rca215
Hmm, I can see how you are torn between the two. The first guy has the major strength of having worked very closely with you. I think a lack of that can quite easily come out in the recommendation, which I believe adcoms really don't like. On the other hand, the second guy seems like the type of guy who might be able to avoid having that come out.
Generally, I think I would go with the first guy. It's better to have someone you know can speak of your abilities and potential despite being less open about the process. And, regarding the "controversial" thing, I don't think they'll let public opinion of the recommender sway their thoughts on the recomendee, unless of course he's a famous baby-killer or something.
Thanks, rca.
My initial gut was to go with him, as well. The thing that is making me hesitate is that he is a very non-detailed oriented person, which is why I think he might not be a very good recommender. Anytime I worked with him and wrote an investment memo, he wouldn't read it over. He would just say, "I'm sure it's fine. I could nitpick, but there's no point."
The other thing that makes me hesitate is that my predecessor was in a similar position to me and chose the second guy.
The lack of focus on detail does make me hesitant as well. How are your other recommenders in that regard?