Residency Rec Letter question

[Ray D. Ayshun]

Hi, all. Long-time lurker here. I'm in the process of applying for a rad-onc position this fall, and wonder about my rec letter choices. I'm requesting more than I need as I plan to submit a different group to my TY and prelim programs than to rad-onc, and so have requested letters from my research mentor, two medicine docs, two radiation oncologists, and a surgeon. The question is a product of my belief that the surgeon and one of the med docs (an influential oncologist) with whom I worked clinically got to know me much better than one of the rad-oncs, and is better equipped to speak about my clinical strengths, interests, etc. I don't doubt the radiation oncologist will write me a supportive letter, but it feels more genuine to use the surgeon's. Would it hurt me too much to use the surgeons instead? Some in the field have suggested I go with the surgeon's, while some have suggested most letters that aren't radonc specific get ignored.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ramsesthenice]

Some in the field have suggested I go with the surgeon's, while some have suggested most letters that aren't radonc specific get ignored.

The last statement is overstated. There are three kinds of letters, those with context, those with substance, and those with both.

The main reason rad onc letters are prefered is because its a small field. When reading letters the more you know about the letter writer the more you can evaluate what it really says. There is an art to writing and decoding recommendation letters. Most chairs and senior people know each other. When they read a letter from Joel Tepper, Jay Harris, or Lynn Wilson they have a better feel for what that means and how much they value the opinion of the letter writer. Letters from more junior faculty in rad onc often don't carry the same weight and filling you application with those letters does not always help you.

Then there are the unambiguously great letters from people that really know you. In my case, it was a surgical oncologist that trained at Harvard and then was on staff at Sloan for a number of years before coming here. Apparently she said in all her years at elite institutions I was the second best medical student she had the honor of working with. That letter was discussed at every interview I had. When we see those kinds of letters in someones application we most certainly take note at our institution.

The best case scenario is to have a letter like that from a senior rad onc. Most of us don't get that, but hey, hats off to the lucky ones that do

Fluff letters from unknown writers will always carry the least weight and will get ignored regardless of what field they are in.

Your gut is telling you something. Substance matters. You need rad onc letters, for sure. But don't discount non-rad oncs that enthusiastically support your application.

 

[RadOncLova]

In my case, it was a surgical oncologist that trained at Harvard and then was on staff at Sloan for a number of years before coming here. Apparently she said in all her years at elite institutions I was the second best medical student she had the honor of working with.

She said I was the first

 

[Gfunk6]

She said I was the first

In love and in the Match, never tell anyone you are their #1 unless you mean it!

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

Roger that…Program Directors have long memories...