UCLA Letter of Recommendation Advice

[MellowYellowCA]

--

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[enjoydrywax]

I'd drop the resident letter and keep your non-science LOR. I believe it's crucial to have a non-science LOR in order to portray a well balanced applicant. Also, the fact that he is a resident and not an attending/real doctor probably means it holds much less weight.

 

[CaliforniaGreen]

I am not sure. Residents are real doctors, but as the above poster suggested, they are not as high up & established as an attending. If the resident knows you much better, and has told you it is good, maybe it is worth using that one?

Does UCLA say a non-science is necessary?

 

[NAVYLABTECH08]

If the resident has ties to UCLA (undergrad or med school) keep that letter.

 

[UCLAstudent]

It's redundant to have a letter from both an attending and resident from the same activity. It sounds like the resident's letter is more personal, but is the attending from UCLA?

 

[MellowYellowCA]

Thanks for the help everyone.

 

[UCLAstudent]

Definitely use the two science/one non-science. Anything else should be considered extra. I would stick to five letters total; if you send too many, the adcom might not even get around to reading them all. If the attending is in charge of a residency program (I'm fairly sure I know which clinic and which attending you're talking about), I would go with that.

What exactly do you mean by "academic mentor"? Did you ever take a class with this person or do work for them? If not, it sounds kind of sketchy and you might consider leaving it out and instead using both clinic letters.

Let me know if you have other questions! 🙂

 

[Lukkie]

take this all with a grain of salt, but my PI sometimes does interviews and he gave me a gist of how it goes at UCLA... basically, the app package doesn't really mean squat. all they really look at is your numbers and glance over your ECs to make sure you've done something productive like strong clinical exp and/or research. then they invite a bunch of people for interviews but the interview itself is a joke. its basically just to make sure you're not some crazy weirdo that somehow made themselves sound good on paper but is a nutjob in real life. the interviewer then fills out a sheet with boxes where he grades the person, on a scale of 1-10, based on a number of criteria, and hands that to the adcom. he says he doesn't actually read the application (secondaries, LORs, etc), basically doesn't know anything about the person before interviewing other than their name. he told me he doubts LORs and the essays are all that important.

again, this is just conjecture coming from my sometimes nutty PI. but if what he says is true (and i think it is, cause everyone i know that interviewed at UCLA agrees the interviews are a joke) you probably shouldn't worry about the LORs too much.

 

[UCLAstudent]

take this all with a grain of salt, but my PI sometimes does interviews and he gave me a gist of how it goes at UCLA... basically, the app package doesn't really mean squat. all they really look at is your numbers and glance over your ECs to make sure you've done something productive like strong clinical exp and/or research. then they invite a bunch of people for interviews but the interview itself is a joke. its basically just to make sure you're not some crazy weirdo that somehow made themselves sound good on paper but is a nutjob in real life. the interviewer then fills out a sheet with boxes where he grades the person, on a scale of 1-10, based on a number of criteria, and hands that to the adcom. he says he doesn't actually read the application (secondaries, LORs, etc), basically doesn't know anything about the person before interviewing other than their name. he told me he doubts LORs and the essays are all that important.

again, this is just conjecture coming from my sometimes nutty PI. but if what he says is true (and i think it is, cause everyone i know that interviewed at UCLA agrees the interviews are a joke) you probably shouldn't worry about the LORs too much.

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with most of what you've posted. The secondary essays, personal statement, and letters of recommendation are taken very seriously at UCLA. Numbers are important, but they will not make or break you. Most adcom members read through the file thoroughly before interviewing applicants. You may think that the interview is "a joke," but several people are placed on the waitlist each year solely on the basis of the interview, despite stellar numbers. Others have been waitlisted because of something offensive written in the personal statement.

One more thing ... UCLA does not even use a 1-10 scale for the interview. 🙂