LOR from PI necessary for top schools?

[TheBiologist]

So I will have about a year of research in a lab at the time of my application. I am debating whether or not I should ask my PI for a letter, though.

I know many schools would want to see one from him, but the thing is, I spent most of my time with other members of the lab. I met with him every once and awhile to discuss my progress, the project, and answer any questions I had, but I feel like I have professors that know me well that could write me much better letters than him

so what's your take? get one anyway?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gizmoo]

You should get one from him. I would offer to write a draft for him that he can edit / finalize (can include talking to other members of the lab who know you better and including comments from them).


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[WedgeDawg]

get your direct superior to write the letter and have your PI sign it and submit it

 

[mimelim]

If research is a selling point of your application, people are going to look for a letter from your PI. Not mandatory, but certainly a negative to not have.

It is not atypical for undergrad researchers to have less contact with the PI compared to others in the lab. This is why ghost writing is not that uncommon.

 

[Lawpy]

If research is a selling point of your application, people are going to look for a letter from your PI. Not mandatory, but certainly a negative to not have.

It is not atypical for undergrad researchers to have less contact with the PI compared to others in the lab. This is why ghost writing is not that uncommon.

so similarly, if volunteering is a selling point in the application, is not having a letter from the supervising volunteering coordinator a negative?

 

[mimelim]

so similarly, if volunteering is a selling point in the application, is not having a letter from the supervising volunteering coordinator a negative?

In my limited experience, it isn't looked for as much. Obviously helpful, but doesn't seem to be 'missing' when it isn't there.

 

[efle]

Not having that letter probably hurts more than having a generic or co-signed one. At least imo, getting your work published can involve a lot of luck in timing and what results you happen to get. If you're applying with just a couple posters/presentations you really want a letter, even a forgettable one, saying you were good to have in the lab

 

[aldol16]

For the top schools, you will want a PI letter. If research is one of your most significant activities on AMCAS, you definitely want that PI letter. If you're applying MD/PhD, then you absolutely need PI letter.

Most undergrads have limited access to PIs on a day-to-day basis. PIs have various grant proposals to edit (since us grad students and post-docs draft them anyway), consulting gigs to work on, and talks to give. As I've always said, a PI position in academia is the best job in the world to have. You get cronies (grad students) to do your work, pay them next to nothing, and you get to travel a lot. But I digress. Most of the time, if a PI agrees to write you a strong letter, then he/she will think he/she knows enough about you to write it. If not, the PI will usually talk to the graduate student/post-doc the undergrad worked for. In some instances, the PI will ask the graduate student/post-doc to write it and the PI will sign it. More likely than not, the PI will also ask for your CV as well to get an idea of who you are.

 

[Lawpy]

In my limited experience, it isn't looked for as much. Obviously helpful, but doesn't seem to be 'missing' when it isn't there.

Those LORs related directly to academics, such as from course instructors and research supervisors, typically matter a magnitude or two more than letters from volunteer supervisors and alike.

sorry a bit confused, so need some quick clarification. if research is not listed as most meaningful experience, not having a PI LOR is okay? assuming that the applicant isn't applying to research powerhouses or MD/PhD programs.

but if research is listed as most meaningful, having a PI LOR matters? whereas having a LOR from other most meaningful activities doesn't matter?

it looks like research is held in a comparable standard to academics, so hence a greater weight is applied to getting that PI LOR

 

[Ampharos]

Just my opinion, but I strong believe in having a PI letter. Many of the "highly ranked" schools are research driven and I would be inclined to say that comments on your research abilities (even if co-signed by a grad student) are strongly considered.

 

[WedgeDawg]

sorry a bit confused, so need some quick clarification. if research is not listed as most meaningful experience, not having a PI LOR is okay? assuming that the applicant isn't applying to research powerhouses or MD/PhD programs.

but if research is listed as most meaningful, having a PI LOR matters? whereas having a LOR from other most meaningful activities doesn't matter?

it looks like research is held in a comparable standard to academics, so hence a greater weight is applied to getting that PI LOR

If you do any research at all (to the point where you decide to include it on AMCAS), you should probably have at least one research LOR.

Some people (hi) listed a shadowing experience as a most meaningful experience, but as we know, shadowing letters mean zip to 99% of MD schools, so (informed) applicants aren't going to be getting a shadowing letter even if they marked shadowing as most meaningful.

If you're making another experience as most meaningful, presumably you had a good experience there and were liked or at least tolerated by your superiors. In that case, why would you not get a letter from them? It would likely be a strong letter.

What @mimelim is saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that regardless of whether it's most meaningful or not, if you do research and don't have a PI letter, it'll look strange because it's expected and medicine is a research-driven field. Not having a letter from a research mentor gives off certain connotations about either the applicant's real experience in the lab or the ability to work properly in a research environment. However, if you do other things and don't have a boss/supervisor letter, it'll look less strange because it's not something that is expected as much.

 

[TheBiologist]

If you do any research at all (to the point where you decide to include it on AMCAS), you should probably have at least one research LOR.

Some people (hi) listed a shadowing experience as a most meaningful experience, but as we know, shadowing letters mean zip to 99% of MD schools, so (informed) applicants aren't going to be getting a shadowing letter even if they marked shadowing as most meaningful.

If you're making another experience as most meaningful, presumably you had a good experience there and were liked or at least tolerated by your superiors. In that case, why would you not get a letter from them? It would likely be a strong letter.

What @mimelim is saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that regardless of whether it's most meaningful or not, if you do research and don't have a PI letter, it'll look strange because it's expected and medicine is a research-driven field. Not having a letter from a research mentor gives off certain connotations about either the applicant's real experience in the lab or the ability to work properly in a research environment. However, if you do other things and don't have a boss/supervisor letter, it'll look less strange because it's not something that is expected as much.

thank you for the input

let me ask something - based off these answers, it seems as if on the AMCAS you "rank" your EC's by importance? didn't know this

 

[WedgeDawg]

thank you for the input

let me ask something - based off these answers, it seems as if on the AMCAS you "rank" your EC's by importance? didn't know this

Nope, just have to pick 3 and designate them as "most meaningful". That's it

 

[mimelim]

If you do any research at all (to the point where you decide to include it on AMCAS), you should probably have at least one research LOR.

Some people (hi) listed a shadowing experience as a most meaningful experience, but as we know, shadowing letters mean zip to 99% of MD schools, so (informed) applicants aren't going to be getting a shadowing letter even if they marked shadowing as most meaningful.

If you're making another experience as most meaningful, presumably you had a good experience there and were liked or at least tolerated by your superiors. In that case, why would you not get a letter from them? It would likely be a strong letter.

What @mimelim is saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that regardless of whether it's most meaningful or not, if you do research and don't have a PI letter, it'll look strange because it's expected and medicine is a research-driven field. Not having a letter from a research mentor gives off certain connotations about either the applicant's real experience in the lab or the ability to work properly in a research environment. However, if you do other things and don't have a boss/supervisor letter, it'll look less strange because it's not something that is expected as much.

What he said I said.

 

[Lawpy]

If you do any research at all (to the point where you decide to include it on AMCAS), you should probably have at least one research LOR.

Some people (hi) listed a shadowing experience as a most meaningful experience, but as we know, shadowing letters mean zip to 99% of MD schools, so (informed) applicants aren't going to be getting a shadowing letter even if they marked shadowing as most meaningful.

If you're making another experience as most meaningful, presumably you had a good experience there and were liked or at least tolerated by your superiors. In that case, why would you not get a letter from them? It would likely be a strong letter.

What @mimelim is saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that regardless of whether it's most meaningful or not, if you do research and don't have a PI letter, it'll look strange because it's expected and medicine is a research-driven field. Not having a letter from a research mentor gives off certain connotations about either the applicant's real experience in the lab or the ability to work properly in a research environment. However, if you do other things and don't have a boss/supervisor letter, it'll look less strange because it's not something that is expected as much.

What he said I said.

does this apply for every research experience or the most extensive one? is a letter from every PI worked with strongly recommended (including summer research programs)?

is a letter still recommended even in the tragic cases of sour relationship with PI?

i ask all these to assess whether a research letter is truly needed for medical schools even if the research experience otherwise was meaningful in its own right.

 

[mimelim]

does this apply for every research experience or the most extensive one? is a letter from every PI worked with strongly recommended (including summer research programs)?

is a letter still recommended even in the tragic cases of sour relationship with PI?

i ask all these to assess whether a research letter is truly needed for medical schools even if the research experience otherwise was meaningful in its own right.

You do not need a letter from every PI that you have worked with. It all comes down to your application as a whole. If over 3 years you spent time in 4 different labs, but only one of them was 3+ months, then it would be standard to have a letter from that one PI. It would be incredibly odd to lets say spend a year in one lab and only have a letter from a different lab with <6 months time spent, especially if the year long stint was more recent. Again, none of this is 'mandatory'. But, there is a certain expectation when it comes to LOR and PIs. Many adcom members won't even notice it's absence. On the other hand, if it rubs 10% of people reading your application the wrong way, probably best to avoid it.

 

[Lawpy]

You do not need a letter from every PI that you have worked with. It all comes down to your application as a whole. If over 3 years you spent time in 4 different labs, but only one of them was 3+ months, then it would be standard to have a letter from that one PI. It would be incredibly odd to lets say spend a year in one lab and only have a letter from a different lab with <6 months time spent, especially if the year long stint was more recent. Again, none of this is 'mandatory'. But, there is a certain expectation when it comes to LOR and PIs. Many adcom members won't even notice it's absence. On the other hand, if it rubs 10% of people reading your application the wrong way, probably best to avoid it.

ok thanks! i was confused about the unique importance of research letters especially since it's commonly stated here that research is of moderate importance compared to clinical experience. so you would expect adcoms to recommend a clinical supervisor LOR as opposed to a research PI LOR but that isn't the case, since clinical LORs are viewed as fluff while research LORs have some substantial personal weight to it.

 

[WedgeDawg]

ok thanks! i was confused about the unique importance of research letters especially since it's commonly stated here that research is of moderate importance compared to clinical experience. so you would expect adcoms to recommend a clinical supervisor LOR as opposed to a research PI LOR but that isn't the case, since clinical LORs are viewed as fluff while research LORs have some substantial personal weight to it.

Clinical experience for the purposes of med school application is mostly for your own benefit. It's an internal vs external thing. You are figuring out if you want to be around patients for your professional life and you are seeing if you have some degree of altruism or sense of greater purpose to keep you going when the going gets tough. Most clinical positions the average undergrad can get will not really tax your abilities to the point where a letter of recommendation will add meaningful value to your application. With respect to research, your PI has the means to comment on intellectual curiosity, grasp of the scientific process, writing and analytical skills, presentation skills, ability to get things done, and general likeability in a team environment. These all have significant bearing on your application and future as a professional.

 

[Neuroplasticity]

For other readers who searched for anecdotal evidence of this like I did about a year ago, I have had interviews at top 20 schools without a PI letter so it can be done, however the focus of my application was not research.

 

[Reader88]

I just found this thread and it's really helpful, thank you! I am planning on applying to a few top schools with admittedly weak research experience, though I am considering making my research experience a most meaningful activity. However, I doubt I will be able to get a PI letter as ever since my summer research experience ended, myself and the other research interns have had absolutely zero luck getting in contact with the PI's of our program, despite the fact that they said they would be happy to stay in touch. In fact, I found out by sheer coincidence that they presented our research as a poster at a big conference. They included our names on it but never even let us know they were presenting. So, while I will ask for a letter, I doubt I will hear back. Should I still list it as a most meaningful experience?