Letters of Recommendation: How valued are they, really?

[da8s0859q]

Not that there's one surefire answer on this, but I'm curious as to what recent opinion on SDN is regarding such things. (There's this thread, but it's a bit dated.)

I remember reading one gentleman say on here, "My adcom hardly looks at LoRs because they're always good anyway." Made me wonder how common such a sentiment is... or whether LoRs are still a very important part of the "dance."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[EpiPEN]

some of my interviewers recognized the names of people who wrote my LOR. So my vote is that it's actually pretty important to get good ones, if not content, then at least get guys with big names to write them.

 

[Isoprop]

i think someone on sdn said that 10% of applicants have exemplary lors and 10% have bad ones. the rest all sound the same. as long as you're not at the bottom 10, you're fine.

 

[brianmartin]

They're important, part of the total package and all. You don't want ANY negative letters and ideally should have at least one that is "great". I think having multiple good letters is a definite bonus to any application, no matter what your metrics. Think about the people with high GPA/MCAT getting rejected...it's because of things like generic letters.

I've heard an admissions director say the FIRST place they look is letters, before anything else, because they trust that first impression they get from reading about you through another's perspective.

 

[mdgator]

I've given this question some thought as well. I have no idea how important they are. I think I had about 4 very typical letters, (positive, but not outstanding), and maybe one really good one. But I think many applicants have at least one really good letter. I don't think my letters hurt me, but I'd be surprised if they helped me much. Maybe they think that people who are complete jackasses will have trouble getting good letters.

 

[flip26]

The bad letters can undoubtedly kill your app, but I doubt if LORs are the determining factor for many applicants, thumbs up or down.

Some schools evidently don't even look at or request LORs until after they have issued an invitation to interview, and furthermore some don't look at the letters until after you interview. Not sure how prevalent this is, but I have seen this reported on SDN.

 

[BigJuicyWart]

A really good friend of mine is on our school's admission committee. According to him, something like ~90% of letters are nearly identical (aka Joe Smith is amazing, best student I've ever had, would make a great physician etc.) Once in a while, a truly exemplary letter or a terrible letter will pop up.

Don't really know much more than that - he mentioned this to me a few months back.

 

[SageFrancis]

One of my interviewers was friends with one of my letter writers during their undergrad. I doubt that influenced anything though. He kind of just said "what a small world!" and went right along with the interview.

But I did end up with an acceptance.

 

[notdeadyet]

some of my interviewers recognized the names of people who wrote my LOR. So my vote is that it's actually pretty important to get good ones, if not content, then at least get guys with big names to write them.

Meh.... Seeing a name you recognize on an LOR is sort of a "huh", not an "oh my god". It doesn't really have any impact to see a recommendation from a name you recognize, unless it's a great recommendation. Then, the fact it's from someone you recognize doesn't matter so much as the fact that it's a good one.

Isoprop is right. LORs are largely something that you want good ones so that you don't stand out in a bad way. Fantastic LORs from professors who obviously have worked with you for years in a close capacity and can honestly and sincerely say you'll make a great physician is a nice thing to have in your app. Anything less (which is almost all that you see) is just a checkbox. If you only have lukewarm ones from professors that don't know you, this is a red flag.

Overall, if you had the ability to swap fantastic LORs for good LORs in exchange for a 30 to a 32 MCAT, you'd be smart to do it.

 

[EpiPEN]

Meh.... Seeing a name you recognize on an LOR is sort of a "huh", not an "oh my god". It doesn't really have any impact to see a recommendation from a name you recognize, unless it's a great recommendation. Then, the fact it's from someone you recognize doesn't matter so much as the fact that it's a good one.
.

Well I suppose that's true that the chances a fantastic LOR will dramatically affect your admissions is not very high. But then again, that, along with anything else we say, is just speculation since interviewers are different. For me I thought it was worth the off chance that someone might weight more on a LOR from someone famous in the medicine community than some community college professor that taught me in high school. And while I don't know what the exact effects were from that, I do know that I got in the schools where the interviewers recognized my LOR. (But I guess it can also easily be argued that it's just chance afterall schools where interviewers didn't know who wrote my LORs still accepted me)

But the bottom line is, I think if it might have even a small chance of increasing your chances, from the premed perspective, I say it's worth it. It's not like you have to wipe the guy's butt to get a good LOR, you just have to be hard working.

*EDIT*

Plus, I mean we all have "good" LORs. But what does it mean to have an EXCELLENT LOR? I just think if i was sitting in admissions looking at two pepole with fairly similar academic backgrounds, if one guy had a pretty generic "good" LOR while the other one had a steller one, I might be leaning for the second student. Since, afterall, I'm sure A LOT of pre-meds have VERY SIMILAR stats and accomplishments.

 

[45408]

But what does it mean to have an EXCELLENT LOR?

When the writer was best friends with the school dean in college, and the letter starts out "Hey Bob....blah blah blah I personally guarantee that this is an excellent student."

 

[LizzyM]

When the writer was best friends with the school dean in college, and the letter starts out "Hey Bob....blah blah blah I personally guarantee that this is an excellent student."

Only if it is signed,
Your pal,
Governor Crist

 

[brains]

Wait, I thought we weren't supposed to read our LOR's. I was under the impression that we receive them back in a sealed envelope and then we just hand it straight over to admissions??

 

[da8s0859q]

Wait, I thought we weren't supposed to read our LOR's. I was under the impression that we receive them back in a sealed envelope and then we just hand it straight over to admissions??

We're not supposed to read them, you're right. The evaluators are to send the letters directly to the TMDSAS.

Assuming someone gets a "wow, jenny83 is absolutely amazing, here's why" letter, I was just wondering as to the impact of that letter.

 

[LizzyM]

We're not supposed to read them, you're right. The evaluators are to send the letters directly to the TMDSAS.

Assuming someone gets a "wow, jenny83 is absolutely amazing, here's why" letter, I was just wondering as to the impact of that letter.

The letters that are most helpful are those that "rule out". We don't see many negative letters but they are weighed very heavily and can be a deal breaker.

The "walks on water" letters are less influential but can be reassuring that there are no "red flags".

 

[Chemist0157]

LORs don't typically make an applicant stand out since LORs are often about the same. BUT...there is a chance an adcom maybe knows one of the writers, and that could definitely be of benefit.

 

[brianmartin]

The "walks on water" letters are less influential but can be reassuring that there are no "red flags".

I don't understand this. Why shouldn't a very good letter weigh just as much as a very bad one?

I can see a situation where an applicant may have lower metrics or is lacking in some area of the application, but who has some great letters. It seems to me like those should count for something, because anybody can check boxes and have all the "required" research/clinical experience/metrics. As a physician the main thing that will count is how you interact with people, right?

I think it comes down to this: they read all the letters because they HAVE to catch the bad ones, and WANT to catch the great ones.

 

[LizzyM]

I don't understand this. Why shouldn't a very good letter weigh just as much as a very bad one?

I see that most letters are good and so negative letters are a huge red flag. But why aren't great letters a huge green flag?

And by great, I mean a unique positive perspective on the applicant, not the typical "best student ever."

For example, I have a letter written by a former boss from a completely non-medical field. The letter is wordy and she cannot write at the college level...but it absolutely reflects my personality and is easily my best letter because it so non-contrived. Shouldn't this count big time?

For the most part, the letters are used to choose applicants for interview (at least at my school they are). Often, if a file is reviewed before the letters arrived, the decision will be "interview, unless the letters are bad". So, for the most part, it is just a bad letter that rules you out for interview, a good letter just affirms the conclusion drawn by the adcom that you are a good candidate for interview.

Generally, a good letter can't redeem a poor application, except in some extreme cases where a LOR from a pre-med committee may explain an extraordinary situation such as an exceptionally bad semester/year due to catastrophic circumstances described/confirmed by the pre-med committee.

Most of what decides interview or not is academic performance (including MCAT, course load, course content, etc), written materials, & clinical, research, altruistic and leadership experiences, plus other interests that go to "well-roundedness". If those aren't great, it is unlikely that anything in a LOR is going to tip the balance into "interview" territory. Of course, if they are all good and the letter is bad, the balance is certainly tipped the other way.

From what I can tell, the MD/PhD programs put more weight on letters from research mentors and in those cases a good letter is gold.

 

[brianmartin]

Most of what decides interview or not is academic performance (including MCAT, course load, course content, etc), written materials, & clinical, research, altruistic and leadership experiences, plus other interests that go to "well-roundedness". If those aren't great, it is unlikely that anything in a LOR is going to tip the balance into "interview" territory.

I see. But once the interviews are over, doesn't it seem reasonable to go to the letters as a tie-breaker? I've heard it said many times over that everyone who gets an interview is considered qualified to handle med school. Then how do you choose? It would seem letters might play a role here. All the people with bad letters are weeded out. Now you are left with either generic good letters or unique good letters. It seems like adcoms would go for people with the "stand out" letters. I find it hard to believe every interviewed applicant has equally strong letters.

 

[EpiPEN]

For the most part, the letters are used to choose applicants for interview (at least at my school they are). Often, if a file is reviewed before the letters arrived, the decision will be "interview, unless the letters are bad". So, for the most part, it is just a bad letter that rules you out for interview, a good letter just affirms the conclusion drawn by the adcom that you are a good candidate for interview. ...

Hm... never knew that's how things are run. Good to know!

 

[gplex86]

Meh.... Seeing a name you recognize on an LOR is sort of a "huh", not an "oh my god". It doesn't really have any impact to see a recommendation from a name you recognize, unless it's a great recommendation. Then, the fact it's from someone you recognize doesn't matter so much as the fact that it's a good one.

Isoprop is right. LORs are largely something that you want good ones so that you don't stand out in a bad way. Fantastic LORs from professors who obviously have worked with you for years in a close capacity and can honestly and sincerely say you'll make a great physician is a nice thing to have in your app. Anything less (which is almost all that you see) is just a checkbox. If you only have lukewarm ones from professors that don't know you, this is a red flag.

Overall, if you had the ability to swap fantastic LORs for good LORs in exchange for a 30 to a 32 MCAT, you'd be smart to do it.

Schmuck, both are good scores, and both are a dime-a-dozen. Can't say that about fantastic LOR's. They can make you stand out, which VERY FEW MCAT scores ever will.

EDIT:

And when I say fantastic LOR, I mean one that goes on for a few pages about my research, dedication, and shining personality. Much more believable than just my word on the AMCAS.

 

[BluePhoenix]

I wouldn't have a "big name" write you a recommendation unless you knew the person and actually had a relatively good relationship with him. I know my advisor used to tell us about some big name at one of the Ivy's and EVERYONE wanted a letter of rec from him thinking "oh, it'd be AWESOME to have a letter of rec from so and so". Only, the guy got so many requests that he pretty much sent out the same letter for everyone and none were all that spectacular. And if you come from a big school with lots of premeds...I imagine the adcoms would start to recognize the same basic letter from the same guy. It might not hurt you, but a very strong letter from someone else might help more.

 

[LizzyM]

I see. But once the interviews are over, doesn't it seem reasonable to go to the letters as a tie-breaker?

I've been in on hundreds of post-interview decisions and I've never seen it come down to the letters. Generally, one is looking at academics (MCAT, gpa, reputation for rigor of the undergrad institution), giving a score and then raising or lowering the score based on interviews such that someone with lower stats who interviewed very, very well in a closed file can come out ahead of someone with excellent stats who didn't interview well. Of course, the good stats/good interview comes out top every time. I've never seen letters as a tie-breaker.

 

[notdeadyet]

Schmuck, both are good scores, and both are a dime-a-dozen.

Read what I wrote. Though 30 and 32 are both common scores, a 32 instead of a 30 would be much more favorable to having fantastic as opposed to great LORs.

Can't say that about fantastic LOR's. They can make you stand out, which VERY FEW MCAT scores ever will.

What are you basing this opinion on, out of curiosity? Have you gone through many med school applications during the interview process?

Some applicants have ho-hum LORs. Most folks have great LORs. A few have what I'd call fantastic LORs.

Ho-hum LORs are a red flag. It means either the candidate didn't bother to get to know (and be known) by his professors, didn't really care, or has such a bland personality he made no impact.

Great letters earn a tick in the mental checkbox of things you want to see in a matriculant.

Fantastic letters earn a tick and a nod. That's it. No one ever reads an LOR and says, "Wow! We need this guy!". As LizzyM says, it doesn't ever get to the point that anyone says, "well, what do his LORs say?"

Sorry if this bothers you, but it's just the way it is.

 

[gplex86]

Read what I wrote. Though 30 and 32 are both common scores, a 32 instead of a 30 would be much more favorable to having fantastic as opposed to great LORs.

What are you basing this opinion on, out of curiosity? Have you gone through many med school applications during the interview process?

Some applicants have ho-hum LORs. Most folks have great LORs. A few have what I'd call fantastic LORs.

Ho-hum LORs are a red flag. It means either the candidate didn't bother to get to know (and be known) by his professors, didn't really care, or has such a bland personality he made no impact.

Great letters earn a tick in the mental checkbox of things you want to see in a matriculant.

Fantastic letters earn a tick and a nod. That's it. No one ever reads an LOR and says, "Wow! We need this guy!". As LizzyM says, it doesn't ever get to the point that anyone says, "well, what do his LORs say?"

Sorry if this bothers you, but it's just the way it is.

I'm basing it off of my experience. I submitted my AMCAS on December 1 (a killer, right?) with a 3.4 GPA and a 30 MCAT. I got interviews at 6 out-of-state schools including Yale (deadline extension) and GW. My EC's were outrageous and backed by 5 LOR's.

Both my faculty interviewers at Yale (including Dr. Dillard, one of the most senior guys there) didn't even let me begin speaking for at least five minutes. They went on and on about the "remarkable" letters I had. The word "tremendous" came up at least once.

I'm not trying to brag - ultimately, I did not get into Yale. But I know that my letters, EC's, and personal statement (I'm a writer) must have made a huge impression on my interviewers and on the committee to at least get my foot in the door. I should have been dead in the water with those stats and such a late submission. Hell, most of my secondaries didn't get in until Dec 15 or later. But I likely stood out. So from my experience, I don't put a huge premium on "a little more MCAT" or "a little higher GPA." None of those would have made me stand out. I concede, perhaps I'm just a special case.

 

[Wylde]

When the writer was best friends with the school dean in college, and the letter starts out "Hey Bob....blah blah blah I personally guarantee that this is an excellent student."

haha, i seriously laughed out loud that would be an AWESOME lor!

 

[Schemp]

I don't mean to hijack this thread by any means, but as someone who was out of school for several years and just came back a year ago to a CC, is there any value whatsoever in a CC instructor's LOR?

In this case it is a teacher who has asked to have a 12 page paper I wrote put into her portfolio (she is not yet tenured, but probably will be by the time I am applying), has stated that she expects 100% from me on her exams, and after two quarters I just have a good relationship with her overall. She's a very difficult teacher who expects a lot from students, but I have a feeling the stigma of CC will cause any good she might have to say to be negated and ultimately useless.

Does anyone have any insight on this? I of course expect to get more over the next year when I transfer to a University, but that will be my only year before I start turning in applications. I'm also beginning volunteering this summer, so hopefully I'll have at least one from a physician.

 

[87138]

I don't mean to hijack this thread by any means, but as someone who was out of school for several years and just came back a year ago to a CC, is there any value whatsoever in a CC instructor's LOR?

In this case it is a teacher who has asked to have a 12 page paper I wrote put into her portfolio (she is not yet tenured, but probably will be by the time I am applying), has stated that she expects 100% from me on her exams, and after two quarters I just have a good relationship with her overall. She's a very difficult teacher who expects a lot from students, but I have a feeling the stigma of CC will cause any good she might have to say to be negated and ultimately useless.

Does anyone have any insight on this? I of course expect to get more over the next year when I transfer to a University, but that will be my only year before I start turning in applications. I'm also beginning volunteering this summer, so hopefully I'll have at least one from a physician.

I would absolutely include that LOR. If they're a science prof, all the better, but even if she's not, definitely.

Let's face it, the schools you apply to know that you took courses at a CC. You're obviously not trying to "hide" this, nor should you. An excellent LOR by a CC professor is probably much better than a mediocre LOR from Professor BigWig at Elite University.

 

[brianmartin]

I've been in on hundreds of post-interview decisions and I've never seen it come down to the letters....Of course, the good stats/good interview comes out top every time. I've never seen letters as a tie-breaker.

This about seals the deal on the original question. If I am understanding this correctly, letters sit somewhere just behind interview performance and metrics. Unless of course LizzyM's school does things that particular way, and others look at letters more. May I ask what is the average applicant age and metrics at your school?

 

[Schemp]

I would absolutely include that LOR. If they're a science prof, all the better, but even if she's not, definitely.

Let's face it, the schools you apply to know that you took courses at a CC. You're obviously not trying to "hide" this, nor should you. An excellent LOR by a CC professor is probably much better than a mediocre LOR from Professor BigWig at Elite University.

Thanks rogerwilco, that's really great to hear. I was worried that I might have to pretty much start from scratch and build up all those references I would need in just one year.

Just one more question if you or anyone else doesn't mind--do I need to wait until I'm actually turning in applications to ask for these letters to be done? It seems like after not having taken a course with this teacher nor even going to her school for a year it would be hard to ask for a LOR, and even harder for her to write a genuine one. How is this handled?

 

[thebeatblitz]

Letters can only hurt you, unless they're truly exceptional (<10%). A lukewarm pre-med committee letter is like a shot in the gut to your app.