BIOETHICS

The Bioethics Imperative X

Continued from The Bioethics Imperative IX

“Mokita”: The truth we all know and agree not to talk about. Papua New Guinea.

Ideally, you have now established a good working relationship with potential referees by the way that you approached them. Get a firm “yes” one to two weeks in advance from those who will write on your behalf. That means you must assemble your materials before then. “Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part!” is a message that many professors would like to post! Provide clear deadlines, especially if you are asking for multiple letters at once.

If your mentors say “yes,” ask each one how they would like to proceed. Do they want

• a stamped, addressed envelope for each letter
• your proposal in draft or only in final form
• a transcript and other supporting material such as your personal statement
• a reminder about their deadline
• their preference about waiving your rights to see the letter
• all the information about the fellowship, meeting, etc., that you are applying for so that they can write something relevant?
  

A useful reference tells me how the letter writer knows the candidate and for how long, the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, their work habits and work ethic, their level and source of motivation, their professional interests, and finally a bit about what they are like as a person. Useless letters are incomplete, or from folks who either do not know you or do not know what you are applying for or are internally contradictory (the writer checks the 25th percentile on the form and sings your praises in prose). These latter letters are to me not ethical!

Cultural and personal style and the experience of the reviewer can play big roles in the tone of the letter but should not impact the strength of the letter. For example, I find that letters from Europeans are colder and less effusive than ones from Americans, and I expect a different level of critique and experience from someone who is early in their career than from someone who is more seasoned.

To indicate the degree to which they can recommend you, reviewers will check a percentile ranking and use various adjectives. For example, a weak recommendation will “damn with feint praise” or use no or weak adjectives, whereas a strong letter will use clear language with laudatory adjectives. Try asking your mentor what they think is a good letter of reference—you may open a great discussion about adjectives!

Finally, be proactive in learning which references to use again. You can retain your rights to see the letters, but many referees do not like that. However, a colleague or mentor who has access to your letters may be able to give you some casual feedback without giving names. You will usually hear which letters were strong, so remember those! In general, choose people who know you best. A letter from a teaching assistant does not carry the weight of a letter from your research adviser; status does matter. That said, a letter from someone who knows you well will do more for you than a “big-wig” adviser who barely knows your name!

Next: The Ethics of the Letter Writer

Dina Mandoli
University of Washington, Seattle
mandoli@u.washington.edu