Submitting only dermatology LORs

[ckdgusdl88]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi! I noticed that most derm residency programs require at least 3 and up to four letters.
Is it OK to have three letters coming from dermatologists?
Is it "expected" to have a letter from IM or peds?

 

[dermathalon]

Not only is it OK, it's better if you send all of the letter from dermatologists. No reason to send an IM or peds letter unless is truly serves a purpose rather than just a checkbox (peds letter if you express a strong interet in peds derm or from a rheumatologist if you are strongly touting rheum-derm). Letters have more impact when the letter writer is known to the reader. Therefore, you should have a good reason NOT to send all of the letters from dermatologists.

 

[asmallchild]

Hi! I noticed that most derm residency programs require at least 3 and up to four letters.
Is it OK to have three letters coming from dermatologists?
Is it "expected" to have a letter from IM or peds?

Agreed, letters from dermatologists carry weight and letters from well-known dermatologists carry the most weight. Even a sterling LOR from someone outside of dermatology isn't really worth much in the eyes of a dermatology PD. That being said, if you have an outstanding letter from your IM or pediatrics rotation, I would include it as part of your prelim application as many of the more competitive prelim programs do like to see letters from an internal medicine/family medicine/etc physician.

 

[dermathalon]

That being said, if you have an outstanding letter from your IM or pediatrics rotation, I would include it as part of your prelim application as many of the more competitive prelim programs do like to see letters from an internal medicine/family medicine/etc physician.

Agree

 

[username456789]

Eh, I tend to have a different opinion from what's been expressed so far, but maybe I'm just naive. I included 2 derm LORs, a very good (but perhaps not outstanding) medicine letter, and a letter from a research PI in a completely different field.

On numerous occasions, actually, I had interviewers tell me that the research LOR was very impressive, and that "to read such high praise from someone who clearly knew [I was] not pursuing his field" left an extremely favorable impression of me on interview day.

I'm sure it all varies on a case by case basis, and like others have said it depends on the quality of the "outside" letters. I honestly had no idea what to expect with my research letter, but since I had published with him it seemed like an oversight to omit it. I'm sure, as a general rule though, more letters from well-known dermatologists = better.

 

[DermViser]

Not only is it OK, it's better if you send all of the letter from dermatologists. No reason to send an IM or peds letter unless is truly serves a purpose rather than just a checkbox (peds letter if you express a strong interet in peds derm or from a rheumatologist if you are strongly touting rheum-derm). Letters have more impact when the letter writer is known to the reader. Therefore, you should have a good reason NOT to send all of the letters from dermatologists.

I'm surprised, but maybe this is more common at the very top tier of dermatology programs? I can probably see why though, as many derm applicants have the straight Honors on every clerkship Dean's letter, so then a letter from IM or Peds is not necessary.

 

[dermathalon]

If you have done substantial amount of research and published, this letter needs to be included because people will look for it. In fact, not having a letter from such an advisor would be considered a red flag. In many cases, the research advisor frequently ends up being a dermatologist....but not in all cases since people pursue different paths or may have been in a PhD where the advisor may have been in a different field of medicine or in a different scientific field altogether. Clearly these letters should be included. However, on the whole, when applying to programs, your letters are precious and you need to choose the writers well.

As in life everything is a case by case. A research advisor or someone that knows you exceptionally well from another field would count as a great reason to include that letter over a dermatologist. Also, poor enthusiasm for writing you a letter should be a sign that this letter would not be good for you (even if it is from a dermatologist).

I'm not surprised that people found your research letter impressive and you have to know you audience. These are academic dermatologists and many engage in research so they will find that especially impressive. I had all LORs from dermatologists including my research letters. I was told that my LORs were especially impressive and was also told that they really trusted the letter writer because they knew them for X number of years. That's the extra bonus that you get from a dermatologist's letter. They know them. Nothing wrong if you get a strong letter from elsewhere but getting a letter from people known in the field will carry a lot of weight.

I did get an IM letter for my application to prelims and transitionals.

 

[ckdgusdl88]

Thanks for the replies everyone. That clarified things a bit.

Now another question: Some programs say "3 letters of recommendations" in its "requirements"
Does that mean you shouldn't send four letters?
Some programs make it clear by saying "at least 3" or "up to 4" but many do not.

 

[DermViser]

Thanks for the replies everyone. That clarified things a bit.

Now another question: Some programs say "3 letters of recommendations" in its "requirements"
Does that mean you shouldn't send four letters?
Some programs make it clear by saying "at least 3" or "up to 4" but many do not.

If they say only 3 LORs, then only send 3. That being said, most people who apply to every single Derm program in the country, click all 4 letters and send them off to every program.

 

[DermViser]

If you have done substantial amount of research and published, this letter needs to be included because people will look for it. In fact, not having a letter from such an advisor would be considered a red flag. In many cases, the research advisor frequently ends up being a dermatologist....but not in all cases since people pursue different paths or may have been in a PhD where the advisor may have been in a different field of medicine or in a different scientific field altogether. Clearly these letters should be included. However, on the whole, when applying to programs, your letters are precious and you need to choose the writers well.

As in life everything is a case by case. A research advisor or someone that knows you exceptionally well from another field would count as a great reason to include that letter over a dermatologist. Also, poor enthusiasm for writing you a letter should be a sign that this letter would not be good for you (even if it is from a dermatologist).

I'm not surprised that people found your research letter impressive and you have to know you audience. These are academic dermatologists and many engage in research so they will find that especially impressive. I had all LORs from dermatologists including my research letters. I was told that my LORs were especially impressive and was also told that they really trusted the letter writer because they knew them for X number of years. That's the extra bonus that you get from a dermatologist's letter. They know them. Nothing wrong if you get a strong letter from elsewhere but getting a letter from people known in the field will carry a lot of weight.

I did get an IM letter for my application to prelims and transitionals.

Yes, they all know eachother. Since they are writing several LORs, they also know which letters are a "great" letter from that specific dermatologist, and which letters are just a tepid recommendation from that dermatologist. They are worded quite carefully for a reason.