How long is long enough?

[clinicalhopeful]

---

Members don't see this ad.

How long should you have known/worked for a researcher in order for it to be a "valid" recommendation that an admissions committee would take seriously? I will be applying to clinical Ph.D. programs in the fall of 2009 and I was wondering, if I began to work in someone's lab starting in January 2009 and worked in that lab straight through (including summer) to the application submission (December 2009), would that person's recommendation be considered okay even though I technically haven't worked for them for a full year?

 

[erg923]

It will varying depending on the professors preference. Ideally, LORs should be "glowing," and should be able to attest to academic skills, work ethic, research ability/experience, and interpersonal maturity. If you work closely with someone, I think a year is adequate.

 

[clinicalhopeful]

It will varying depending on the professors preference. Ideally, LORs should be "glowing," and should be able to attest to academic skills, work ethic, research ability/experience, and interpersonal maturity. If you work closely with someone, I think a year is adequate.

When you say academic skills, does that mean my in-class abilities? The researcher I want to work for is affiliated with a hospital, not a university, and I wouldn't be taking a class with him, only doing research. Does this matter?

 

[cmuhooligan]

When you say academic skills, does that mean my in-class abilities? The researcher I want to work for is affiliated with a hospital, not a university, and I wouldn't be taking a class with him, only doing research. Does this matter?

No, it shouldn't matter. Having a class with a potential LOR is probably pretty low on the list; I think that having good research experience with said LOR is far more important.

 

[erg923]

No, it shouldn't matter. Having a class with a potential LOR is probably pretty low on the list; I think that having good research experience with said LOR is far more important.

Yes, true. They should be familiar with your academic potential, grades, etc. though. Not necessarily have had you in class. I suppied all my LORs with my trancript and GRE scores as well.

 

[Ollie123]

There's really no good answer. There's not a cutoff or anything.

I'd say "Long enough for you to show what your made of". There's often a "getting-started" period in most labs where you aren't doing much more than running subjects and entering data. Things you need to know obviously, but if that's all you're doing its going to be at best a mediocre letter.

Basically, you just need to have proven yourself. Either something went terribly wrong and you were the one who swooped in to save the day, you went above and beyond what other lab members were doing, etc.

Most of that stuff is difficult to accomplish in a short timespan, but if you can then you'll be fine. You just need to make sure that when the professor goes to write the letter they have more to say then "He/she doesn't curse profusely in lab meetings so they have at least basic social skills, and they haven't accidentally deleted a dataset so they probably have some attention to detail. Other than that I don't really know them".

An exxageration obviously, but you'd be amazed how many letters sound like that (or worse, the "I don't remember him, but Jim says he had me for class last year. I checked my records and apparently he got a B, so he is most likely able to read" letters). Basically, that is what you want to avoid. If you feel you've done enough to warrant more than that in the relevant timespan you're fine. If not, I'd ask someone else - anything short of an overwhelmingly positive letter is pretty much an application killer.

 

[erg923]

There's really no good answer. There's not a cutoff or anything.

An exxageration obviously, but you'd be amazed how many letters sound like that (or worse, the "I don't remember him, but Jim says he had me for class last year. I checked my records and apparently he got a B, so he is most likely able to read" letters). Basically, that is what you want to avoid. If you feel you've done enough to warrant more than that in the relevant timespan you're fine. If not, I'd ask someone else - anything short of an overwhelmingly positive letter is pretty much an application killer.

Why in the world would a busy professor put any time or effort into such a letter?.... That's seems almost vindictive or something. I mean the only purpose would be humiliation of student, no? You have actually seen a person write a letter like that? I think anyone would reasonable would just say "no...cant do it, sorry"

 

[Ollie123]

Why in the world would a busy professor put any time or effort into such a letter?.... That's seems almost vindictive or something. I mean the only purpose would be humiliation of student, no? You have actually seen a person write a letter like that? I think anyone would reasonable would just say "no...cant do it, sorry"

I've personally seen the "I don't remember him" letter. Not exactly those words, but one that made it very clear they had no idea who the person was other than that they apparently were in a large lecture, and did mediocre in it.

The professor tried to refuse and actually told the student outright "I can't write you a good letter". The student persisted and eventually the prof just did it and wrote exactly what he explained to the student he would. He's a really nice guy so I don't think it was meant to be vindictive, just the easiest way to get the student to go away. Seemed like the student was fully informed on what he was getting.

The lab thing I haven't seen myself but I've heard PLENTY of stories of faculty writing letters for students who they can't really say much about but worked in the lab. They feel some sort of obligation to write a letter since they did work in the lab, but those are the people who get the cut and paste form letters rather than the real letters of recommendation.

That's nothing though. I won't delve into it, but in one of my management classes we basically had weekly "Story time" about job selection and ridiculous things that end up on resumes or horrible references. For example, if you were fired for stealing from the company, don't put the person who caught you down as a reference.