Letters of recommendation (LoRs) are one of the most persuasive forms of advocacy in medicine and academia, regardless of your career status. When done well, your referee can push you over the threshold, from a strong candidate to the best candidate. Assume you have carefully chosen the best possible referee for your application, met them 1:1, provided them with a curriculum vitae, career statement, and information about the program you are applying, and done this at least two weeks prior to the letter being due. Then, your referee indicates their preference for you to write the first draft or outline the letter for them.
Drafting your own LoR, or ‘Ghost Writing,’ is becoming a more common request across all levels of science and medicine (Burns, 2017). The request comes from referees or is sometimes offered as an option by applicants. The evolution of writing your own LoR is likely influenced by one or a combination of motives including, the desire to write the strongest possible letter, preservation of referee’s time, delegation of tasks, inconvenience of expedited applications, or lack of detailed familiarity with the applicant/program. Most professionals have busy schedules and investing the effort to write a strong and thoughtful letter can be time-consuming, especially for referees with less experience writing successful LoRs. There are also cases when your referee may not be as invested as others. They are happy to support your professional development and their experience with you has been good, but writing you the best possible LoR is not their priority. Sometimes your referee is not the person you worked with directly, but the director, chair, chief, etc. The referee is aware of your results and the skills necessary to reach those results, but not necessarily who you are as a professional (e.g. leadership ability, personal goals, etc.) and other exceptional traits, skills, and experiences that make you a strong candidate. Furthermore, your referee may not have the exact dates they have worked with you or nuances that make your accomplishments stand out (first lab or clinical experience, the extent and different projects you are contributing to, etc.).
The advantage of writing the first draft or outline of your LoR is that you know the specific purpose and exactly how the importance of this opportunity fits into your career objectives, mission, and vision. You are most knowledgeable of the strengths that make you a top applicant, what you can contribute to a program, and what you have done to prepare. Preparing the first draft provides you with the opportunity to fill in the gaps, initiate conversation and feedback with your referee, bring up important points that your referee may overlook, and highlight your experiences and traits that make you a strong candidate. When handled respectfully, it will also demonstrate professional communication and interactions.
It is important to note that junior applicants, especially from underrepresented populations, tend to have less experience with professional role models, mentorship and exposure to the field, such that identifying their strengths in their own LoR can be a great source of anxiety and may require additional guidance. It is difficult to write your own LoR if you are not sure what constitutes a strong candidate, or you have limited experience with evaluating and writing a LoR. If this is a concern, it is essential to communicate your uncertainty with your referee and seek guidance and clarity with this task. If you are still daunted, it may be an indicator that you require additional career counseling to establish expectations and career goals. While a common reaction is discomfort with self-endorsement, there should be no shame in objectively stating the experience and academic facts that support your qualifications.
Example of a declarative sentence: Jane graduated cum laude from X institution, ranking 25th in her class of 300.
Example of PAR: Jane revived an experimental project entitled “xxxx” that was stalled in a translational research laboratory. She identified the problem, re-optimized the protocols and independently carried out the experiments, data analysis, interpretation and formation of figures. This work culminated in an abstract and subsequent poster that was officially recognized at the annual national conference, gaining visibility for quality science occurring in this lab, program and institution.