What does "Great LOR" really mean?

[YaBoyAR]

I see it all over this website. "I have 79 publications and 3 GREAT LORs!" What does that really mean though? Obviously, LOR = Letter of Rec. But it's the 'great' part that gets me.

Are you saying 3 Nobel Prize winners wrote you a letter? So they're great? Or these 3 people really love you as a person and scientist and likely described you as the second coming of Jesus?

Didn't we all ask professors who we knew would write us a "great" LOR though, if that's the case? And if so, doesn't that commonness diminish its 'great'ness? Or is your 'great' better than the next guys 'great'?

Just something I've been thinking about that irks me. Maybe I'm just an asshole. Care to weigh in?

[Eigen]

Not all LORs are great. Most are good. Some are average. 

 

IE, a professor can't write in all of his letters that in the 25 years he's been teaching, you were the most talented young researcher he's had work with him. Theoretically, they can only write that once every 25 years. 

 

Practically, there's always a huge gaping chasm of descriptors between "good" and "great". 

 

Can a professor BS and say every student is the best they've ever had? Sure, but their recommendation won't be worth much after that. Especially not if they write that for some not-great students, and word gets around. 

[YaBoyAR]

Not all LORs are great. Most are good. Some are average.

IE, a professor can't write in all of his letters that in the 25 years he's been teaching, you were the most talented young researcher he's had work with him. Theoretically, they can only write that once every 25 years.

Practically, there's always a huge gaping chasm of descriptors between "good" and "great".

Can a professor BS and say every student is the best they've ever had? Sure, but their recommendation won't be worth much after that. Especially not if they write that for some not-great students, and word gets around.

Fair enough. But if that's what is being implied, how do you, as an applicant, know that's what is being said in the letter? We waive our right to view them so theoretically should have no idea what's being said.

Furthermore, as stated above, don't we all ask professors who we have impressed and assume would write us "great" letters? Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but I certainly only asked professors that I had a strong background with.

[DropTheBase]

Great question!

 

I had one GREAT letter, one good letter and one okay letter. Here's how I know.

 

One of my PI's told me specifically what elements were in the letter and pretty much "described me as the second coming of Jesus." My PI also wanted to coordinate what I wrote in my SOP with the letter.

 

Another PI just told me that he had plenty to say about me and didn't need any further information. I knew this letter was probably good because this PI went the extra mile by personally contacting some of my POIs.

 

My last letter was okay because I needed a letter that attested to my academic abilities and my grade in my referee's class was not anywhere near an A. But my referee wouldn't have written it at all if it wasn't good enough.

 

Who knows what any of them actually wrote, but that's how I got a feeling.

 

DTB

[YaBoyAR]

Great question!

 

I had one GREAT letter, one good letter and one okay letter. Here's how I know.

 

One of my PI's told me specifically what elements were in the letter and pretty much "described me as the second coming of Jesus." My PI also wanted to coordinate what I wrote in my SOP with the letter.

 

Another PI just told me that he had plenty to say about me and didn't need any further information. I knew this letter was probably good because this PI went the extra mile by personally contacting some of my POIs.

 

My last letter was okay because I needed a letter that attested to my academic abilities and my grade in my referee's class was not anywhere near an A. But my referee wouldn't have written it at all if it wasn't good enough.

 

Who knows what any of them actually wrote, but that's how I got a feeling.

 

DTB

I like it. Thanks for letting me know all of that. You da man/woman!

[TakeruK]

It could be the common "illusion" that more than half of a population will generally rate themselves as "above average" in things like driving, academics, whatever. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

 

Or, it could just be inflated adjectives or different standards. Some people might not think "great" means "above average". Maybe to some people, every LOR is "great", so theirs is "great" too. It's all very subjective! Here's my arbitrary subjective scale of what I think when people use these words to describe an LOR:

 

Excellent -- a letter from a research advisor that will say exceptional things (e.g. best student in 10 years or whatever)

Great -- a letter from a research advisor that will say positive things about the student's experience and ability (X is skilled in Y etc.)

Good -- a letter from a professor that knows the student well enough to write a personal letter attesting to their ability to succeed in grad school

Okay -- a letter from a professor that does not know the student very well; will contain just standard stuff that they might dig out of their files like "X scored Y on these classes, performed well in Z etc"

 

I am sure that there are tons of people who will want to use different words for the categories I put up here. But my point is to show that these adjectives are super subjective, and it's entirely possible that every letter is "great" depending on what you mean when you say "great". In my scale above, I think that everyone needs at least one "great" letter to have a strong application.

[Queen of Kale]

 We waive our right to view them so theoretically should have no idea what's being said.

 

Just because you waive your right doesn't mean that the professor won't offer to show you his/her letter.  About half of my LORs over the past few years (for internships and grad school alike) were emailed to me at some point.  

 

Some were great, some were good, one was terrible (and from someone who offered to write a great letter).  One was two sentences, also from someone who offered to write a "solid letter".  

 

So my opinion is you have only an educated guess until you read the dang things and hopefully by the time the letters are for really important things (which keeps changing; internships seem important until grad apps, which seem less important when chasing fellowships) - by a certain point you know who will write the best letters based on either reading them previously or having people tell you what a great letter they read about you from that person. (based solely on my personal experience)

[alkylholic]

This is an interesting topic! 

 

I think the content of the letter is more important than the reputation of the writer, but a strong reputation certainly won't hurt. 

 

I didn't get to see my letters, but prospective PIs who have read them told me things like "they were all highly impressed," or "I've heard amazing things about you," so I can only assume they were "great." Each of my letters writers knew me very well and praised me throughout the time we've known each other and have told me things like "you're a great scientist," or "you destroyed our classes." Whether it's unique or common in my undergrad school, based on some of the schools I've gotten into I have no complaints. 

[asaprocky]

Very interesting topic indeed.

 

I agree with @alkylholic in that the content matters more than the reputation and I've had similar experiences as well. The two professors I had write my letters both are very interested in me and my well-being and have gone out of the way to give me praise. One letter from industry I got to see and very good things were written. This scientist also is extremely interested in my well-being and has gone out of his way to help me by finding another internship for another summer, eat lunch and catch up with me, and contact potential PI's. Because of this, I'd consider all 3 of these letters as "great". 

 

My last letter writer is also from industry and him and I did not have the same type of relationship as me and my PI from the previous industry position did. He is still interested in my future and wants to help out, but is less enthusiastic about it so I'd consider it more of a "good" LOR since I did accomplish a good amount in his lab. 

 

With all this being said, I think your relationship with these LOR writers matters the most and is the best way to gauge how good of a LOR you'll get (although not always telling). If they really care about you and your future, I can't see why you'd not get at least a "good" LOR. If you've done everything they want you to do and have shown drive and passion, a great LOR isn't out of the question. It's when you've really tested the waters with LOR writers that I'd start to worry about quality. Some people have a good understand that they're either in a good or bad relationship and therefore their own self-assessment on their LOR are probably accurate, but there are also those who have no self-actualization and think they're the greatest thing since sliced-bread so they think their LOR are great when they're really not. 

 

I wouldn't worry too much about people who say they have great LOR's...based on your acceptances (@YaBoyAR) I bet they're pretty good and you'll have nothing to worry about. 

[DerpTastic]

I think sometimes people get letters from a professor they had one class with, and even then, the class size might be around 100. That's what I would consider a weak letter.

 

I would say my letters were good, not great, for the reason that the two professors I asked both knew me very very well. I had five classes with both of them, with the lowest grade being a B+. Class sizes were never usually bigger than 10 (except for a couple intro level classes). My first advisor retired after a few years, so the other professor became my advisor. I often visited their offices to talk about classes or topics, not just homework problems, so they knew I was fairly dedicated. If they ever asked me to help out with something, I often did. Although I never did research with them, they knew me more than just, "She got this an A in my class."

 

The third is a research advisor from an REU. I would say this letter is good, not great, just because the program was so short. 10 weeks isn't a lot of time to get to know someone. I know I made a good impression, but it was such a short time.

 

I think it is possible to make an educated guess whether or not you have great, good, okay, or bad letters, but it's also not 100% guaranteed. I think it's silly for anyone to go, "I'm 100% sure my letters are the greatest!" unless they've seen them. I mean, perhaps your letter writer is well known, or perhaps they know you well, but it's very possible they don't write very well or they actually don't think very highly of you. Always possible, in my opinion. 

[biochemistry professor]

The most important LOR is from a research advisor who knows you personally. I don't care if you have a letter that says you got an A in organic chemistry. I can see that from your transcript. Qualities we look for include dedication, passion, maturity, communication skills, teaching ability, drive, creativity, independence, and social skills. Letters also are useful in describing your specific contributions to projects. Letters are also helpful for explaining possible deficits in an applicant's record.

[MassAppeal]

I see it all over this website. "I have 79 publications and 3 GREAT LORs!" What does that really mean though? Obviously, LOR = Letter of Rec. But it's the 'great' part that gets me.

Are you saying 3 Nobel Prize winners wrote you a letter? So they're great? Or these 3 people really love you as a person and scientist and likely described you as the second coming of Jesus?

 

I think of GREAT LOR as an applicable, relevant letter writer describing immediately translational skills/experience.

A GOOD LOR to me is not directly applicable letter writer describing loosely translational skills/experience (such as genetics research experience for someone trying to get into inorganic chem, or something like that). 

 

I'm one of the people that noted my great LORs. Letter A was from my current boss, a very well-known PI in analytical chemistry. Several of my schools know him personally through collaborations and conferences. He's able to talk about my wet lab skills, personality on a 40+ hour workweek scale ("plays well with others, not a sociopathic nerd, can be dressed up and meet prominent figures without acting like an awkward fool"), and long-haul dedication to projects. Letter B was from one of the collaborators on an independent project I did, who works at a huge industry company you definitely know. Specifically, he does R&D in analytical chemistry. My schools also know him personally through collaborations and conferences. On top of that, he's an alumnus of one of the PhD programs I applied to. He's able to write about my short-term "push to gather data on a strict deadline" abilities, professionalism, and presentation/speaking skills (conference).

 

Without those two letters, I really think my applications were pretty average. Average stats, no publications, nothing particularly special... EXCEPT that my current work is what I want to continue in a PhD. My letters were how I proved I can handle grad school because it's exactly what I'm doing already! .. with less pay, but with a PhD "bonus" at the end.

[jellybeans]

I had one letter from a prof who said he'd mention all sorts of great things about me.  I enjoyed his class and got to know him really well over the years.  I learned later that his LoR was awful.  It wasn't about me at all but about my research.  So even though this prof thought he was writing a great LoR, it sucked and I was lucky I got in anywhere.  Fortunately, I had had an interview in the process with the Director of Admissions and we had a great convo.