next »

[pscurious]

Most, if not all, of the Political Science PhD programs I've been looking at require three letters of recommendation. Is it ideal for all three of these letters to be from professors? What if you have been out of school for 3-4 years? Then could/should one of the letters be from an employer/supervisor?

Duke's Political Science department, for example, requires one of the three letters to be from an employer unless you are applying straight from undergrad. Are other grad schools the same--should one letter be from an employer if you're not an undergrad? Or do most departments want three letters from professors regardless of how long you've been out of school?

[yemaya]

I'm in History, not Political Science, but I imagine that they have similar expectations re: letters.  Letters from professors are going to carry significantly more weight than an employer.   Especially since it appears that you're looking at some really competitive programs, the committee may be looking at potentially 100 or more applications from highly-qualified prospective students.  You don't want to give them a reason to dismiss your application. 

If you've been out of school long enough that you can't find 3 or so profs who remember your work, you might want to consider delaying your applications and enrolling as a continuing ed student in a graduate course or two before you apply  Voila, instant rec as long as you do well in the course.  If you absolutely *must* have a letter written by an employer, pick carefully.  If you worked on an election campaign and can get a letter from your supervisor, that might be ok.   If you have had other employment that is relevant to political science, that will probably not be as good as a letter from your prof, but it'll be better than a letter from your average employer.  We've gotten LoR from applications' Dunkin' Donuts managers, the office manager of a realty, etc and these letters are just not taken seriously.  Committees rely upon these letters to help us guage the applicant's likelihood of success and the letter writers were in no position to tell us anything useful.

[dr_crankypants]

I agree with Yemaya.  I'm also in History, but we're not really interested in letters from employers, UNLESS your work had an academic component to it, so that they could talk about your research, writing, or teaching skills.  Get your professors to write, unless they specifically require one from an employer. 

[msmommy]

For myself out of school for 7 years, I'm going to ask 1 Professor, 1 former school admin whom interacted with me as a teacher (since it's a teaching field I'm entering) and my most recent employer. 

To me I would think the LoR from an employer that addresses your character, working relationship, and due dilligence to your job in a related field is worthy of submission.  I'm certainly not talking manager of Dunkin', I'm talking President of a company and I was the accountant -- different, very different and I would hope school admissions commitees know the difference between a professional letter of reference and a standard LoR for blank employee worked for us for 2 years blah, blah, blah.

If I'm wrong, I'm screwed.  I plan on teaching business or accounting, having worked in the field is important in my view.

[yemaya]

Your case is a bit different, MsMommy.  A lot of this is field-specific and in the OP's case, he or she really needed to have letters from professors because a Political Science PhD admissions committee in a highly-qualified wants to know about their academic potential and employers generally aren't in a position to judge that. 

Your recent employer is in the field and (I'm guessing) is a holder of the degree that you wish to pursuit.  They're in a position to tender some sort of relevant information as to your academic potential and whether or not you had a reasonable chance of success in the field, which is a what admissions committees hope to get out of a LoR.  In some senses, this would be like an aspiring law student who had worked for a couple of years at a firm getting a letter from one of the partners.  In either case, a letter from an employer is likely to be seen as valid, though it's probably best to have at least one letter from a professor. 

If the applicant is seeking entrance to a PhD program in history and has been working in a museum or archive and has a boss with graduate work (especially PhD level) in history under his or her belt, then the reference would be relevent.  But, unless the employer has qualifications in the field and has been in a position to observe the applicantperforming research, working in primary sources or with collections or performing something that is indicative of their ability to manage graduate-level course work, the letter won't do anything for the applicant.  Nor will a letter that just talks about the employee's work habits or character.

Also, as we all know, academia is very hierarchical.  Academic affiliation matters for many subject PhD fields, including Political Science and History.  A LoR from someone with a university affiliation will be given more weight than someone like a supervisor at a regional museum.  I'm not sure what the admissions rates are at top Poli. Sci programs but the acceptance rate at most reputable History doctoral programs is under 10%.  If the Poli. Sci. admissions rates are anything like that, it behooves the OP to put together the best application he or she can, which means getting LoR from professors.