Clinically Related LOR

[ElectronOrbitals]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey everyone.

I am trying to get a clinically relevant LOR but I have a dilemma. A few weeks back I made a post about my horrible boss at the PT clinic (belittling employees, talked down to patients, mocked a patient's verbal tick, I could go on and on). I finally quit last Friday and left on good terms (The same day I quit he said he really liked me as an employee). I'm applying this upcoming cycle and was wondering if I should try to get a LOR from him as working at the clinic is my primary clinical experience. The only reason I'm hesitant is because of the type of person that he is. It just feels a bit wrong to get an LOR from someone that I honestly don't want to end up like or really associate myself with any longer.

The only other LOR that has been offered to me was by the doctor I shadowed! He is the vice chair of his department at a large hospital in California and is very well known in his field. I shadowed him over the course of 3 months and I feel he got to know me well. Without a doubt he is the type of doctor I'd like to be. We have kept in contact since I shadowed and he said he would be honored to write a strong letter of recommendation. The only reason I'm hesitant to get a letter from him is due to the fact that its a doctor I shadowed. Any advice?

TLDR: Should I get a LOR from a horrible boss at a PT clinic that I quit last week or a LOR from a well known doctor I shadowed for 3 months?
Other LORs 2 science, 1 non science, Boss at pharmacy I used to work at (strong), this would be my 5th.

 

[Moko]

A few weeks back I made a post about my horrible boss... I finally quit... and left on good terms... I'm applying this upcoming cycle and was wondering if I should try to get a LOR from him as working at the clinic is my primary clinical experience.

The only other LOR that has been offered to me was by the doctor I shadowed! He is the vice chair of his department... and is very well known in his field. I shadowed him over the course of 3 months and I feel he got to know me well. Without a doubt he is the type of doctor I'd like to be. We have kept in contact since I shadowed and he said he would be honored to write a strong letter of recommendation.

TLDR: Should I get a LOR from a horrible boss... or a LOR from a well known doctor I shadowed for 3 months?
Other LORs 2 science, 1 non science, Boss at pharmacy I used to work at (strong), this would be my 5th.

Shadowing letters are very rarely helpful in evaluating applicants. They typically do not add anything meaningful that cannot be observed by other letter writers (e.g. professors, PIs, supervisors, etc) or by us during the interview process. Of course, if one of your schools explicitly requires a shadowing letter, then by all means, follow their guidance.

With regards to an additional work letter: it is better to apply with 4 strong letters rather than to risk adding in a 5th letter of unknown quality, especially when your application would not meaningfully benefit from an additional strong letter (best case scenario).

You are not required to get a LOR from your primary clinical experience. Just my thoughts, and best of luck.

 

[ElectronOrbitals]

Shadowing letters are very rarely helpful in evaluating applicants. They typically do not add anything meaningful that cannot be observed by other letter writers (e.g. professors, PIs, supervisors, etc) or by us during the interview process.

With regards to an additional work letter: it is better to apply with 4 strong letters rather than to risk adding in a 5th letter of unknown quality, especially when your application would not meaningfully benefit from an additional strong letter (best case scenario).

You are not required to get a LOR from your primary clinical experience. Just my thoughts, and best of luck.

Thanks Moko, I appreciate it. You're very first point is what I have been reading about.

If I'm being completely honest, I feel one of my science LORs is not going to be particularly strong. This might be one of my weaker parts of my application I feel. Even though I understood the material, I should have made a better effort to attend office hours. With that in mind would you still think that I shouldn't include the physician LOR? I was with him for 3 months for around 150 hours. (Way more time than I have spent with my science professors)

 

[Moko]

Thanks Moko, I appreciate it. You're very first point is what I have been reading about.

If I'm being completely honest, I feel one of my science LORs is not going to be particularly strong. This might be one of my weaker parts of my application I feel. Even though I understood the material, I should have made a better effort to attend office hours. With that in mind would you still think that I shouldn't include the physician LOR? I was with him for 3 months for around 150 hours. (Way more time than I have spent with my science professors)

Personally, I think 150 hours of shadowing is overkill, especially when done in just one specialty. But this wasn't your question. 😗

I would recommend looking over the Letter Writer Guidelines and seeing what this shadowing letter can meaningfully add to your application. Ultimately though, this is your application, and you should be comfortable and proud of the product you submit for our evaluation. If this means including this shadowing letter, then you have your answer. Just recognize that these letters very rarely, if ever, help an applicant. Just my thoughts.

 

[ElectronOrbitals]

Personally, I think 150 hours of shadowing is overkill, especially when done in just one specialty. But this wasn't your question. 😗

I would recommend looking over the Letter Writer Guidelines and seeing what this shadowing letter can meaningfully add to your application. Ultimately though, this is your application, and you should be comfortable and proud of the product you submit for our evaluation. If this means including this shadowing letter, then you have your answer. Just recognize that these letters very rarely, if ever, help an applicant. Just my thoughts.

I hear you. I will say though, I shadowed oncology, ophthalmology, and pathology for specific cases alongside him and we had lunch basically every day that I saw him. So I think 150 hours isn't exactly 150 hours of PURE shadowing.

Thank you for linking the guidelines. I have some thinking to do with all this great advice you've given me. I don't mean to go on, but can you think of a case where it HAS helped an applicant? Just curious how that was like.

 

[Moko]

I hear you. I will say though, I shadowed oncology, ophthalmology, and pathology for specific cases alongside him and we had lunch basically every day that I saw him. So I think 150 hours isn't exactly 150 hours of PURE shadowing.

Thank you for linking the guidelines. I have some thinking to do with all this great advice you've given me. I don't mean to go on, but can you think of a case where it HAS helped an applicant? Just curious how that was like.

I personally have not seen one ever help, but perhaps more experienced adcom members can weigh in with their experiences. @LizzyM @gyngyn @Goro

 

[ElectronOrbitals]

I personally have not seen one ever help, but perhaps more experienced adcom members can weigh in with their experiences. @LizzyM @gyngyn @Goro

Oh boy, thank you again. I'm curious if they have any input as well!

 

[gyngyn]

It is wasted space at our school. There are a handful of MD schools that want a "clinical" letter. Even they do not demand a physician letter.

 

[LizzyM]

Clinical letters don't help at my school. Some are super annoying if they are from colleagues who we find annoying, dishonest or pretentious.

 

[ElectronOrbitals]

It is wasted space at our school. There are a handful of MD schools that want a "clinical" letter. Even they do not demand a physician letter.

Straight to the point - Thanks gyngyn.

 

[ElectronOrbitals]

Clinical letters don't help at my school. Some are super annoying if they are from colleagues who we find annoying, dishonest or pretentious.

Interesting...thanks LizzyM.

 

[ElectronOrbitals]

Lets clarify why shadowing letters have little, if any impact, on an adcom. Shadowing is a passive activity of observation. It is not active where you work to achieve goals or when you can be observed. The number of hours you have is meaningless as it is just a passive, observational activity Therefore, most shadowing letters are full of praise yet show scant evidence of any depth of relationship, accomplishments, or situation where your personal traits can be observed. In that regard most shadowing letters from most applicants read the same full of praise with no useful information for the adcoms. Most medical schools have no requirement for a clinical letter. They do have requirements for an instructor or faculty who can describe your academic ability, personal characteristics, and put these into context and comparison with other students the faculty has taught.

In short shadowing letters are nearly useless.

Thanks gonnif. Thank you all. Won't be using the LOR from the physician I shadowed.