Short-term references?

[Guest avisee]

I've read a lot of posts around here on the value of choosing references who have known you for a long time. But when in doubt, is it better to choose someone who has known you for a long time or someone who knows you well (since, theoretically, the two don't always go hand in hand).

 

I'd love to use someone I've worked with very closely, but he was only my supervisor for a month-long project. However, I feel he knows me much better than anyone else I could ask, and as it was school-related, he would be much more able to comment on my academic abilities than any of my profs (since I'm generally a self-sufficient student in large classes). Is it a bad idea to use someone you've only known for a month, even if they know you better or can better portray an aspect of your potential than anyone else??

[Guest coastal79]

I think that someone can know you extremely well after just one month. I also think that if I was evalutaing reference letters, I would wonder why you couldn't find someone who knew you longer. Just my opinion.

[Guest Lactic Folly]

I'd say go with the person who knows you well (and can say good things about you). On the reference forms I've seen, one of the first questions is how long have you known the applicant: less than 1 year, 1-2 years, and so forth. However, the next question is how well do you know the applicant: slightly, reasonably, or very well.

 

If your referee just checks off 'less than one year' and 'reasonably' or 'very' well, I don't see why it should be a problem. In their letter they can just say that you worked on a project for them this year.. they might not choose to put in 'one month' as it would detract from the strength of the letter. Also, if you made some contact with them prior to starting the project, say introducing yourself/interviewing for the position, the 'length of time known' can take that into account.

[Guest dr deelish]

If the supervisor that you've gotten to know over the last month also feels that they know you pretty well, that could be looked upon as being favourable to you in the "interpersonal" department. Although, given Coastal79's point, which is an entirely valid one, you should aim to get 2 other referees that you've known for much longer.

[Guest avisee]

Thanks for your advice.

 

Lactic Folly, the question about how long have you known the applicant (with just the three options) is that on the OMSAS application, or for another school (or in general)? I'd always thought they had to explicitly specify the duration of time, but checking "less than 1 year" probably works quite well.

 

It sounds like I may end up asking my supervisor. Basically I can justify this (for myself at least) because he can attest to a different aspect of my personality than my other two references can. Of my other references, one has known me for a year (slightly more by October), and the other has known me for over 2 years, so that may also help to minimize the impact. Is that a justifiable logic, or should I start searching for someone else? It just seems to me like the trio of referees I have in mind provide the best 3-dimensional perspective of my personality and despite the length of time I have known this person, it's still probably the best choice. Does that make sense?

[Guest Lactic Folly]

Ok, I checked my forms again:

Alberta and OMSAS: referee fills out 'I have known the applicant for --- year(s)'

Calgary and Saskatchewan: This is the one with the <1 year and reasonably/very well boxes I was talking about earlier.

 

You want the people who will write you the most positive letters, backed up with specifics, so what you are suggesting sounds fine to me. I don't think that a very long period of time (above the minimum to get to know someone) is valuable in itself, since they're not so much interested in your early years as in who you are now; I've heard 1-2 years will work just as well as a longer period of time, since it's likely to be in a professional context.