Strategic LoR Planning

[Infinito]

I'll be applying to Biomedical Science PhD programs for the Fall 2016 season, and I've already asked most of my LoR writers for "strong, positive" recommendation letters, and they're all game.

That being said, I wanted to see if anybody has had a strategic approach as to what to have their LoR writers talk about in their letters.

 

I have two PIs that can write to my strengths in the lab, and with conducting research. My other two are from professors that I had small classes with in which I excelled, and offered great presentations and got to know very well, and they got to know what my professional interests and aspirations were. I also have a former manager that can speak to my non-science related strengths. 

But, of course, each LoR writer can talk about multiple things, like your background, and things that you may not have time to address in your Statement of Purpose.

 

So, the crux of my question is how to best divide that extra room that LoRs have so they can concentrate on something different, so that each LoR isn't redundant. 

Going off of that, I guess I'd like to know if that is a good strategy (to have a unique perspective from each LoR writer), or would you want all the LoRs to sound similar? Should they bring up things that I didn't address in my SOP, or should my SOP resonate with things they say in their LoR so as to give greater emphasis and support for what is stated?

 

I'd love to know how other people approached this.

 

Thanks!

[isilya]

It's great that you're thinking about this so early! I actually didn't ask my LOR writers to do anything special, I just asked if they could write me a strong recommendation and they said yes. I have no idea what is in the letters. I also only got recommenders who were my research advisors and my application season has turned out well, so I don't think that things being redundant between letters is a big problem.

 

The only thing I would think about is if there's some weak point in your application that you need addressed -- like if you have a bad GPA/GRE you can ask them comment on your academic ability or something. Otherwise I honestly think you are set. No need to worry

[victorydance]

What I did was provided a little list of possible things they could highlight (which were things I honestly thought I excelled in each respective relationship) and they were all highlighting different things. 

 

I do think it is important to have three quite different letters. 

[MathCat]

You have to be careful about how you go about this. Some people may take offense if you tell them what to write about, especially if you phrase it wrong. If you try fishing by asking what they intend to talk about, some might get offended because a LoR is meant to be confidential and not viewed by you. It depends on your recommenders and your relationship with them. I don't think anyone would take it badly if you say something like "I'm worried about <flaw in application>, do you think you could address that?" But saying "I need you to write that my GRE is not indicative of my capabilities." might be too assertive.

 

Regarding SoPs, all my recommenders asked for a copy so that they could complement what was there. I have no idea to what extent my letters overlapped in content, though. I think three entirely different letters could be bad, e.g. if only one person mentions your aptitude in some area, they might not take it as seriously as if all three say you are great at that. You also don't know how each of your professors would be viewed by the people on the committee - there may be a personal connection so that person's letter may resonate more. Ultimately, I don't think there is too much strategizing necessary, because you can't know how the committee will view these things. Pick the right professors, provide them with your application packet, and trust them. There's exceptions for unusual circumstances (e.g. switching fields) or if you have a major flaw in your application that you'd like them to address, though.

[Fred Garvin]

When I was in the military, the expectation was that the person requesting the recommendation will draft something for the recommender to edit/modify as they see fit. In addition to the draft, backing documents are also provided. This is a win-win in that:

- It allows the requestor to bring first-person knowledge to bear on the contents of the letter. Nobody knows more about what you did (or what you're about) than you.

- It maintains the integrity of the process by giving the recommender the last word on the letter before submitting it on your behalf. They can trash it and start from scratch using the information provided or they can work with what you give them. It's totally up to them. Implicit in this is the understanding that you don't expect to see the submitted version unless your recommender decides to give you a copy.

- It greatly increases the likelihood that a recommendation will be submitted by the deadline. If I as a recommender am given something that's 70% complete, I'm much more likely to complete it within the required time frame.

As some have astutely pointed out, it would be wise to ask first. However it can't hurt to do so, as these people get indundated with requests for letters.

If you approach your recommender with the idea of making their job easier while still giving them the final word, you'll stand out for all the right reasons. Help them help you. Make it easy as possible for them. You'll be surprised by how well it works.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Fred Garvin

[Infinito]

The only thing I would think about is if there's some weak point in your application that you need addressed -- like if you have a bad GPA/GRE you can ask them comment on your academic ability or something. Otherwise I honestly think you are set. No need to worry

Hmm, that's a good point. I've always been slightly poor at taking multiple choice exams, but all my writing, seminar, and presentation classes were much better in terms of grades, so I think I could ask a professor from one of the aforementioned classes to maybe highlight that disparity. 

 

What I did was provided a little list of possible things they could highlight (which were things I honestly thought I excelled in each respective relationship) and they were all highlighting different things. 

 

I do think it is important to have three quite different letters. 

Good thinking, and point taken.

 

You have to be careful about how you go about this. Some people may take offense if you tell them what to write about, especially if you phrase it wrong. If you try fishing by asking what they intend to talk about, some might get offended because a LoR is meant to be confidential and not viewed by you. It depends on your recommenders and your relationship with them. I don't think anyone would take it badly if you say something like "I'm worried about <flaw in application>, do you think you could address that?" But saying "I need you to write that my GRE is not indicative of my capabilities." might be too assertive.

 

Regarding SoPs, all my recommenders asked for a copy so that they could complement what was there. I have no idea to what extent my letters overlapped in content, though. I think three entirely different letters could be bad, e.g. if only one person mentions your aptitude in some area, they might not take it as seriously as if all three say you are great at that. You also don't know how each of your professors would be viewed by the people on the committee - there may be a personal connection so that person's letter may resonate more. Ultimately, I don't think there is too much strategizing necessary, because you can't know how the committee will view these things. Pick the right professors, provide them with your application packet, and trust them. There's exceptions for unusual circumstances (e.g. switching fields) or if you have a major flaw in your application that you'd like them to address, though.

Right, I wouldn't be tactless about it. Since I already have them committed, I'd just need to give them my SOP and C.V. and simply ask them, out of curiosity, what their policies were: like if they'd be willing to let me read the letter after admission decisions, if they'd be willing to address certain things, etc. I guess if every letter says you're good, and then expounds a different reason for why, that might be nice. But, yes, the gap in knowing what the adcoms look for kind of prevents strategy in terms of this.

 

When I was in the military, the expectation was that the person requesting the recommendation will draft something for the recommender to edit/modify as they see fit. In addition to the draft, backing documents are also provided. This is a win-win in that:

- It allows the requestor to bring first-person knowledge to bear on the contents of the letter. Nobody knows more about what you did (or what you're about) than you.

- It maintains the integrity of the process by giving the recommender the last word on the letter before submitting it on your behalf. They can trash it and start from scratch using the information provided or they can work with what you give them. It's totally up to them. Implicit in this is the understanding that you don't expect to see the submitted version unless your recommender decides to give you a copy.

- It greatly increases the likelihood that a recommendation will be submitted by the deadline. If I as a recommender am given something that's 70% complete, I'm much more likely to complete it within the required time frame.

As some have astutely pointed out, it would be wise to ask first. However it can't hurt to do so, as these people get indundated with requests for letters.

If you approach your recommender with the idea of making their job easier while still giving them the final word, you'll stand out for all the right reasons. Help them help you. Make it easy as possible for them. You'll be surprised by how well it works.

That's some really good advice. One of my friends applying for the NSF GRFP didn't have any recommenders; but since he was new to the university (as a post-bacc tech), one of the professors on the floor (with a lot of clout) was asked by his PI to write him a good letter. The professor told my friend to write it for him, and then just submitted it without much of an edit since it was very generic anyway.

I'd probably end up not using a template, but rather highlighting points that I'd like to be addressed, if possible. I'd include it with my CV and SOP, and maybe ask them if they'd like a draft from my position that they can edit. But, yes, my LoR writers are pretty busy so they might actually appreciate this as long as it comes off across right.