<p>On many LOR forms and letters, it asks the writer to comment on how long the writer has known the applicant for. What is the question used for?
Is it so the adcom can see how qualified the writer is to judge the applicant, where the longer the writer has known the applicant, the more qualified?</p>
<p>I am applying for the NSF GRFP and it asks me to rank my LOR (with #1 being top priority).
One of my LOR writers (Let’s call him AA) is a professor I worked for as part of a summer research program. We are submitting a paper in a very high level journal soon and his letter will be stellar. I ranked him as #1 on my LOR priority list. My other 2 letters are professors I have done and am currently doing research with and they have known me longer. Those letters will be good, but my strongest and most noticeable work was with AA. But since AA hasn’t known me for as long as the others, would his letter not be viewed as good the others (Profs who’ve known me for a longer time)?</p>
<p>I think this question is used to give some context to the letter. Someone who has worked with you for years may have a better sense of you as a student and an academic than someone who has worked with you a couple weeks. But also remember that it asks for the capacity that they’ve known the applicant as well. Someone who worked closely as your supervisor in a research program, for instance, will have more to say than someone who taught a class you were in for a semester.</p>
<p>If the letter by this person will be stellar, I’d rank it first even if he hasn’t known you as long. Consider it like this: if you could only submit one letter, instead of three, which would you submit? Probably the letter that’s fantastic where you did some really great work, over the letters that are good but not as good.</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply. It was very helpful. </p>
<p>As for the other 2 letters, they will be strong, but the world “strong” is quite subjective.
This goes off topic, but some professors seem to be much more generous in giving out strong letters, whereas some others aren’t.</p>
<p>Yes, that’s what the question is for, but no, your ranking doesn’t need to be based on length of time known - sometimes a professor who has worked intensely with you on a research project for 3 months is a better reference than a professor who has known you for 2 years, but only taught you in 2 classes, one of them a large lecture class and who you didn’t interact with much outside of class. You see what I mean? Your ranking is fine.</p>