Letter from Chair

[Pino5]

I'm working on my PhD application and have an LOR question.

 

I'm currently a lecturer in the department where I received my MA several years ago. I'm thinking of asking the former chair of the department who hired me when he was still chair. He was my direct supervisor and was a great mentor to me.

 

He is willing to write a recommendation, but unfortunately, I have not taken a single class under him. I feel he can write a strong recommendation with regards to my teaching experience/skills, but of course, would probably not be able to comment on my academic aptitude as a student, etc. So...

 

How do you think would this letter be considered by adcomms? OR should I just ask another faculty who knows me academically but is less enthusiastic about it (because she is busy)? On a side note, my former chair is willing to write >10 rec letters, the other faculty would probably only write 5-6.

 

Thanks!

 

 

[zabius]

Letters of recommendation don't have to come from people who know you as a student... they can be from anyone at the university who knows you well! A good policy is to pick a group of letter writers who can speak to your different strengths. I chose one who knew me as a researcher (my undergrad research advisor), one who knew me as a student (I took 5 classes with him), and one who knew me as a TA. Each one was able to write about a slightly different aspect of me, and I think that it did strengthen my application.

 

The department chair seems to know you well (having directly mentored you) and can likely say many good things about you that the adcom will want to hear. For instance, he can write about all of the things that made you a good teacher (e.g. you're dedicated, good at communicating ideas, etc.), which are qualities that a good PhD student/researcher should also have. 

 

If he's enthusiastic about writing the letter, then it will probably be a good one. I would definitely choose him over someone else who may be too busy to write a glowing, personalized recommendation. Most schools require 3 letters, so you could always use the chair's letter in conjunction with letters from professors who know you as a student. Perhaps a good group of letter writers would be the chair of the department, your MA advisor, and either a professor whom you took classes with or a member of your MA committee.

[TakeruK]

Letters of recommendation don't have to come from people who know you as a student... they can be from anyone at the university who knows you well! A good policy is to pick a group of letter writers who can speak to your different strengths. I chose one who knew me as a researcher (my undergrad research advisor), one who knew me as a student (I took 5 classes with him), and one who knew me as a TA. Each one was able to write about a slightly different aspect of me, and I think that it did strengthen my application.

 

Maybe this is a field specific difference, but I would disagree with "pick a group of letter writers who can speak to your different strengths" in the sense that you've written here (i.e. research, coursework, teaching). I think the ideal "crop" of letters would be all 3 letters from professors who have directly supervised your research in one way or another. Research experience, ability, and potential, I think, are very important. The set of letters zabius suggested is not bad though, and it's a good way to go if you don't have more than 1 research related letter. I just want to say that I don't mean to criticize your choice of letters but I just don't think it's the (imaginary) "ideal set".

 

I don't think letters about your performance in class is especially useful since the transcript conveys the same information. There is some special merit to using a prof who taught you for so many classes and it's especially useful if you had shown leadership or done something to distinguish yourself in his/her class. However, a letter that says you are a wonderful researcher would trump a "did well in class" letter most of the time. Similarly, teaching is not really a priority in many graduate programs. They generally expect you to learn how to TA as you are doing it and while it's nice to have a good instructor, in their point of view, it's even better to have a good researcher! I feel really bad saying this because I feel that many research powerhouses are making a mistake when they relegate teaching duties to something that is undesirable but must be done. I wish teaching would be a bigger aspect of grad school but the reality for most places is that teaching as a TA isn't important so get a research-related letter if possible! I would highlight teaching experience by putting it in a separate section of my CV, listing all the courses taught/TA'ed.

 

To the OP: It sounds like this director would be a great LOR writer though. Getting hired as a lecturer after your MA is a bit different than the TA teaching experience, in my opinion. If he is enthusiastic about writing, then that's even better. Also, he can probably write about your abilities and qualifications in general -- after all, you probably had to compete for that job posting so he can talk about why you have been an asset for his department and why you would be a great asset for University X! I don't think it's a big deal at all that you did not take any classes with him.

Edited March 5, 2013 by TakeruK

[zabius]

Maybe this is a field specific difference, but I would disagree with "pick a group of letter writers who can speak to your different strengths" in the sense that you've written here (i.e. research, coursework, teaching). I think the ideal "crop" of letters would be all 3 letters from professors who have directly supervised your research in one way or another. Research experience, ability, and potential, I think, are very important. The set of letters zabius suggested is not bad though, and it's a good way to go if you don't have more than 1 research related letter. I just want to say that I don't mean to criticize your choice of letters but I just don't think it's the (imaginary) "ideal set".

 

I think it's more individual-specific than it is program-specific. I should have clarified. The professor that I took multiple classes with knew me well because I interacted with him a lot before/after class. He was able to speak to my work ethic, communication skills, etc. from my performance in class, but he also knew me well enough beyond that that he could spice up the letter with personalized anecdotes, et cetera.  My point was that he didn't quite know very much about my abilities as a researcher (he wasn't even in my field), but he was able to speak to other general strengths of mine that I think did add to my application. I've been told by POIs that I've interviewed with that his letter has been one of my most supportive.

 

The professor that I TAed under also knew me very well, because we worked very closely together. I suppose that it really does depend on the TAship, though. I was planning and giving lectures, designing lab exams, and basically took on a leadership role in the classroom while the professor was really just there to supervise. In that type of situation, the professor can write a very strong letter that can speak to one's leadership qualities, time management skills, communication skills, etc. If, on the other hand, your TAship mostly consisted of grading assignments for the professor, then the resulting letter might not be so strong.

 

I agree that research is the most important thing, and it's what the adcoms really want to hear about. But many of the qualities that make one a good teacher or diligent student are also those make one a good researcher. You also have to ask yourself, would a professor who knows you from your research be able to write a letter that is substantially different from the letter that your main research advisor would write? If the answer is "no," then the two letters are almost redundant and the only reason to choose both of them over strong letters from other people would be if the letter writers themselves are well-known in your field or have connections at the university that you're applying to. 

 

Basically, I still think that it's good to have some variation in your set of LORs. I understand your point completely, though. :-) Research is the most important factor. For me, however, I think the mixed set has really paid off, but this is just my own experience and your results may vary. It really does depend on a lot of things that will be specific to your situation. In my case, my MS committee consistently ignored me throughout the entire program and weren't very involved with my research at all. I'd take the enthusiastic letters from my TA supervisor and Latin professor any day over the likely vague/lukewarm letters that my committee would churn out. But this is probably not the case for a lot of people, and it certainly doesn't sound like the situation that the OP is in.

 

Whatever the case is, though, I think that you should strive to pick letter writers based primarily on how well they know you/how closely you've worked with them, regardless of whether they are all research mentors or a mix of research/teaching/academic mentors. As long as at least one letter speaks to your research strengths, you should be okay. The chair of the department sounds like he really does know you well, so he would definitely be a good choice, Gadzooks.

 

Also, it does depend on your own end goals. If you're more interested in a career that has a substantial teaching component to it, then you definitely want a letter from someone who can speak to your strengths as a teacher. 

Edited March 5, 2013 by zabius

[Pino5]

Thanks for the insightful responses. I will request my former chair to write the letters for me.

 

BTW, I need some clarity on the research experience bit. IF I am currently helping a former professor with a book project (I'm more well-versed in a particular area that he is covering in one of his chapters), would this constitute as research experience? He is also more than happy to write a letter for me.

 

Thanks again!