Internship Applications: Rec Letters

[InYourHead]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I was just wondering what are people's thoughts on obtaining letters of rec. Last year at my site I had 2 supervisors, and great relationships with both of them. I was wondering if I would be at a disadvantage if I asked both of them for letters but no one from the year prior. Would this be a red flag for anyone?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

 

[WisNeuro]

I was just wondering what are people's thoughts on obtaining letters of rec. Last year at my site I had 2 supervisors, and great relationships with both of them. I was wondering if I would be at a disadvantage if I asked both of them for letters but no one from the year prior. Would this be a red flag for anyone?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

It really depends on the internships that you are applying for. If you're going to a generalist intern site, I'd try to make sure that my letter writers were able to speak to a variety of experiences rather than one focused experience. If you're going for a narrowed training site, it may be better to get letters from people who could speak to your experience in that area.

 

[KillerDiller]

I think this would be a red flag for several sites. Reviewers would wonder if something happened to prevent you from getting a good rec from your prior practicum experience. What I would recommend doing is getting a letter from both supervisors at your recent site, one from a supervisor the year prior, and one from your research advisor. Some internship sites don't specifically request a letter from your program (or actually prefer 3 clinical letters). So, if you apply to any sites like that, you will have 3 letters on hand that can speak to your clinical experience. You can then also have the flexibility to do what WisNeuro suggestes and send 2 letters from the same site to similar internship placements.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think this would be a red flag for several sites. Reviewers would wonder if something happened to prevent you from getting a good rec from your prior practicum experience. What I would recommend doing is getting a letter from both supervisors at your recent site, one from a supervisor the year prior, and one from your research advisor. Some internship sites don't specifically request a letter from your program (or actually prefer 3 clinical letters). So, if you apply to any sites like that, you will have 3 letters on hand that can speak to your clinical experience. You can then also have the flexibility to do what WisNeuro suggestes and send 2 letters from the same site to similar internship placements.

Not much of a red flag really. The only way it becomes a red flag is if you have worked with a fairly well known name and you don't get a letter from them.

 

[KillerDiller]

I reviewed internship apps for a site last year and it was considered a red flag for us.

 

[InYourHead]

Interesting, thanks for the replies. The dilemma is that I also want to ask my current supervisor for a letter, even though I have only been working there for a couple months. That would be my 3rd. (In addition to possibly my research advisor for those that request it specifically).

The prior year was at my school's clinic, so not necessarily "well-known".

Any other thoughts or suggestions are welcome.

 

[cara susanna]

Really? I wasn't going to include any LoRs from my practicum supervisors and was only going to get LoRs from a faculty member I've done research with (who also supervised me at our dept clinic and can speak to my clinical work) and another former supervisor from our dept clinic. Is that a bad idea then? I'm going for research-oriented sites.

Also, what about shorter placements where you spent less hours there and feel like they didn't really get to know you that well? Or assessment-only placements when you're not applying to assessment-heavy sites?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Really? I wasn't going to include any LoRs from my practicum supervisors and was only going to get LoRs from a faculty member I've done research with (who also supervised me at our dept clinic and can speak to my clinical work) and another former supervisor from our dept clinic. Is that a bad idea then? I'm going for research-oriented sites.

Also, what about shorter placements where you spent less hours there and feel like they didn't really get to know you that well? Or assessment-only placements when you're not applying to assessment-heavy sites?

I'd say it could be a good idea to get letters from clinical supervisors at sites other than your department clinic, even for some of the more research-heavy sites. So long as at least one of your research-oriented letters is very strong, you should be ok in that respect. From the examples you provided, I'd say keep the LoR fromthe research supervisor, forego the letter from the other dept clinic supervisor, and opt for one from a clinician at a different practicum site. Otherwise, it could come across as you having potentially performed poorly outside of the (often somewhat tame) dept clinic setting.

 

[cara susanna]

Thanks for the input! The thing is that my major practicum was (heh) the department clinic and my other major practicum was assessment-only. I had two other therapy clinical placements, but the first was supervised by a PsyD and I'm not sure how the research-heavy internships would feel about that, plus it was only a few hours a week so they didn't get to know me that well. And then the second one was supervised off-site. Thoughts or suggestions?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thanks for the input! The thing is that my major practicum was (heh) the department clinic and my other major practicum was assessment-only. I had two other therapy clinical placements, but the first was supervised by a PsyD and I'm not sure how the research-heavy internships would feel about that, plus it was only a few hours a week so they didn't get to know me that well. And then the second one was supervised off-site. Thoughts or suggestions?

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with getting a letter from the assessment person even if you aren't applying to assessment-heavy sites, but that's just my take. Perhaps other folks can offer more insights on that front.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm also struggling immensely with who to ask and will be applying to research-oriented sites.

I was previously thinking of going for the best/most relevant letters without considering timeframe, but would hate for that to come across as "suspicious" if they aren't from the most recent place. I may do it anyways though and just write off sites that take issue with it as silly places I wouldn't want to match at anyways (sorry KD). It just seems foolish to say, not submit a VA letter from someone in my primary area of interest to VA sites just because it was now a couple years ago.

My plans/options at present. I'll be applying to both behavioral medicine tracks and general adult tracks that have substance-use rotations:
1) Joint letter from mentors (I essentially have two - both well known and from slightly different circles so I want to capitalize on name recognition).
2) Letter from famous health psychologist I took an assessment class with, later TA'd that same assessment class with, was supervised by in my first year in the dept clinic, and then did a practicum with later on outside the dept clinic. They are also a co-author on one of my pubs.
3) Our clinic director (reasonably well-known addiction researcher) who also "supervises my supervision" of junior students in the department clinic for group-based health psych interventions.
4) VA clinician who was my practicum supervisor back in 2011 on the addiction treatment program at the local, well-known VA. Exclusively therapy hours - group heavy, but did have one individual patient. Has published some and continues to a little, but is definitely not a researcher.

Could also probably get a neuropsych letter for work in the dept clinic, a general therapy letter for work in the department clinic from a former supervisor I got along very well with, or a counseling center letter. All of those seem less useful than the four mentioned above though. For the general adult sites (i.e. not behavioral med) I'm a bit torn whether I should drop letter #2 or letter #3/4 in the event they only allow three letters. I obviously know #2 quite well, but the work is of less immediate relevance for some sites. I like the idea of having letters that cover all the bases with research/teaching/therapy/assessment/supervision though, which I think the present setup achieves for places that allow four letters.

 

[PHD12]

Internship is primarily a clinical year so you really should have at least one letter from someone who supervised you in a clinical setting. I don't think people need letters from their current practicum since you have only been there for 3 months and I think more depth is better. You really want a high quality letter from someone who can comment on your clinical skills, interdisciplinary participation, interpersonal skills, and what you are like as a person to supervise.

For me, # 1 was advisor/department chair (research + clinical supervisor (supervised me on a few cases), someone who knew me for many years in multiple settings), # 2 (VA primary supervisor for 1 year, 1.5 years prior to applying, letter focused on clinical skills, EBT knowledge, interdisciplinary skills and personality too), # 3 medical school director/professor (supervised me for several years on research projects plus supervised 1-2 clinical cases in department clinic).

 

[cara susanna]

I like the idea of having letters that cover all the bases with research/teaching/therapy/assessment/supervision though, which I think the present setup achieves for places that allow four letters.

Yeah, it's a LOT easier if they allow four letters.

 

[WisNeuro]

I reviewed internship apps for a site last year and it was considered a red flag for us.

In 4 times between 2 sites, hasn't come up once in my experience. Plus, people have so many practica experiences these days, it'd be next to impossible to get one from each supervisor. Now, if you did like 2-3 years at one place and didn't have a letter there, it'd be weird, but in general I have not seen this to be a problem.

 

[Terapueta24]

Interesting, thanks for the replies. The dilemma is that I also want to ask my current supervisor for a letter, even though I have only been working there for a couple months. That would be my 3rd. (In addition to possibly my research advisor for those that request it specifically).

The prior year was at my school's clinic, so not necessarily "well-known".

Any other thoughts or suggestions are welcome.

My practicum supervisor last year expected to write a LOR for me even though I had only been there a few months. That site had an internship and she said that they consider it a red flag if you don't use a current supervisor and only use people that you have not worked with for awhile. I used 2 faculty members including my adviser. Both had supervised my research and clinical work and wrote about my experiences and qualifications with both. And then I used my current supervisor, who worked in a similar setting to the one I wanted to work in. I think matching the type of setting is important (e.g. supervisor from a hospital if you want to do internship in a hospital, or VA if that's where you want to be)>

 

[Pragma]

No matter what the site, get one from your faculty research mentor.

Then I recommend your current clinical supervisor and at least one other clinical supervisor.

For research-oriented sites, perhaps you could swap out one clinical letter for another research letter, but it is still a clinical year and you need to show that you are a competent clinical trainee.

In my case, I had a big name clinical supervisor that I also did some research with, so my letters were a good 50/50 blend. I did have 4 writers though, and chose which 3rd clinical supervisor letter to use depending on the site.

 

[CheetahGirl]

No matter what the site, get one from your faculty research mentor.

Now, I'm a little worried....I'm solid in research & publishing (as my CV shows) but my letters are coming from clinical supervisors (two of whom are also clinical faculty at my university). I wasn't planning on getting one from anyone on my diss committee.

Should I get a 4th letter? I could ask, but I had to change research mentors b/c my original POI retired. I wasn't planning on tracking down my original mentor because she's currently traveling the world (must be nice). I haven't worked with my current mentor very long (well, long enough for her to say no more than I'm doing a good job at independent research), but my clinical letters are from people that know me well and have seen me evolve.

Any thoughts?

I suppose it depends on internship sites, but most of my sites are not heavy research sites.

P.S. I'm heavily targeting the VAs in my area (one of which I worked as a clinical researcher before starting my PhD program).

 

[Pragma]

Now, I'm a little worried....I'm solid in research & publishing (as my CV shows) but my letters are coming from clinical supervisors (two of whom are also clinical faculty at my university). I wasn't planning on getting one from anyone on my diss committee.

Should I get a 4th letter? I could ask, but I had to change research mentors b/c my original POI retired. I wasn't planning on tracking down my original mentor because she's currently traveling the world (must be nice). I haven't worked with my current mentor very long (well, long enough for her to say no more than I'm doing a good job at independent research), but my clinical letters are from people that know me well and have seen me evolve.

Any thoughts?

I suppose it depends on internship sites, but most of my sites are not heavy research sites.

P.S. I'm heavily targeting the VAs in my area (one of which I already worked in clinical research at for several years before I started my PhD program).

Personally, I don't think it is advisable not to have one from your mentor (assuming your program has a mentorship model). Plus, it let's them know how awesome you are at your dissertation work (sites like it if you are far along, and it is nice if someone can speak to that).

But, others may feel differently. I don't pesonally know anyone who did not use their mentor for one of their internship letters. Two clinical supervisors is plenty.

 

[Ollie123]

Heh - this thread certainly got me a bit worried too!

I think I'm not going to worry about "rules" and just do what I posted above. Any site that really has a problem with it or flags my application because I have 3/4 strong letters from well known people who I worked with extensively, but didn't include one from <insert asinine rule someone came up with to avoid thinking> is probably not a good training environment for me anyways. Even from what we've seen so far I'm not sure I can come up with any scenario in which I can achieve all the desired characteristics within three letters so something would have to go so I might as well just aim for the "best" letters I can get. I think most of my application will speak for itself so I can't imagine a solid LoR hurting me because they think I should have asked someone else.

 

[cara susanna]

Ollie: My thought exactly. I mean, given that you can only have three-four letters there are bound to be some people you have to leave out.

CheetahGirl, I didn't know you were applying! Best of luck, we SDNers will have a fun time this year I'm sure 😉

 

[PHD12]

Heh - this thread certainly got me a bit worried too!

I think I'm not going to worry about "rules" and just do what I posted above. Any site that really has a problem with it or flags my application because I have 3/4 strong letters from well known people who I worked with extensively, but didn't include one from <insert asinine rule someone came up with to avoid thinking> is probably not a good training environment for me anyways. Even from what we've seen so far I'm not sure I can come up with any scenario in which I can achieve all the desired characteristics within three letters so something would have to go so I might as well just aim for the "best" letters I can get. I think most of my application will speak for itself so I can't imagine a solid LoR hurting me because they think I should have asked someone else.

Yeah, strong letters will absolutely trump everything else.

 

[Pragma]

Yeah, strong letters will absolutely trump everything else.

I disagree. All letters ought to be strong. What matters is who they come from. If they come from really great people that are fairly well known and you've done different kinds of work with them - awesome. As long as they can speak to you as a well-rounded scientist-practitioner, then you should be in good shape. I think about some programs in my area where they work with someone outside of their school for their dissertation. I think they have trouble finding letters from peopel who can speak to their training comprehensively.

But if it were me doing it again, I would definitely want at least 2 people who can speak to my clinical work, and at least one of those two should have some kind of research involvement with me. The third (my bias) should be the person who is primarily responsible for your overall training and can speak about you as an applicant from start to finish of graduate school. Not all programs have that kind of person I guess. Maybe it is the DCT in a PsyD program. For me, it was my faculty mentor.

I will say that I know for a fact that who my letters were from (i.e., how well known the people were to the sites) played a direct role in me getting my internship and postdoc of choice. Maybe the fact that I only looked locally skews my perspective some.

At least for me (as a faculty member and someone who reviewed letters for my internship site in the past), missing letters from obvious people (e.g., current supervisor) or letters that aren't downright amazing are basically a red flag.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I disagree. All letters ought to be strong. What matters is who they come from. If they come from really great people that are fairly well known and you've done different kinds of work with them - awesome. As long as they can speak to you as a well-rounded scientist-practitioner, then you should be in good shape. I think about some programs in my area where they work with someone outside of their school for their dissertation. I think they have trouble finding letters from peopel who can speak to their training comprehensively.

But if it were me doing it again, I would definitely want at least 2 people who can speak to my clinical work, and at least one of those two should have some kind of research involvement with me. The third (my bias) should be the person who is primarily responsible for your overall training and can speak about you as an applicant from start to finish of graduate school. Not all programs have that kind of person I guess. Maybe it is the DCT in a PsyD program. For me, it was my faculty mentor.

I will say that I know for a fact that who my letters were from (i.e., how well known the people were to the sites) played a direct role in me getting my internship and postdoc of choice. Maybe the fact that I only looked locally skews my perspective some.

At least for me (as a faculty member and someone who reviewed letters for my internship site in the past), missing letters from obvious people (e.g., current supervisor) or letters that aren't downright amazing are basically a red flag.

This was actually the exact formula I used--one externship site supervisor who worked with me strictly in a clinical role, another externship supervisor who worked with me both clinically and on research, and then my mentor.

The trouble with the application process is that if you asked a dozen people, you could probably end up hearing a dozen different red flags. I would say that not getting a letter from your mentor/advisor if you're in a mentorship-model program could be a red flag, yes. Not having a single letter speak to either your clinical or research experience/work would also likely be a red flag. Beyond that, I don't know if there are any hard-and-fast "rules," so to speak. Ultimately, just go with folks who know you well, who will write you a strong letter, and who hopefully (between the 3 or 4 of them) can speak to your work in a variety of settings and capacities.

 

[PHD12]

At least for me (as a faculty member and someone who reviewed letters for my internship site in the past), missing letters from obvious people (e.g., current supervisor) or letters that aren't downright amazing are basically a red flag.

The current clinical supervisor thing doesn't make sense in most settings. Most of the practicums that I know of start in September so the current supervisor will have only known you for 1 to 2 months before the applications are due in November. Are you saying that a practicum supervisor that only knows you for 1-2 months will be able to write as strong of a letter as a former supervisor that supervised your clinical cases for 1-2 years? I did not use a current practicum supervisor for this exact reason and neither did most of my class and we all did very well in the match. The fact that this is a red flag is quite silly.

 

[cara susanna]

Is it okay if both supervisors are from your department clinic, provided that you had different roles with each? Like I said, I did a formal practicum at our department clinic and the duties extended beyond providing therapy/assessment as a student clinician. So I was thinking of asking that supervisor, and then a former dept clinic (non-practicum) supervisor who's also worked with me on research. Or should I ask the supervisor from my other formal practicum, even if the work I did there was less relevant to my career goals and I didn't work on research at all with them?

 

[LETSGONYR]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I actually asked five people for recommendation letters last year... my advisor, who has also supervised me clinically and with whom I have several presentations and publications, and two supervisors from each of my previous two practica. I did not ask anyone from my "current" (at the time) practicum, as I felt that they did not know me well enough yet.

I had a few reasons for doing this... (a) I felt close to multiple supervisors at each site, and felt that each could speak highly of my clinical skills and work ethic, (b) I wanted to have enough letters just in case something happened (e.g., a death in the family at the last minute, etc.), (c) if people volunteered to send me their letters, either for help proofreading or just for my own interest, I could pick the ones I thought were the strongest (two people wound up sending me the letters without me asking). Also, I didn't want anyone to feel slighted or offended that I didn't ask them, but this was clearly lower on my list of reasons for asking for so many letters.

Sure, I had more thank you notes to write, but at this point, I'd just ask more people and figure out exactly which letters you want submitted where at a later date. I don't feel as though I gave people more busy work or anything; I strongly considered using all of these letters, and I THINK I used each one at least once.

 

[Ollie123]

The current clinical supervisor thing doesn't make sense in most settings. Most of the practicums that I know of start in September so the current supervisor will have only known you for 1 to 2 months before the applications are due in November. Are you saying that a practicum supervisor that only knows you for 1-2 months will be able to write as strong of a letter as a former supervisor that supervised your clinical cases for 1-2 years? I did not use a current practicum supervisor for this exact reason and neither did most of my class and we all did very well in the match. The fact that this is a red flag is quite silly.

That's my thinking too. Unless the program operates on a different practica cycle or you happen to have a supervisor overlap across years, it seems like it would condemn at least one letter to being either profoundly mediocre or (if the supervisor is nice enough) some utter BS based on their hopes for you. I'm starting a new one in September and based on our communication so far I'm sure I could get a letter, but its hard to give up seeking a letter from someone who could really speak to my abilities in-depth in favor of one that couldn't go far beyond "I don't really know him, but he seems nice,".

 

[CheetahGirl]

CheetahGirl, I didn't know you were applying! Best of luck, we SDNers will have a fun time this year I'm sure 😉

Yes! And if I don't place this cycle, SDN will not hear from me again until I do because I was too cool for school & needed to focus on getting my act together. 😎

Good luck to us!

All letters ought to be strong. What matters is who they come from. If they come from really great people that are fairly well known and you've done different kinds of work with them - awesome. As long as they can speak to you as a well-rounded scientist-practitioner, then you should be in good shape. I think about some programs in my area where they work with someone outside of their school for their dissertation. I think they have trouble finding letters from peopel who can speak to their training comprehensively.

But if it were me doing it again, I would definitely want at least 2 people who can speak to my clinical work, and at least one of those two should have some kind of research involvement with me. The third (my bias) should be the person who is primarily responsible for your overall training and can speak about you as an applicant from start to finish of graduate school. .

Ok. Fair enough.

I'm starting a new one in September and based on our communication so far I'm sure I could get a letter, but its hard to give up seeking a letter from someone who could really speak to my abilities in-depth in favor of one that couldn't go far beyond "I don't really know him, but he seems nice,".

Yes. This is who my current research mentor would be. I haven't published with her (yet) but I did (publish) with my retired *well-know* traveling-the-earth mentor, and I boastfully, foolishly committed to writing up my master's thesis for further publication after I analyze the data some more. 😱 But, I needed to move on to a new mentor & new research, and lost close contact with the retired mentor as a result.

Maybe I'll shoot for a dual letter from my DCT & my research advisor. If they both signed that would be fine, right? I'm sure my research advisor could write the letter. My DCT to attest to the trajectory of dedication & the mentor could attest to my *bright ideas.*

Or (any Doctoral Faculty out there) is that insulting to either one?

 

[Pragma]

The current clinical supervisor thing doesn't make sense in most settings. Most of the practicums that I know of start in September so the current supervisor will have only known you for 1 to 2 months before the applications are due in November. Are you saying that a practicum supervisor that only knows you for 1-2 months will be able to write as strong of a letter as a former supervisor that supervised your clinical cases for 1-2 years? I did not use a current practicum supervisor for this exact reason and neither did most of my class and we all did very well in the match. The fact that this is a red flag is quite silly.

If not current, then the most recent substantial experience. If you just started your position, then someone who supervised you all of last year. Obviously some of this has to be individualized, but if you are applying for internship have have your year 1 and year 2 practicum advisors writing you letters...that is a problem. Who can speak to what you are doing now? Any employer wants to know that, and in my experience, internship directors aren't much different than your typical employer.

 

[InNae]

@CheetahGirl: I don't know how many writers would want to "share" a single letter. If some of the experiences/impressions in the letter are specific to the one writer, the other might not feel comfortable signing, having not had that experience with the applicant himself or herself. If the experiences/impressions are the same, then there's no need for two writers.

My letters (research-oriented doc program and research-oriented internship) were from (1) my advisor, (2) my supervisor from the clinic where I completed two separate practica and supervised younger students, (3) my supervisor from the community whose primary theoretical orientation was different from mine, which I think probably made for a strong letter as he probably spoke to my openness and willingness to discuss commonalities/differences in process.

I also got kind of a freebie 4th "letter" from my DCT, who had a tendency to add some additional narrative to the statement of readiness to apply. Not sure that's still possible given changes in AAPI format over the years.

Fundamentally, the sites want to know that you have the basic skills, attitude, and professionalism (including willingness to take feedback), and, if a research-oriented site, that you will help their mission of research productivity in addition to clinical training. Choose the people who can best speak to that.

 

[CheetahGirl]

@CheetahGirl: I don’t know how many writers would want to “share” a single letter. If some of the experiences/impressions in the letter are specific to the one writer, the other might not feel comfortable signing, having not had that experience with the applicant himself or herself. If the experiences/impressions are the same, then there’s no need for two writers.

Fundamentally, the sites want to know that you have the basic skills, attitude, and professionalism (including willingness to take feedback), and, if a research-oriented site, that you will help their mission of research productivity in addition to clinical training. Choose the people who can best speak to that.

Thank you, InNae. I'm glad I asked and happy that you answered. 🙂

I will heed all of this advice and ask the appropriate folks.