Should I have my lab professor or should I have my PI write my letter of rec?

[chelsearose174]

My dream is to run a clinical trial as a physician, so I would like to go to a school that has a great research program like Johns Hopkins or Rochester. Would they care more about writers title or the quality of the letter?

I've developed a strong connection with my lab professor. I'm confident she would write me a spectacular letter, but I know having my lab PI would look better just because of his title. He would also write me a good letter because his letter would depend on feedback from my lab professor. So should I have my lab professor write me a letter of rec, or should I have my PI write my letter? Or should I just cover my bases and have both?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ismet]

If both would be strong letters, go for both. Unless you have a multitude of other strong letters.

 

[aldol16]

Why would your PI's letter depend on feedback from your lab professor?

 

[PreMedStudent55555]

Who knows you better and can attest better to your abilities? In other words who do you have the better relationship with? Answer that question and you'll have your answer.

 

[chelsearose174]

Why would your PI's letter depend on feedback from your lab professor?

Undergraduates don't have much one on one time with the PI, so when he does agree to write a letter he asks about their performances from who they were working under.

 

[gamieg]

both. I don't see why you would want to choose one.

 

[aldol16]

Undergraduates don't have much one on one time with the PI, so when he does agree to write a letter he asks about their performances from who they were working under.

Yes, so the PI asks people like me - graduate students or post-docs who directly supervise the student - to write the letter or provide substantial input. The PI does not solicit feedback from some lab professor who has taught the student in some class. That's what you made it sound like to begin with...

In any case, if you're talking about asking the person you're directly working for in lab (grad student or post-doc), it's better to go to the PI first. If the PI wants their input, then he or she will ask them directly.

 

[deleted781806]

It sounds like your lab professor was more of a classroom setting, while your PI was in a self-directed research setting. So, they would count under two different classifications of letters, the former being a Science-Prof and the latter being more of a personal letter. If that is the case, have both of them write you a letter if you believe they would be strong recommendations.

If your "lab professor" is your direct supervisor in the research lab, who also reports to your PI, then I would probably have your PI write the letter of recommendation as the status/title of the letter writer does get taken into account sometimes. While I worked closely with a post-doc in our lab for the past couple of years, my PI (full professor) wrote my LOR with some input from the post-doc, as his office/title carries a little more weight with it. At least that was their opinion and rationalization why my PI should have written it.

 

[Go4Doc]

If both would be strong letters, go for both. Unless you have a multitude of other strong letters.

Could it not be a bad thing to have two letters of rec from the same lab?

 

[deleted781806]

Could it not be a bad thing to have two letters of rec from the same lab?

It's better to have a diversity of perspectives in your LORs. Two letters from the same lab will most likely overlap in their description of your qualifications and aptitude, which becomes more like a single letter in a way. It'd be better to have a wide variety of people writing LORs so that AdComs get a full picture of yourself as an applicant.