<p>I visited the UCSD school of medicine site and they said that letter or recs from a lab instructor isn't counted. Is this true? Does that mean any biochemistry or organic chemistry lab course I've taken, I cannot get a LOR from?</p>
<p>For a lot of schools, LOR's from research supervisors or lab instructors don't count towards the LOR requirements. Different schools have different requirements so it's best to investigate the schools you're interested in or to just get lecture instructors' LOR's to be safe. No one wants to read a rec telling them how great Timmy is at boiling water.</p>
<p>Here at UCLA, the lab courses are lectured by a professor and during lab itself, we have TAs that look over us. However, often times, the professor is sitting in the office during lab hours if any q's needs to be answered. So, the professors are also lecturing me and guiding us in lab. Would this be a no no?</p>
<p>Why are their restrictions on getting LOR from research supervisors? Research is completely different from lab experiments. Research demands you to find results, while labs demand you replicate previously determined results.</p>
<p>I should've specified. Many medical schools require LOR's from "instructors." Many times instructors are professors and thus since research supervisors are also professors, students try to substitute research supervisor LOR's for "instructor" LOR's. So, many med schools explicitly say that they only want LOR's from professors who've taught you in a course rather than supervised you in a lab.</p>
<p>Now, for medical schools that don't specify the nature of the LOR's, then of course you can use research supervisor LOR's.</p>
<p>Why is that? I feel that a research LOR would show med schools how you apply your knowledge in real-life situations (not to mention scientific areas) moreso than a LOR from an instructor raving about how you read the material and wrote a good paper which was most likely on a topic chosen by the professor.</p>
<p>I must admit I'm ignorant on this issue, seeing as how I'm new to college. Any explanation is welcome.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why is that? I feel that a research LOR would show med schools how you apply your knowledge in real-life situations (not to mention scientific areas) moreso than a LOR from an instructor raving about how you read the material and wrote a good paper which was most likely on a topic chosen by the professor.</p>
<p>I must admit I'm ignorant on this issue, seeing as how I'm new to college. Any explanation is welcome.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that what you think research is? Research at the undergrad level means being a lab monkey and following a written protocol. It's nice to understand the science behind what you're doing but it's not necessary nor sufficient. The professor is the one that designs the experiments. You carry them out. Trust me, you don't want to be the one to design the experiments. There are so many scientific principles and considerations behind designing a successful experiment, you won't be able to do it anyway. </p>
<p>The quality of the instructor LOR isn't based on the grade you received. They're hoping to get a glimpse into who you are as a person. For example, if the professor wrote that you came into office hours to discuss some papers you read pertaining to the lecture material, the med schools can determine that you're curious. If the professor wrote that you overcame a C- on your first midterm to get an A- in the course (which is what happened to one of my friends), then the med school can tell that you have perseverance and don't give up easily. If your English professor wrote that you made some advanced and insightful comments during your Shakespeare class discussions, then med schools can tell you aren't just a technical sciency-type who can't read people or communicate thoughts.</p>