<p>I realize that the PI and mentors will consult and there may be redundancy, but there will be redundancy on different levels. I think it matters a lot how it is written. I know my PI wrote more about my overarching traits as a researcher and basically commented on my overall engineering abilities to conduct science. He did go into detail, but there’s only so much a PI’s voice can say. My mentor covered more about tiny details that if combined with the PI’s rec would be redundant in the fact that they do reiterate the same points, but in a more detailed light. When I said they weren’t redundant I meant they don’t say exactly the same thing just worded differently, but rather they make the same point through two points of observations. In the end I basically got a super rec from 2 people which if combined, would probably be much too long for just a single rec. I know for a fact that they coordinated my two recs so maybe thats why it worked out.</p>
<p>The original argument was basically 2 recs from 1 lab is probably better then 1 rec from a lab and 2 from classes. Those with close connections to 3 professors should take advantage of it for sure. I agree that 3 solid recs from different areas is great and most likely superior to 2 recs from the same lab. However, some of us either do not have that luxury or failed to get close to a third professor due to our own downfalls. In this case I advise the OP to get an additional one from the same lab rather than his initial plans.</p>
<p>Once again, my advice was directed specifically at the OP, and I wanted to provide an alternative and try to help him with some of my experiences. It may or may not work for him, but given his situation I was just offering another option which may be helpful in helping him at least secure 3 recs. Overall, I do agree that your advice is better in most cases. However, in his case, I think he needs some more options even though they may not be optimal.</p>