How much impact can a LOR have if writer is well known?

[jasonisthejason]

If the writer who is a prominent professor and scientist and is a close friend of the dean of the school that I'm applying for, decides to write me a strong LOR how much bias does this have in effect?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[letsgetstarted1234]

god i hope it doesnt make that big of a difference. feels like a few steps short of nepotism.

edit -> what about the rest of us from no name places banking off of merit.

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

Practically, very little. It won't compensate for low scores or EC's. Seems like something that might give you a very tiny edge if a school was on the border.

 

[JMilo]

I think you should worry about how your letter writer will depict you, rather than go out of your way to maybe get a slight advantage at a single school.

 

[Welshman]

The dean doesn’t read all apps pre interview, so it’s the odds someone on the adcom knows him and then well enough to want to act on it

 

[Microbug]

Given that it’s a good letter, it confers minimal advantage. If all else equal between two applicants, you might get the upper hand. I doubt it matters much in MD admission, PhD or MDPhD, that letter will carry more weight.

 

[grizzly1093]

I doubt it matters much in MD admission, PhD or MDPhD, that letter will carry more weight.

Yep, had an adcom member of one MD/PhD program tell me that letters are only "meaningful" to them if they are written by scientists they know (or know of). But I'm not entirely sure what that means or if any MD adcoms feel the same.

 

[WingedOx]

A former admissions director at a top 5 school once gave a presentation on LORs at an admissions conference. The stories included letters from extremely well-known researchers in their field who spent 3/4 of the letter discussing their own research before mentioning the applicant, writing incredibly generic and cliched drivel clearly showing they had no idea who the applicant is, and my favorite, a "famous" physician researcher, well-known for exactly and demanding ways who apparently dictated a letter which was dutifully typed up by the transcriber, including the nearly page and half that was obviously accidentally open mike, where he bashed the applicant as an idiot, the medical schools admissions process as a farce, and that no one with a real brain would be a doctor.

An LOR needs to show the writer has experience in judging students, evidence of a professional interactive relationship between the writer and student, indepth observation and analysis across a range of characteristics, and an evaluation of the student. A letter from a well known professor that is generic is just a generic letter and carries much, much less weight than a good letter written by an assistant prof somewhere

For residency applications, I got to read a letter from a rising star in the field of academic psychiatry who wrote something about how he trained at Mass Gen, was faculty at prestigious department A, prestigious department B, and how based on his extensive prestigious experience, this was one of the finest med students he'd ever worked with...

The applicant seemed great and all, but the thing that stood out most about the letter writer was how much of a narcissist the letter writer came off as.

 

[Goro]

If the writer who is a prominent professor and scientist and is a close friend of the dean of the school that I'm applying for, decides to write me a strong LOR how much bias does this have in effect?

I've seen LORs from Nobel Laureates and US Senators. They fail to salvage borderline candidates.

Just because you may think the LOR writer is "a prominent person", that doesn't mean the Pathologist and the physiologist on the Adcom who will interview the candidate who who that LOR writer is.

At best, the candidate might get a courtesy interview....which will be followed by a very polite spot on the wait list, to be followed at the end of the cycle by an even more polite rejection.

 

[Goro]

A former admissions director at a top 5 school once gave a presentation on LORs at an admissions conference. The stories included letters from extremely well-known researchers in their field who spent 3/4 of the letter discussing their own research before mentioning the applicant, writing incredibly generic and cliched drivel clearly showing they had no idea who the applicant is, and my favorite, a "famous" physician researcher, well-known for exactly and demanding ways who apparently dictated a letter which was dutifully typed up by the transcriber, including the nearly page and half that was obviously accidentally open mike, where he bashed the applicant as an idiot, the medical schools admissions process as a farce, and that no one with a real brain would be a doctor.

An LOR needs to show the writer has experience in judging students, evidence of a professional interactive relationship between the writer and student, indepth observation and analysis across a range of characteristics, and an evaluation of the student. A letter from a well known professor that is generic is just a generic letter and carries much, much less weight than a good letter written by an assistant prof somewhere

 

[letsgetstarted1234]

someone i know worked for a nobel laureate. he got near minimum wage. lol a letter too. but also minimum wage that was the biggest thing lol

 

[DokterMom]

"How much impact can a LOR have if writer is well known?"

The LOR will have much more impact if the applicant is well known to the LOR writer

 

[Lucca]

The absolute best possible letter you can receive is from someone who clearly knows what they are talking about, knows you really well, and thinks you will become a fantastic doctor (I.e someone who has mentored countless students and counts you in the top 1% of their students).

 

[Robin-jay]

A former admissions director at a top 5 school once gave a presentation on LORs at an admissions conference. The stories included letters from extremely well-known researchers in their field who spent 3/4 of the letter discussing their own research before mentioning the applicant, writing incredibly generic and cliched drivel clearly showing they had no idea who the applicant is, and my favorite, a "famous" physician researcher, well-known for exactly and demanding ways who apparently dictated a letter which was dutifully typed up by the transcriber, including the nearly page and half that was obviously accidentally open mike, where he bashed the applicant as an idiot, the medical schools admissions process as a farce, and that no one with a real brain would be a doctor.

An LOR needs to show the writer has experience in judging students, evidence of a professional interactive relationship between the writer and student, indepth observation and analysis across a range of characteristics, and an evaluation of the student. A letter from a well known professor that is generic is just a generic letter and carries much, much less weight than a good letter written by an assistant prof somewhere

Did the applicant get accepted? Waitlisted? Rejected? What were the implications of this scenario?

 

[LizzyM]

The absolute best possible letter you can receive is from someone who clearly knows what they are talking about, knows you really well, and thinks you will become a fantastic doctor (I.e someone who has mentored countless students and counts you in the top 1% of their students).

So true. Best and most effective non-committee letter I ever read was from the late Tim Taylor, Yale men's hockey coach. He knew the applicant well, had traveled on road trips with him, and could speak to the applicant's hard work and his leadership and his sportsmanship. It's been about 20 years and I still remember that letter.