions process and to minimize the use of useless metrics in selecting our students.