Top Law Schools

--

jdul34839 wrote:Would one reviewing an application see a letter of rec from a Congressional staffer, (such as a regional director etc) as having more weight than one from signed from an actual MOC?

Just use two academic references. Neither of these options warrants sending a third LOR.

--

jdul34839 wrote:

Humbert Humbert wrote:

jdul34839 wrote:Would one reviewing an application see a letter of rec from a Congressional staffer, (such as a regional director etc) as having more weight than one from signed from an actual MOC?

Just use two academic references. Neither of these options warrants sending a third LOR.

what I mean is, who should I ask? (both have offered)

I would assume that one reviewing an application would take a letter of rec from a MOC as something rather generic and common?

Adcomms aren't awed by recommenders' titles. Get a letter from the person who can speak most concretely and specifically to your performance, skills, etc. And remember that academic LORs are more important.

I interned in the Senate, and didnt even use the LOR the office prepared for me. It's invariably too insincere, or so adcoms think.

Unless you know the MOC well enough for them to require their COS to write the letter for you (on the MOC's behalf with his signature) rather than the intern coordinator (or whoever writes the generic ones in your office) take the letter from the staff member (who presumably knows you better).

Hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants could easily be sending in letters from Congresspeople/Mayors/Governors/Senators/etc that they worked for. For college admissions it's a little impressive/fascinating but at the law school level it's literally common and everywhere (some people applying to law school are former politicians/state assemblymen/mayors/etc themselves, remember that).

A generic form letter (that the Congressman might be sending off to 20 other people who have also asked for a recommendation) is useless. If it's a non-academic one, with recommendations being barely of importance in the admissions process anyway, focus on the quality of the letter. A high-ranking staffer is good enough if they are able to actually write something of worth in it. If the member knows you well enough to write a good one, then certainly go for it. But remember in this case the title has a marginal effect at best.