What qualifies as a "Science" Letter of Recommendation?

[Dumplingz]

How do we know whether or not an engineering course that is considered BCMP qualifies as a science course for the purposes of a letter of recommendation? After looking through several medical school LoR requirements, it doesn't seem like any really define what qualifies as "science". Harvard, for example, states the following for their LoR requirements:

• At least two (2) letters should be from professors in the sciences with whom they have taken classes.
• At least one (1) letter should be written by a professor who is not in the sciences.

From what I could find, they never defined what courses qualify as "sciences". For example, I am looking to use my independent research (which I was able to get academic credit for) and a Transport and Fluids course (which is literally a physics class) as my two science letters of recommendation. Both courses are registered under the Bioengineering department, but the PreHealth department at my school is saying that they need a course registered under either the Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, or Physics department to qualify as a science letter of recommendation to be included in the committee letter packet. Because both courses are heavily Biology or Physics-based, this seems completely backward to me. Is the only way to know to email each med school individually and ask them whether my Transport and Fluids and independent research class fulfill their science letter of recommendation requirement?

Thank you!

@gonnif @LizzyM
@gyngyn
@WedgeDawg

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Goro]

The SDN stickies and @gonnif's sig lines have volumes of free materials from AAMC on exactly what your looking for.

This is stuff that pre-med routinely don't lift a finger to research, despite having 100's if not 100s of hours dedicated to research, BTW.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

The physics is definitely science. Include the independent research LOR but get one more from a prof who taught you in an actual science course rather than just overseeing research. I had 7 or 8 letters in my packet/committee letter—as long as they are all good, more letters won’t hurt you

 

[Mr.Smile12]

As mentioned earlier, see @gonnif 's list and the SDN stickies.

Read through each school's websites. Ask the admissions staff. Always.

From my perspective (so this doesn't necessarily apply to every program), I go by the course classification assigned to the class when I receive a verified application and letters of recommendation. It is safe to say any BCPM class will be "science", but science classification will expand it more. Some of us with an education background argue that "sciences" includes all "STEM" disciplines (so ecology, astronomy, etc. are fine), but some schools' committees may have a preference in the absence of a real policy (i.e., stick with BCPM). (If you have a committee letter process, go with what they want, or ask if you have questions.)

The distinction between research vs. lectures vs. didactic lab is something to ask admissions staff, but it never mattered to me. I would say more times than not, they'll take any role as long as it is properly academic and the person has a proper "professor" or "lecturer" title. My expectation is that a research professor/supervisor should write you a more solid letter than one who taught a big lecture course who doesn't get to know you well (NOTE: I'm generalizing here, there are some situations that I'm surprised about with some writers). More importantly, the key is to GET TO KNOW YOUR PROFESSORS, no matter what their role is, well before you ask them for a letter of recommendation. They know that most students will angle for it, so no need to be stealthy about it. A quality, supportive letter from someone who champions you is what you need... and that person happens to be a science professor who knows you best.

 

[Dumplingz]

Actually I would disagree that any BCPM class would be considered science. My previous example from Case Western specifically excludes ecology, botany, geology and a few others that are clearly classically science. And math may not be considered science by some medical schools or evaluators. For example I have had students have a professor of neuroscience be accepted as science at some schools but because he was faculty under psychology department, one school would not.

The best strategy for this I believe is two fold. First, you can have up to 10 letters in AMCAS. You do not, repeat, do not have to send them to all schools but use a couple to make sure you have two clearly science letters on hand if need be. Even if one is a lab class letter written by TA and countersigned by faculty. Second assign your best letters that you think fulfill the schools requirement and followup with each medical school that the letters are acceptable. If there is a question submit one of the clearly science letters.

Just a warning, even if you follow the above and administrative staff clears the letter, this does not mean the actually faculty evaluator, who may be a biochem PhD, will see math or engineering as science

Thank you for your insight, that's very helpful! Would the rules change at all in regards to committee letters? From what I've seen on a couple of med schools' websites and the LoR thread on SDN, it seems like the committee letter basically trumps any individual letter requirements. For example, if I'm able to convince my PreHealth committee to allow me to include my Transport & Fluids class and Research class as my two science letters in my committee letter, would any faculty advisor question this?

 

[Dumplingz]

The physics is definitely science. Include the independent research LOR but get one more from a prof who taught you in an actual science course rather than just overseeing research. I had 7 or 8 letters in my packet/committee letter—as long as they are all good, more letters won’t hurt you

I wish I could include more letters in my committee letter packet, but unfortunately, the max is 6 at my school

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Committee letters are not, repeat, are not bound by any individual letter requirements at the vast majority of medical schools.

So lets be clear on this you adhere to ONE of following

A) committee letter. The requirements for this are set by the undergraduate school. The premed committee will write an evaluation that usually includes letters but it does not have to. It is solely up to the undergraduate premed committee to set the requirements. Virtually all medical schools either require or recommend a committee letter. Only a very few medical schools will not accept this (Utah And LSU come to mind).
OR
B) individual letters. Here the specifics are set by each individual medical school. The vast majority of medical schools do not, repeat, do not require individual letter specifics be followed or attached in committee letters

So you follow EITHER committee letter OR individual letter requirements. They do not not overlap

Most schools allow supplemental letters (I sent an additional letter with my packet and not one out of ~50 schools had an issue with it. They may just not have read it but a few brought it up)