application Q- LOR dilemma

[ravin]

INPUT PLEASE!:

 

I wrote Leslie Taylor at U of T this question:

 

On your FAQ page, under NON-ACADEMIC 2) Who to pick as references- it does not clearly say that one of the three letters has to be non-academic (whereas the OMSAS website says two letters should be academic and one should be non-academic/character)- it only says that you should diversify your letters.

 

I am ONLY applying to the Univeristy of Toronto, so do you only consider applicants who have one letter that is stricly non-academic (ie volunteering, a club etc). I am asking because I wanted to send two letters from professors and one letter from a research supervisor (who is a doctor but not my professor, which would serve as my "non-academic letter" as he has observed me in a clinical setting) - as I think their letters are especially valuable to me.

 

Would this be acceptable?- please let me know as soon as possible.

 

This is her reply:

 

There is no acceptable or non-acceptable; it is your decision. Those are merely guidelines.

 

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ADVICE? EXPERIENCE? COMMENTS?

 

Should I keep the doctor research supervisor as my "non-academic/character' letter or should I switch it for a volunteering supervisor letter. I really think the doctor's letter would be stronger as he knows me personally/extensively.

BUT- does anyone think this makes me look less diversified? I do have a lot of activities on my list, but I just think that this would be the best letter.

 

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!

[scrubbed]

I think that the first responder is on the mark.

 

At the end of the day, the non-academic referece is to see that applicants can work with people outside of an academic setting and that the reference can write about the qualities that allow the applicants to do so.

 

If you feel that the physician can write a best, objective letter about your non-academic qualities, then the physician is the reference to choose.

 

Good luck with the application.