Timeline for What are the consequences of a recommendation from someone in the distant past?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2013 at 3:28 | comment | added | Anonymous Mathematician | (So you're right that the letter would still say something valuable and important, but it could look awkward in context despite this.) | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 3:28 | comment | added | Anonymous Mathematician | It's difficult to judge approach and commitment in the abstract. Ideally the Ph.D. thesis should be deeper, broader, and more mature than the Master's thesis. The Master's thesis gives important evidence of promise, but people sometimes don't go on to achieve at the level predicted. If one of your three letters deals only with the Master's work, then it might suggest you couldn't find a third letter writer who thought you had lived up to your early promise. Instead, it would be best if the Master's supervisor can address how your promise was in fact realized later in your Ph.D. thesis. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 2:59 | vote | accept | user6670 | ||
| Apr 5, 2013 at 2:11 | comment | added | user6670 | I like this answer and it makes sense. But just to interrogate this further: even if research is a substantive part of the job, why shouldn't the committee also be interested in the candidate's approach and commitment to research and scholarship, in addition to an evaluation of the merit of the research itself? This is something even a stale-dated referee could give..no? | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 4:07 | history | answered | Anonymous Mathematician | CC BY-SA 3.0 |