As I recall it from my college days, an idea "graduates" from a hypothesis, to a Theory, to a "Law", as more experimental and observational data is compiled.
Well, I would contend that theories do not become laws. Theories and laws are different kinds of things. Theories are explanatory, whereas laws are simply descriptive. A law says, "here is a model or mathematical formula that predicts the behavior of this system," whereas a theory says, "here is a mechanism that causes this behavior" You can, and do, for instance, have both laws and theories of gravity, and they are separate and not genetically related.
I do agree, however, that hypotheses can become theories through elaboration, extension and testing. (In that case one might distinquish between explanatory hypotheses, which may become theories, and descriptive or generalizing hypotheses, which may become laws.)
Close. Scientific laws are "relationships observed to be invariable between or among phenomena," and are expressed in mathematical formulae and not just general principles to be applied. Look at the laws of thermodynamics -- pure math despite the theoretical misapplications you usually see here. Also, look at gravity where we have the law of gravity expressed in math, and gravitational theory as a body of knowledge trying to explain everything else with gravity.
Who knows though, one of these days we'll maybe have the laws of evolution when they can say "according to this formula, a species under these conditions will evolve as so."