Who should I pick for my third letter of recommendation?

[ProfuselyQuarky]

I have two PIs who will write the first and second letter. And I'm torn between asking my direct supervisor from one of those labs (who was a grad student when I was working there and we became quite close) and a professor that I had for an upper div class I took during my last year.

My reservations for the former supervisor is that the PI is already going to write a letter even though all the applications I've opened acknowledge the difference between the two, and they currently hold a non academic role, albeit still in research/consultation.

My reservations for the professor is that even though we talked often and he fully had insight on how I was on the cusp of dying during his class (and still pulled a B) I'm worried that his letter would be more of a generic letter compared to the supervisor's as I'm sure a bunch of students request this of him annually. Also, its been over a year since I took that class.

 

[Frabjous]

The best letters show unconditional support. If the supervisor is close to that, go with that person.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I disagree. A grad student does not have the perspective to write a good letter. It is unlikely a grad student has even read many letters.

"Unconditional support" is important, but a letter that balances strengths and weaknesses will be taken much more seriously than one that is clearly a puff piece.

But both of these are the wrong question. You need to ask a) what the admissions or hiring committee wants to see in the totality of the letters, b) what the present two letters say, and c) who can best make up the difference. As far as point a, "She got a B in my class" is not new information - they have a transcript already.

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

I disagree. A grad student does not have the perspective to write a good letter. It is unlikely a grad student has even read many letters.

"Unconditional support" is important, but a letter that balances strengths and weaknesses will be taken much more seriously than one that is clearly a puff piece.

But both of these are the wrong question. You need to ask a) what the admissions or hiding committee wants to see in the totality of the letters, b) what the present two letters say, and c) who can best make up the difference. As far as point a, "She got a B in my class" is not new information - they have a transcript already.

this a great way to think of it, thanks so much!

Regarding point A, I feel as though both PI's letters will speak to how hard I work and how I'm committed to the research (perhaps even at the expense of quality of life lol) and how I'm able to keep up with grad students and post docs in following literature and partaking in developing novel methods. Maybe how fast I learn? Everything I did/do at either labs I learned when I got there.

For weaknesses, I have a feeling both would cite perhaps a tendency to take on too much work (not saying "no I cant do that" when I should) and hesitation to communicate (not regarding research but personal issues that one would normally prioritize over work but I'm often afraid to out of fear of looking lazy etc).

Honestly, my grades freaking suck for a myriad of documented reasons so I guess the professor might be able to write about how much effort I truly put in my coursework, all things considered. Whereas the old supervisor would be able to personally speak about what it's like to work with me firsthand. So not totally sure on who adds more. Though, yes, the new PhD has less letter experience

I guess the professor would be a better choice, even though I'm not completely sure what he'll say lol. For what its worth he told me he'd be happy to write me a letter come the time

 

[Vanadium 50]

Be careful of "a myriad of documented reasons". You don't want to send the message "She's a fragile little blossom who won't make it through grad school/postdoc/whatever". A better message is "Her grades suck, yes, but she did eventually master the material, and I believe she will have no problems with coursework/OJT/learning what she needs to know."

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

Be careful of "a myriad of documented reasons". You don't want to send the message "She's a fragile little blossom who won't make it through grad school/postdoc/whatever". A better message is "Her grades suck, yes, but she did eventually master the material, and I believe she will have no problems with coursework/OJT/learning what she needs to know."

yeah for sure. I'm actually having a hard time deciding on what to disclose or not disclose to admissions because I don't want a pathetic sob story but also 1) there were freak accidents and 2)chronic health issues that I'm currently successfully learning to manage. This past year of working has been the best year I've had in terms of not letting it ruin me.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Disclosure is irreversible.

If you think it will make the difference, i.e. "We weren't going to take her, but now that we know X we will", then disclose. Otherwise, as they say, "Never miss a good chance to keep quiet."