Letter of Rec Question. Please help I'd like to make a decision soon!

[seadogoverseas]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm currently a freshman at Harvard debating who I will be doing research with the next four years, and I was wondering as far as the letter of rec goes, does it matter the title of the person who writes it? I'm debating between working with a nobel prize laureate and a new medical scientist who is at the instructor level. The second's research is a lot more interesting, which is why I contacted her, but on top of that I think she's willing to take students with her into the clinic. The nobel laureate does not have a clinical aspect. Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I'd like to start up in lab soon.

Thanks in advance.

 

[StIGMA]

Don't work with non-tenure track professors. At most institutions, 'Instructor' is a non-tenure track title. I would pick the nobel laureate hands down- you will be a better scientist for it. You can always change labs later (with experience, to a project you enjoy more) and still get a letter from him.

 

[Neuronix]

It's not the letter of rec that's the issue here IMO. At Harvard, instructor, i.e. non-tenure track, typically means that faculty is not going to be around very long. You want to set yourself up for a lasting relationship. It won't always work out that way, but you should set it up that way.

 

[miz]

Not having a clinical aspect to your research doesn't hurt your application if you have clinical volunteering, in my experience. They seem to worry less about losing you to clinical research or private practice. Does the Nobel laureate seem like a decent mentor or that he'd set you up with someone who would be a decent mentor? (eg: evaluate the person you would work with from day to day, because that person can define whether or not you have a positive, hands-on experience).
I would highly highly recommend a basic research lab that has plenty of of students> working one on one with a clinician. The basic research lab will have more than enough work for you if the mentor is good; clinical research will likely stall every time the clinician gets busy unless you're working for a non-clinician researcher under her.

 

[StoicJosher]

It's not the letter of rec that's the issue here IMO. At Harvard, instructor, i.e. non-tenure track, typically means that faculty is not going to be around very long. You want to set yourself up for a lasting relationship. It won't always work out that way, but you should set it up that way.

I have no knowledge on that but if that is the case, I would say you are better off with the nobel laureate.

But looking at it purely from the letter of reccommendation POV, I would say go with the newly starting medical scientist if you are planning on doing all 4 years of your research with the same person. You have a much better chance of getting a glowing personal letter (given you impress the person) from someone you worked one-on-one with than with someone who spends most of their time not being around. Also, someone like the latter would've seen lots of people and it might be harder to impress the person. I feel like the nobel laureate would be someone who would write a cookie-cutter LOR (I'm sure that's not the case with everyone - but still).

The clinical/basic sciences aspect of their research shouldn't matter to your application.

 

[Neuronix]

The clinical/basic sciences aspect of their research shouldn't matter to your application.

It is important that the MSTP applicant have mostly/entirely basic science research experience if they are applying for a basic science PhD program (likely >90% of applicants).

 

[justgo]

I think sometimes a cookie cutter picture gets to thoroughly promulgated on SDN. You can do what you want as long as you are willing to go toe-to-toe with rational strong realistic arguments about why you have done what you have done and why you will cream everyone in the future as a result of you unique experiences. Having some eyebrow raisers on my application has not hurt my application season at all....

I'm sure that at Harvard you can find a happy medium between these two extremes....and they are I think the extremes and neither is the best case scenario for a undergraduate lab. Also....why do you have such faith that you will stay there for 4 years? No desire to see what else is out there? Maybe set yourself a project of a couple years with the prof you like and then plan to move to something else. You need to have enough experience to actually know who you are when you graduate too. Best.

 

[StoicJosher]

It is important that the MSTP applicant have mostly/entirely basic science research experience if they are applying for a basic science PhD program (likely >90% of applicants).

I think sometimes a cookie cutter picture gets to thoroughly promulgated on SDN. You can do what you want as long as you are willing to go toe-to-toe with rational strong realistic arguments about why you have done what you have done and why you will cream everyone in the future as a result of you unique experiences. Having some eyebrow raisers on my application has not hurt my application season at all....

That was my line of thinking. As long as you can stand behind you research (clinical or basic science) and rationally explain what you did, why you did it, what else you could've done etc, it shouldn't matter. That is the same vibe I got from most (>90%) of my interviewees. One guy flat out told me that he could train a monkey to do an ELISA - it was the thought process and the ability to scientifically reason that was necessary for the MSTP (or any PhD). Or maybe I am just biased because my research experience has been less basic science and more field application studies and basic micro and molecular biology. 🙂