a*****n
发帖数: 5158 | 1 在看AAO case,
Interesting points: the petitioner submitted numerous letters in support
of his claim of "original scientific and scholarly contributions of
major significance." AAO concludes that some letters focus on the
petitioner's published and presented work, which is far more relevant to
the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion: "it should be
emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from
one another卼he two are not interchangeable." AAO also criticized the
peti |
r***r
发帖数: 161 | |
a*****n
发帖数: 5158 | 3 我得将我的打出来认真读一下看有没看重的
【在 r***r 的大作中提到】
: 所以说推荐信还是不要太多得好，搞不好就重复了
|
w***c
发帖数: 709 | 4 Me too. Thanks for sharing. |
s******t
发帖数: 3572 | 5 本来就不该重复。
推荐信里可以重复的是介绍申请人的那些亮点。而不是重复使用相同的段落，甚至相同
的语法错误。
【在 a*****n 的大作中提到】
: 在看AAO case,
: Interesting points: the petitioner submitted numerous letters in support
: of his claim of "original scientific and scholarly contributions of
: major significance." AAO concludes that some letters focus on the
: petitioner's published and presented work, which is far more relevant to
: the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion: "it should be
: emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from
: one another卼he two are not interchangeable." AAO also criticized the
: peti
|
