Stanford - Targeted LOR? Forum

[icecreamcicle]

Hi, first time poster here so not 100% sure how it all works...

I asked 2 of my college profs to write LORs over the summer, and they've been processed by LSAC. When I got my October LSAT score (172) I decided to try my luck at Stanford. I just found out they require the evaluation form to accompany targeted letters. So my questions are:

1) Should I bother my professors to redo their letters, wait for processing by LSAC, and submit my Stanford app around Thanksgiving OR
2) Should I have 1 targeted letter/evaluation from my current employer (lawyer) and leave my 2 general professor letters the way they are?

Some facts by way of background 3.95 GPA, 164/172 LSAT, decent softs (work experience, undergrad awards). Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated!

[Knock]

Hi, first time poster here so not 100% sure how it all works...

I asked 2 of my college profs to write LORs over the summer, and they've been processed by LSAC. When I got my October LSAT score (172) I decided to try my luck at Stanford. I just found out they require the evaluation form to accompany targeted letters. So my questions are:

1) Should I bother my professors to redo their letters, wait for processing by LSAC, and submit my Stanford app around Thanksgiving OR
2) Should I have 1 targeted letter/evaluation from my current employer (lawyer) and leave my 2 general professor letters the way they are?

Some facts by way of background 3.95 GPA, 164/172 LSAT, decent softs (work experience, undergrad awards). Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated!

Personally, i'd go with option 2. There is no real "correct" answer here though, do what you feel is best.

[icecreamcicle]

Thanks, knock! That's what I was leaning towards too...really don't want to have to go back to my profs and ask them to go through the whole process again unless there'd be a big advantage to doing so

[Lovely Ludwig Van]

Funny, I was about to ask the same thing. I'm just about in the exact same position as you (my stats are a little lower). I've got three general letters registered in LSAC, and was thinking about having my employer and professor rewrite them to target them towards Stanford. It'll probably annoy the hell out of them, but hey, gotta do what you gotta do.


Edit: Btw, on the SLS website, they say that the Statement of the Instructor (Form C) "should be given to instructors who have personal knowledge of your academic work," so it sounds like they are looking for professors, as opposed to employers.

[Knock]

Thanks, knock! That's what I was leaning towards too...really don't want to have to go back to my profs and ask them to go through the whole process again unless there'd be a big advantage to doing so

No problem. I only will have one targeted letter as well, and i'm not really worried, it shouldn't be a huge deal for your application, and still one is better than none.

[fugitivejammer]

Funny, I was about to ask the same thing. I'm just about in the exact same position as you (my stats are a little lower). I've got three general letters registered in LSAC, and was thinking about having my employer and professor rewrite them to target them towards Stanford. It'll probably annoy the hell out of them, but hey, gotta do what you gotta do.


Edit: Btw, on the SLS website, they say that the Statement of the Instructor (Form C) "should be given to instructors who have personal knowledge of your academic work," so it sounds like they are looking for professors, as opposed to employers.

yea i was just about to say - dont they want it from a prof? hm...what about - have ur employer write a normal rec for you through lsac, and take one of ur profs to write the targeted for stanford? maybe JUST do this w/ stanford if u feel more comfortable w/ it and have that prof also go through LSAC for the other schools.

[ckdgusdl88]

I've been told that the targeted letters are for recommenders with some knowledge about SLS - either they are alumni or have some other connection... If your recommender will be replacing "Law School" with "Stanford Law School" in his/her letter, then it won't be helpful. I do not think it is the norm for most letters to Stanford to be targeted.

[icecreamcicle]

Funny, I was about to ask the same thing. I'm just about in the exact same position as you (my stats are a little lower). I've got three general letters registered in LSAC, and was thinking about having my employer and professor rewrite them to target them towards Stanford. It'll probably annoy the hell out of them, but hey, gotta do what you gotta do.


Edit: Btw, on the SLS website, they say that the Statement of the Instructor (Form C) "should be given to instructors who have personal knowledge of your academic work," so it sounds like they are looking for professors, as opposed to employers.

yea i was just about to say - dont they want it from a prof? hm...what about - have ur employer write a normal rec for you through lsac, and take one of ur profs to write the targeted for stanford? maybe JUST do this w/ stanford if u feel more comfortable w/ it and have that prof also go through LSAC for the other schools.

But then it follows with "Applicants who have been out of school for a significant period may substitute one letter from an employer or business associate. "

So...now I'm just confused, haha...it seems like maybe one of the targeted letters could be from an employer, or am I misreading?

[icecreamcicle]

I've been told that the targeted letters are for recommenders with some knowledge about SLS - either they are alumni or have some other connection... If your recommender will be replacing "Law School" with "Stanford Law School" in his/her letter, then it won't be helpful. I do not think it is the norm for most letters to Stanford to be targeted.

Do you think this applies to the Form C as well? That is, if they don't have ties to Stanford, would it be useless for them to submit a Form C on an applicant's behalf?

[ckdgusdl88]

I think Form C is only for targeted letters.
I don't think you are supposed to use Form C for general letters.