I give context to the ethical issues surrounding letters of recommendation by summarizing three breaches of ethics by students:

1. A graduate student, suspecting an unflattering evaluation by an advisor based on another grad student’s tip, successfully hacks into the advisor’s computer to read a copy of the letter. The advisor is never aware of the student’s act, and the letter written on the student’s behalf does turn out to be negative.
2. A graduate student, after being denied access to a confidential credentials file, breaks into the graduate office to Xerox the file. The university police become involved and the student is discovered, then kicked out of the program.
3. An undergraduate collects the requested letter of reference in a signed, sealed envelope and becomes nervous about its potential contents. Before sending the letter off to the target graduate program, the student tears open the envelope and reads the favorable letter, then—relieved—sheepishly places the letter in a new sealed envelope with a forged signature across the back.

All these are true accounts that I was privy to in my 20 years of university teaching, and they underscore just how desperate some students become about letters of recommendation, and how some will even take foolish risks just to find out what we’ve written about them.

I have encountered many more typical scenarios, though, where both student and letter writer are uplifted by the process:

1. A graduate student writes a letter of recommendation for the first time, and finds that a 30-minute interview with the student improves the detail of the letter and helps the student win a national scholarship.
2. A faculty member writes a graduating senior a glowing letter that also includes one paragraph of criticism, and discusses the criticism with him as a way to point the student towards self-improvement.
3. An alumna keeps her mentor informed once a year on her progress even six years after her graduation, and thus her mentor is able to write several informed, detailed reference letters for her as new opportunities arise.

These positive examples and others tell us that recommendation letters are not mere formalities involving “paying back favors” we once received from others, nor are they simply redundant paperwork we complete to help students advance—letters of recommendation offer us lessons about relationships (or their lack), growth, power and empowerment, professionalism, attitude, protocol, communication, ethos, and trust. To understand them fully, then, we must consider that the process and act of writing recommendation letters can have a powerful ethical component. This chapter is devoted to fleshing out the ethical issues related to recommendation letter writing, and offering proven strategies on how to address them.

To begin a discussion of the ethical context for writing recommendation letters, we should agree that—at least from the perspective of the person for whom the letter is written—letters can do great good or they can do great harm. Although some faculty question the importance of letters and even speculate as to whether or not they are ever read, others fiercely defend (or attack) their use and relevance, and insist that people’s lives are changed due to letters of recommendation.

Instructive in this regard is a 2002 letter to the editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education by the Chair of the Department of Mathematics and Physics at Troy State University, in which the writer quips: “Scoundrels always seem able to get good letters.” The writer summarizes how he spent a year after completing his PhD staring at the ceiling and getting no interviews, even though he had been assured by a professor that all three recommendation letters in his file were positive. “Only during this period did I come to understand that the aforementioned professor had plotted to keep me from getting a job . . . After 18 months, I resolved not to . . . apply in academia again. I worked in industry, and it was merely by chance that I later came to get full-time work in academia”(1).

In other articles on the subject of recommendation letters, Chronicle readers will find further complaints about foes carrying out vendettas, deliberate obfuscations, parallels between inflated grades and inflationary rhetoric in letters—even calls to abandon the system entirely and pay outside reviewers. On the other hand, readers will also find strong defenses of the current system, acknowledgments that inflationary rhetoric exists but that letters are critical nonetheless, arguments that letters are only one variable among many in the evaluative process, and insistence that letters teach us more about candidates than any other part of their application.

While many of the above examples go to the issue of letters for faculty seeking tenure and promotion, they also illuminate the ethical issues involved as we write letters for our students, who often approach the process of soliciting our aid in something of a nervous haze, not fully aware that none of us achieved our positions without the help of former faculty mentors writing letters of support for us. In a string of favors exponentially repaid, most of us write at least 10 times more (even 100 times more) recommendation letters than we actually received for ourselves; thus we contribute to a system that is only as good as the work we deliver to it. Only by better understanding the system can we hope to improve it.

And there’s nothing new under the sun. Just as modern studies do, studies on letters of reference from the 1920s and 30s show a questioning of the very functions of the documents, concern with the clarity, specificity, and credibility of qualitative praise, arguments about the effect of confidentiality in letters, and open attempts to warn selectors against particular candidates. Consider this excerpt of findings cited in a 1935 study (2), just as relevant today:

1. The writer of testimonials and letters of recommendation is likely to view his task lightly.
2. The writer for mere accommodation will often exceed his knowledge or falsify it.
3. There is no way of checking against errors.
4. Bias or carelessness of the writer is a factor.
5. The writer may overstate or underestimate the case of the candidate.
6. The writer may simply make inadequate statements perfunctory in character.

Interestingly, these same kinds of problems are just as relevant today, suggesting that very little has changed. In deep contrast, recommendation letter writers of old enjoyed far greater candor than they do today. Witness these now ironic excerpts from a 1936 study (3), quoting actual letters written to “recommend” public school teachers:

“Some people in this section have questioned her deportment on certain occasions. . . . I feel that she might do better work in another community.”

“Miss N came to us a year ago. She has been in three different systems in the four years of her experience. . . . We don’t feel that we should prevent Miss N from continuing her annual change.”

“His pupils are fairly well interested in their work, but never excel. I believe you could procure his services at his present salary.”

“She is married but her husband is not with her. . . . If she were not my sister I would like to speak of her in detail.”

“Please destroy this letter when you have read it.”

This pithy last statement is my favorite, in that its request was obviously not carried out. And imagine today if writers commented on someone’s salary or negatively on someone’s marital status in a recommendation letter—certainly a lot has changed in relation to the boundaries of writer commentary.

Considering, then, the substantial power that recommendation letters have to either help or harm the student, and assuming that by the very act of agreeing to write a letter we mean to help, let us begin by recognizing the ethical context in which we write, from the built-in implications to the nuances that we control.

Faithful readers of The Chronicle of Higher Education will realize that academia is increasingly becoming a litigious arena. Faculty members sue their schools over tenure denials; students sue universities over a flap about objectionable website photos; universities sue students for blogging unfavorable comments about administrators. Two of my favorite cases were in 1994, when a University of Idaho student tried to sue after crashing through a third-story window while mooning his friends (4), and two Pace University students sued because they found a class they had enrolled in to be too hard (5). The badly injured mooner sought nearly half a million dollars per cheek (but the judge turned his back), while the Pace University students initially won $1,000 apiece plus couerse tuition reimbursement, but a New York appeals court later overturned the decision.

More to the point, in one of the few instances of legal action over evaluative letters, in a case involving the University of Missouri Medical School, the US Supreme Court upheld that a fourth-year medical student could be dismissed from school as a result of written evaluations criticizing the student’s erratic attendance at clinical sessions, poor interpersonal skills, and lack of “a critical concern for personal hygiene” (6). However, in another case, the University of Pennsylvania failed at repeated attempts to retain sole access to the complete tenure file documents of six faculty, which were requested in a claim of sex and race discrimination (7). In this case, then, letter confidentiality was not supported. Several other legal cases involving faculty letters emerged in the 1990s and 2000s, and the initial rulings in these cases were sometimes overturned on appeal.

Though these legal cases involved faculty and grad students, most letter writers have some sense of worry—often a vague one—of potential legal issues involved in writing letters for undergrads as well. Though actions taken against letter writers are rare, many faculty write letters with a nagging, even if unfounded, fear of legal action, and it certainly influences what they write. In fact, one study of 150 faculty at 150 schools found that “more than half agreed that letters frequently are inflated because writers fear legal retribution for negative comments” (8).

To sort through this problem and consider the relevant issues squarely, we can examine how confidentiality impacts letters and explore the legal interpretations of FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act).

The Influence of Confidentiality on Letter Writing

Not surprisingly, studies find that confidential letters contain comments about students that are less favorable than those in open access letters. However, reviewers of letters are also more likely to trust the information when they know that students have waived their access rights (10, 11). In plain terms, everyone is more comfortable when a student opts for a confidential letter, and such a letter will also likely be perceived as more trustworthy. A 2001 article in the journal Academic Emergency Medicine put the matter succinctly: “Knowledge of a candidate’s potential viewing may bias the candid and honest authorship of an accurate letter” (12). Thus, we typically urge students to waive their access rights, and we can do so confidently by assuring them that this is the standard practice held in much higher favor by schools and selection committees.

FERPA’s Impact on Student Records

Also known as the Buckley Amendment, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974 spoke to the issue of the confidentiality of students’ personal and academic records. Under this Act, personal “directory” information about students such as their name and phone number—even their date and place of birth—may be disclosed without a student’s permission.

FERPA also gave students both the right to inspect letters written about them and the option of waiving access. This waiver of access, in effect, takes away the student’s right to see the letter and protects the recommender’s right to offer subjective commentary, as long as the letters are used “only for the purposes for which they were intended” (9). If over-analyzed, this document seems to create something of an “access tug of war” between student and writer, and it’s unclear which party has the most responsibility to establish access rights, but in practice the standard is clear: Students seeking a letter of recommendation are typically asked to sign a statement waiving their access rights to the letter, usually right on the letter request form itself.

Increasingly, in the context of recommendation letters, some schools interpret FERPA and its amendments to mean that a letter writer cannot reveal certain academic records without written permission, specifically the following:

• the names of courses taken;
• the grade received in a particular course;
• class rank;
• GPA.

For letter writers, of course, such restrictions can be inconvenient or even seem downright silly. As opposed to revealing, say, a student’s Social Security number, which has obvious ethical and financial complications, revealing a student’s grade in a course is one of the best and easiest ways to praise the student. Therefore, many writers simply include such information without concern for FERPA regulations, trusting that there will be no repercussions from the student.

Whatever your past habit has been, the best practice is obviously to ensure that the student has signed a written statement waiving access rights, and schools are increasingly detailing exactly what that statement should include. As one example, the University of Utah provides students with a “Permission To Release Education Record Information” form, including the student name and ID number and the following statements:

I give permission for ______ to write a letter of recommendation on my behalf, and for the purpose of ________. This letter can include the following information:

 

Please check all that apply:

 

    □ Grades    □ GPA   □ Class rank

 

Please send letters of recommendation to: __________.

 

I waive my right to review a copy of this letter of recommendation now and in the future.

    □ Yes        □ No

As another example, a professor from the University of Minnesota has crafted a "Student Reference Request Consent Form"—a checklist covering everything from the purpose of the reference to permission to provide an evaluation of academic performance to a waiver of access rights.  I like this form in particular because it teaches the student about protocol.

Even if overly detailed for the tastes of some, these approaches do seem prudent in relation to FERPA and how schools are interpreting it. Also prudent is to check with your academic institution as to its specific policy regarding recommendation letter access. This policy might be more obviously aimed at students rather than at faculty, so a bit of digging may be necessary. However, with the policy usually directly tied to FERPA, doing a search for references to FERPA on your school’s website is a good beginning.

In 2003, the Department of Justice investigated a claim by a student at Texas Tech University that religious discrimination was inherent in a professor’s policy of not writing recommendation letters for students who didn’t support the theory of evolution. On the professor’s website, he had told students seeking letters: “I will ask you, ‘How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?’ If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation” (13). The student hadn’t sought a letter from the professor, nor enrolled in his class, but had sat in on the class for a few days and objected to the professor’s posted policy. While a representative at the Liberty Legal Institute, which supported the student's claim, called the professor’s actions “egregious conduct,” a spokeswoman at Texas Tech defended the stance: “Professors don’t have to write recommendations at all, and we certainly don’t tell them who they have to write for . . . He’s not saying he wouldn’t write a letter for a Christian—he’s saying he wouldn’t write a letter for someone who doesn’t believe in evolution” (14). The investigation was dropped after a short time, after some changes to the professor’s website, including a comment that the policy should not be “misconstrued as discriminatory against anyone’s personal beliefs” (13).

Whatever stroke you swim in this ethical soup, you are well-advised as you write letters to consider the issue of discrimination as a complex, potentially combustible one. Any number of stances might be supported in the above scenario, but the back story to this tale should be equally interesting: presumably, the professor came to this stance after repeatedly facing the issue with students requesting letters—i.e., the position developed from experience. When a claim of discrimination surfaces, considerations of experience and intention seem to be critical on behalf of both parties. And these considerations are best weighed within context. In the context of letters of recommendation, writers must be concerned about discrimination based on gender, race, and a host of personal circumstances.

Considering gender, one study of over 1,000 letters of recommendation from the 1970s provides some revealing language. One candidate was described as a “tallish blue-eyed blond,” another was cited as “not neglecting her family,” and another was characterized as having a “remarkable [devotion to scholarship] in a young woman who is physically so slight and so pretty” (15). Such commentary, which baldly smacks of sexism and stereotypes, helps us see the obvious danger of discriminatory language and examples in letters of recommendation.

A successful lawsuit cited earlier involved reference letters and claims of race discrimination (7), and numerous studies have explored the issue of gender-biased practices in letters. An assessment of 300 letters written for medical faculty reinforced gender schema of women as teachers and students and men as researchers and professionals (16), and even studies that have found no substantive evidence of sexism in letters have supported findings of content differences based on the writer’s gender and evidence of gender solidarity (17, 18). To generalize, then, there is an argument that not only do males and females write differently in letters of reference, they write about males and females differently. The bottom line emerging from such academic findings—not to mention from the employment of common sense—is that writers clearly must not make statements in letters that could serve as a basis for discrimination. And a good number of statutes define the various headings under which we must avoid discrimination: race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, politics, religion, age, appearance, marital or parental status, or any handicapping condition.

But for the letter writer the issue is often highly nuanced: Suppose an African-American professor wants to comment on his student’s role as an officer in the campus Black Caucus? Suppose a professor of women’s studies wants to celebrate her female student’s paper on depictions of feminine stereotypes in 19th century paintings? Suppose a political science professor wants to cite her student bringing experience from his native third world country to classroom discussion? Should these writers avoid such commentary based on concerns of discrimination? The considered answer here is likely “no,” but neither can such comments be made in a way that race, gender, or certain personal characteristics are likely to become an inappropriate criterion in the decision-making process. As noted earlier on the subject of discrimination claims, the writer’s experiences and intentions are highly relevant, as is the letter’s context.

Avoiding Discriminatory Practices in Letters

To avoid discriminatory practices while still addressing appropriate personal characteristics of the candidate, consult the following list of questions:

Is there any good reason to reveal gender, race, or other potentially discriminatory characteristics within the context of the application as a whole? If not, strictly avoid doing so (other than by use of the appropriate gender pronoun, of course).

If race, gender, or other personal characteristics are relevant to the application context, is the student invited to comment in these areas? If so, are you as the letter writer specifically invited to do the same? Noteworthy examples include the Soros Fellowship for New Americans or a scholarship specifically for women in science. Here, effective commentary on nationality or gender within the context of a field might be considered relevant, though such commentary would still have to be concerned with tone and proportion.

Do you have a meaningful affiliation with the student which goes beyond the student/teacher relationship? Do you have personal information about the student that you think is highly useful to mention? Is it naturally relevant? Is a selector likely to find such information automatically helpful and benign or needlessly distracting? Does the personal information lift up and humanize the student or does it reinforce stereotype? Answering "yes" to any of these questions increases the likelihood that the student's race, gender, or other personal characteristics are valuable contributions to the letter's content.

Even with this list of questions, getting near such matters feels like too much of a hot button issue for many writers. When in doubt, some writers actually ask students their opinion of how such details might be addressed if at all, while others consult with colleagues or do some digging to find out their school’s policy. Certainly, all schools have considered this issue, and some such as the University of Alabama in Huntsville—in its “Legal Implications of Letters of Recommendation” (19)—publish guidelines. Amidst this school’s guidelines, for instance, is this example of what a blundering discriminatory statement might sound like: “For a 55-year-old non-traditional student, she has a remarkable record, particularly in view of her inner city background.”

Perhaps the simplest rule of thumb is this: When writing letters, avoid comments that would make a person of sensibilities become distracted enough to wince.

In 2002, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences published a paper arguing that the fundamental means we use to evaluate rising students—by quantitative measures such as grades and qualitative measures such as recommendation letters—have substantially changed over time. Studies on grade inflation covering the years 1960 to 1997 found measurable GPA increases in every institutional type, greater percentages of grades awarded in the A range, and lower percentages of grades falling below the B range (20). The Vietnam War is often cited as a beginning of the grade inflation trend, with faculty awarding students unearned grades in order to keep them from dropping out of school and becoming subject to military service. Other cited factors contributing to this trend include curriculum changes that reflect the changing tenor of the culture and the workplace, the increasing use of student evaluations (with critics arguing that faculty give easy grades to gain popularity), the increasing use of adjuncts, and the greater number of students in college aggressively seeking the grail of post-graduate education. Finally, a trend towards students viewing themselves as “consumers,” with schools as their service providers, also contributes to the problem. One study in 1999 found that large proportions of students in five different courses saw grade inflation as the norm—i.e., even students who self-reported doing ‘average’ work still expected Bs or As (21). Put simply, many students expect to be given high grades, even when delivering mediocre performance.

Certainly, the issue of grade inflation has drawn significant academic attention, and in some cases even new policy initiatives, over the last few decades. Since 2000, the schools that have introduced policies to curb grade inflation include Columbia University, Harvard, the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, and Princeton University. Princeton University’s policy, in particular, drew much attention in 2004, with the Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel citing grade inflation as “an intractable national problem” and calling for faculty “to give students the carefully calibrated assessment they deserve of the quality of their course work and independent work” (22). The Princeton proposal called for programs and departments to ration grades more carefully, awarding less than 35% of grades in the A range, and less than 55% in the A range for independent work by juniors and seniors. The proposal gained almost 2/3 support in a faculty vote (23). Five years after the policy was implemented, in 2009, Princeton reported marked progress in curbing grade inflation, with about an 8 percent drop in the number of As awarded. A statement issued by the Faculty Committee on Grading noted that “These results confirm once again that with clear intent and concerted effort, a university faculty can bring down the inflated grades that—left uncontrolled—devalue the educational achievements of American college students” (24).

Meanwhile, a trend parallel to grade inflation is evident in letters of recommendation written by faculty, whether written for students or for peers. Both students and faculty expect and sometimes pressure their recommenders to write glowing evaluations, candor is replaced by gloss, and qualitative distinctions become blurred. As one writer puts it, commenting on letters written for tenure and promotion candidates, “Puffery is rampant. Evasion abounds” (25).

As discussed in Sissela Bok’s fascinating book, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, the act of writing an inflated recommendation has become sanctioned simply by pervasive practice. The writer’s usual reasoning is this: “It helps someone, while injuring no one in particular, and balances out similar gestures on the part of many others” (26). In fact, most evaluators feel that if they do not conform to an “inflated set of standards” within a “system where all recommendations are customarily exaggerated” (26), they do their students unintentional harm.

Though the practice of writing inflated letters of reference is harder to quantify and less studied than the issue of grade inflation, the backlash trend against inflated letters of praise seems to be taking the same path: Scholarship jurors are urging more candor that will provide clearer distinctions among candidates, selection committees are calling for more context about program standards so they may better assess a candidate’s worthiness, and letter reviewers are growing more vocal about their need for specificity and credible information. In short, readers want informative letters they can trust.

What then are the best practices we should use amidst these trends, while acknowledging the student’s need for an effective, helpful letter of recommendation? While recognizing that we work in an academic culture where inflated letters are common, our best practices include considerations such as praising (even criticizing) in ways that lend credibility, and understanding the audience’s need for a letter that informs in a way that provides a best fit between candidate and opportunity. The challenge and charge is to reduce inflationary rhetoric while still honoring and serving the student’s needs.

On the topic of praise in recommendation letters, paradoxes commonly arise. The same person recommends three different candidates for the same scholarship, and each one is redundantly put forth as “absolutely the best student I have ever had.” Every student within a pack of 50 is lauded with the superlatives “outstanding” and “excellent,” yet their GPAs and GRE scores range from perfect to average. And how about the statistical conundrum when 60% of the reference letters from a particular school claim that the recommended students from this year are in the top 5% of students the school has ever graduated? Is this year’s crop really that good? Reacting to this trend of over-the-top praise in letters even in the mid-1960s, one researcher facetiously titled his journal article on the subject, “Mine Eyes Have Seen a Host of Angels” (27).

Unsurprisingly, seasoned selectors can become tone deaf to hyperbole, especially when it’s presented ineffectively—they’ve heard it all before, and unqualified glorification with no supporting evidence or contradictory evidence is simply not credible. We have a system where praise is given in such lavish heaps in recommendation letters that it ironically becomes suspect. As one study put it, search committee members become frustrated with “the contradiction presented by a volume of glorious recommendation letters and a candidate’s weak academic record and a disappointing personal interview” (28). One professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago asserts that, in economics, “it is well known that a certain Nobel laureate claims in every recommendation he has written that the present recommendee is ‘the best student I have ever had’ . . . since around 1953” (29).

One impact of this trend, in cases where selectors actually take the time to follow up and check on the veracity of a claim, is that the evaluation process becomes driven through “increasingly informal channels” (20), where people simply call or e-mail the recommender for the “real information,” resulting in what could be either a more thorough or a more relaxed process, depending on the ethic of all parties involved.

There is also a forceful argument that hyperbolic praise in recommendation letters does harm both to academia and to individuals. One philosopher posits that the practice “obviously injures those who do not benefit from this kind of assistance; and it injures them in a haphazard and inequitable way” (26), with two equally qualified candidates rated differently based on their recommenders’ different levels of flattery. A 2002 report assembled by academicians from different fields finds that an overly laudatory letter “cheats those excellent candidates who deserve great praise and gives less distinguished applicants an unfair and unearned advantage. It may also cause the employer or educational institution to have unrealistic expectations of the candidate” (20). As one instructor at Harvard succinctly puts it: “By rewarding mediocrity we discourage excellence” (30).

The argument that inflated praise is desirable or necessary in letters can also be a powerful, student-centered one. Respondents defending the practice in one study argued that students who are merely satisfactory in college sometimes go on to do very well, so they might be given the benefit of the doubt, and that many students change and improve with experience (8). Knowing that exaggeration is the norm in letters, many writers practice it simply to avoid hurting their students. As one professor of law and philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin noted: “Someone who is candid risks damaging their students, because candor is uncommon” (25). When we write a reference letter, some say, we are responding to the best in the student, and projecting what that student may become in time.

Clearly, what is needed is a form of praise that honors both the student and the letter evaluator equally. A 2002 study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences suggests a dual ethical responsibility to the candidate and to the evaluators making the decisions. On serving the needs of the evaluators: “A rephrased Golden Rule is the best guide: Write to others the kind of letter of recommendation you would like to receive from them. To follow the rule is responsible professional conduct. Not to follow the rule perpetuates harmful practices in the academy” (20). Though by definition a recommendation letter will always be complimentary and flattering, recommenders serve their students and academia best by writing a letter where praise is measured and exacting, where superlatives are backed up by demonstrative examples, and where statistics about student ranking or quality are used with consistency and great care.

Given the cautions provided in the previous sections against inflationary rhetoric and hyperbolic praise in letters, some attention to the role of criticism—or perceived criticism—is critical.

One study from the field of psychology—where one must assume that honest assessment is held in high value—is instructive. In a large survey where 98 percent of the respondents were doctoral-level psychologists evaluating students for potential clinical practice, a “nontrivial minority” of respondents said they would not include negative evaluation of students even with knowledge of negative behavior. Specifically, 12.4 percent said they would exclude mention of problems of alcohol or drug abuse, and 43.2 percent said they would not mention anxiety or depression. In the same study, a sample of 116 psychologists who had recently read reference letters said that negative characteristics were infrequently described. Readers of letters in this study assessed that “writers feel more obligated to the student than to the letter recipient” (31).

Certainly, the face-to-face factor plays a strong hand in this dynamic. It’s difficult to look at a student, agree to write a letter, then feel we’ve turned our back on the student by articulating criticism. We also know that letter evaluators actually read with a great deal of sophistication and subtlety when trying to sniff out negative comments (in contrast, praise is read rather simplistically, one could argue). As an example, one study found that negative comments in letters could be grouped into five categories: relative progress (“he’s come a long way”), disadvantaged background (“she’s overcome cultural obstacles”), explicitly negative (“his work is competent but not distinguished”), remediative (“improvement is needed”), and inconspicuously ambiguous (“she is aware of her strengths and weaknesses but won’t take on things she’s unqualified to do”) (32). With such possibilities open to broad reader interpretation, we have to assume that even a minor comment can be interpreted and remembered as definitive and potentially damaging, even in an otherwise positive letter.

Red Flags and Omissions

Plenty of writers—intentionally or otherwise—wave red flags to their readers as they write letters. These red flags might take the form of distancing (with the writer taking pains to show limited knowledge of the student), a critical incident ambiguously offered (a student being called initially aggressive, then “winning over” the writer) (32), or the presentation of so many irrelevancies (either about the student or the recommender) that readers feel there is something to hide. One study published in the journal Academic Emergency Medicine tied the issue of veracity directly to authorship: “Veracity requires that authors avoid sins of omission and commission, understatements as well as overstatements” (12).

One of the loudest ways some writers criticize, or seem to, is through omission. Studies in the medical field in particular show that there is a finely tuned radar for what is not said in a letter. If one has a sense that the writer kept mum about important information, one assumes that something negative is lurking between the lines. “One of the most challenging features of letters of recommendation for medical faculty is the growing tendency not to state the negative, but merely to fail to state the positive” (17). In fact, in one study of letters for surgical residencies, “The commonly used phrase, ‘If I can provide any additional information, please call . . .’ was almost uniformly identified as a strong negative comment” (33). Such red flags and omissions don’t always exclude a candidate, of course, but they can do so in the hands of a hasty reviewer, or they can require readers to take extra time with an application to sort through the writer’s intentions.

Cross-Cultural Factors

An associate professor at Duke University once “pumped up the volume” in a letter sent to a university in Great Britain, calling a student “outstanding.” Soon he received a call from the search committee, asking if the letter had been forged. “It was so hyperbolic in their eyes that they couldn’t believe it,” the professor said (25). He found what many have described anecdotally—that British evaluators lend more credibility to a letter that is not inflated, and even includes at least one criticism. This is especially relevant when one knows that a British evaluator will be part of the process, as with the Marshall and Rhodes scholarships.

One study that compared recommendation letters from four countries found that the letters all seemed to have the same purpose, but that “the ways that writers from different cultures express support vary a great deal” (34). Another study involved only a small statistical sample, but the researchers noted that “even letters from Canada were less hyperbolic than those from the USA” (16).

Reasons and Ways to Criticize

Despite all the concern raised here about the damning power of criticism, we must remember to keep perspective and recognize that the mentor/student relationship often does involve honest critique. I’m reminded of my early days as a fiction writer, where I gained the most help from one challenging mentor (who was, perhaps significantly, British) who wrote at the end of a clever but vacant piece of mine, “You’re very clever, now why don’t you write me some fiction?” I am also reminded of numerous examples where I have given honest criticism about students verbally during interviews or background checks, and in writing amidst an otherwise positive letter, and those students still landed the desired opportunities. My hope and belief is that the criticism lent more credibility to my overall evaluation, and that the evaluators put it into the proper context.

To criticize artfully and kindly when writing letters, consider these practices:

1. See if the application materials call for criticism. Many times, a statement will be provided to the referee also inviting your assessment of a candidate’s weaknesses. Take this as a sign that careful critique is desirable, and even cite that statement as you give the critique. Consider this especially when there are cross-cultural factors at work, or when you’re recommending a student in a field with a strong sense of hierarchy.
2. Limit your criticism to one paragraph (probably late in the letter) rather than pepper it throughout, and be direct and affirmative as you offer it rather than ambiguous, avoiding comments that seem to be veiled criticisms. Even phrases such as “To the best of my limited knowledge” or “I suspect that” could be read as negative no matter what praise follows. Better to say “his research skills are not yet proven with lab experience” or “her teaching could be improved with a higher level of confidence.”
3. Avoid highly negative comments (looked on with as much suspicion as exaggerated praise), hedges, unexplained asides, and irrelevancies.
4. Discuss your criticisms with the student, note the response you get, and indicate right in the letter that this discussion and response took place.
5. Openly tie your criticism to your sense of ethics as a letter writer (as detailed in the next section). Define yourself as a holistic evaluator.

Among the many mini-lessons in ethics offered up by The Dick Van Dyke Show (including not eavesdropping on your neighbors, not sticking your big toe in the bathtub faucet, and perambulatory care around ottomans), episode #108 is a moral tale about writing recommendation letters. Rob Petrie’s old pal, Neil Schenk, asks Rob to write him a positive recommendation letter for a job, playing on Rob’s guilt about owing him an ancient favor. The hapless Rob waffles, feeling he can only write him a neutral letter at best, and when Rob hesitates Neil simply writes his own letter and manipulates Rob into signing it. In the end, of course, the morally straight Rob Petrie opts for telling Neil Schenk and the employer who received the inaccurate letter the truth, and because it’s the world of the sitcom their old friendship is nevertheless preserved.

The dilemma above is not uncommon in the academic world, though here the situation is reversed, with the faculty member sometimes inviting the student to initially draft his or her own letter for review. Though some faculty swear they’ve never heard of this and some see it as a wholly unethical practice, I’ve talked to a good number of faculty who say a department head once asked them to write their own reference letter draft, and I’ve worked with plenty of students who were asked to do the same by a faculty member, who usually cites a busy schedule as prohibitive to the task. Presumably what follows is a document that is reviewed and rewritten, and hopefully the ghostwritten draft isn’t so much a letter in sentence and paragraph form as a list of accomplishments or examples that are useful to include in the letter, which is ultimately written by the proper party.

Without overstating the case that the act of writing recommendation letters has ethical implications and repercussions, there are a number of areas where questions of best behavior and protocol come to mind. Especially if a pushy student tries to control the process, it is worth remembering that the key decisions are yours to make, including whether or not you write the letter, your dual obligations to the student and the letter evaluators, and whether or not you share the letter with the student.

Saying No

Sometimes the kindest, most responsible thing we can do for a student is refuse to write a letter of reference. Most faculty try to warm the student to this idea subtly, suggesting that they are too busy, that they’re not sure what to say, that there must be others who can write a more positive letter, or that they simply don’t know enough about the student, whom they might have had in class years ago.

Savvy students will usually recognize such responses as the faculty code for “no,” but the savviest might offer you a resume and a meeting or an e-mail to help you generate positive detail for a letter (a few have won me over by doing so). Also, the pushiest and most histrionic students might insist that you really are the best recommender they’ve got, and that your letter is critical to their very lives.

In this case, assuming you still don’t want to write a letter, here are some good reasons for not doing so, which you might share with the student if so moved:

• Your limited support of the student doesn’t match the weight of the opportunity—as in the case of a national scholarship—and your neutral or unsupportive letter might only do the student unintentional harm.
• You really know nothing beyond the student’s recorded grades, and you’re not inclined to get to know more, for reasons of time or temperament.
• You genuinely dislike the student, for good reason, perhaps because of bad classroom behavior such as chronic lateness or missed deadlines, or because you know the student abuses drugs or commits illegal acts.
• You’ve had encounters that indicate deep depression, unusual personal problems, or a level of anxiety that would affect the student professionally.
• You have knowledge that the student cheated on an exam or plagiarized on a paper, and thus you can’t justify helping to advance the student’s career.
• The student approaches you and nags you in such an unprofessional manner that you are fully persuaded that your endorsement would be a lie.

Admittedly, some of these reasons do sit you in judgment, and many faculty wouldn’t feel comfortable sharing their true reasoning with students, but good students always have options about whom they can ask for letters, and poor students and students in trouble sometimes do need to face the reality of how they got there. Faculty who say no for good reason suffer less than those who agree begrudgingly to write a letter, then feel divided in the very act of giving praise.

Gatekeeping

In the 1970s, the Director of the Hastings Center of the Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences, having problems with a new hire, contacted the employee’s references and took them to task. The references sheepishly admitted to the worker’s bad history, but felt obliged to help him. “Surely we owe something to our profession or field,” the Director argued—“that its standards be high, that it not tolerate the inept, much less outright malpractitioners, and that it work to serve the general good rather than the self-interest of its practitioners” (35).

In a few extreme cases, former employers were sued, having provided positive references for an employee despite concrete knowledge of past illicit or illegal behavior, and when the same behavior surfaced in the new workplace, the former employers were held accountable for not being forthcoming in their letters (8, 19).

In the rare cases in academia when someone follows up with the references after awarding or hiring someone who turns out to be a dud, the same story is often told—we were aware of the problem, but didn’t want to harm the person’s chances by bringing it up. What surfaces is something of a “buyer beware” mentality, as one writer calls it (27), with the onus on the recipient to deal with the problem. But many feel strongly that it should sometimes be the letter writer’s job to serve as a protective gatekeeper. As one professor at Florida State University put it: “I write letters . . . to advance the academy” (1). A respondent in one study summed up the sentiment about the need for gatekeeping in this way: “I know that our university program is represented by our graduates working in the field. So I do not wish to lesson our ethos, and neither do I want to cause problems for either employer or graduate by putting people in positions for which I have no evidence they would do well” (8). In medical fields, where letters of recommendation are critical tools for deciding between candidates, the letter writer might feel a stronger sense of responsibility to the medical profession than to the individual candidate. As stated in a journal article from Academic Emergency Medicine, for the letter writer “there is an implied duty to future students, colleagues, researchers, and patients who might come in contact with the applicant” (12).

In practice, much of this issue simply goes to writing a letter where praise and criticism are used fairly, or just saying no to writing a letter in the first place—issues discussed earlier—but there may be cases where you write from the position of protecting your school’s or profession’s reputation. I once wrote a negative letter for a student applying to grad school in my own program, but only after the student repeatedly refused to take no for an answer, after warning the student that my letter would not be wholly positive, and with certainty that this student was a terrible fit for the program. My loyalty to our program became the most important factor in deciding to write a negative letter. Often, gatekeeping is far less extreme, simply taking the form of passing on specific, credible concerns, but it usually involves some sort of mental wrestling match as you decide where your loyalties lie most. The more allegiance one feels to those receiving the evaluation, the more the writer might feel required to serve as gatekeeper.

Perhaps the most ethical principle is this: If you criticize with the intention of upholding the standards of the profession, you should make that motivation clear in the letter, and still refrain from criticizing irrelevantly or out of proportion.

Being Honest with the Student

As I write letters for my students, I believe in partnering with them on the process, beginning by asking them their opinions of their accomplishments and shortcomings. Usually, they don’t praise themselves enough (though sometimes they overdo it, and I must provide a more mature perspective), and they are highly capable of articulating their own weaknesses. Such a discussion fosters honesty between us, and I find I can thus write a more even-handed letter, sometimes including the student’s self-reflection and self-criticism as part of my text. Also, if I feel that I must write a limited or neutral letter for the student, I can admit that more easily if we’ve already had an open discussion about the process.

When writing letters of reference, one of the best ways you can smooth the process for yourself and foster honesty with the student is by developing a set of practices and policies, being up front about how you feel about writing letters and your personal protocol. Here are excerpts from two professor’s policies:

“If you have made no impression in my class, it is unlikely that you will get a good letter” (36).

“You need to have completed at least two of my courses. . . . You need to have earned a grade of B or better in all courses taken from me, received an A in one of my courses, and have at least a 3.0 GPA overall” (37).

“Ask me if I have the time to write the letter and if I would feel comfortable writing a supportive and positive recommendation letter for you. . . . I would rather decline writing you a recommendation letter than to write you a vague or irrelevant one” (38).

Note how these policies anticipate common problems in the process, set forth the professor’s ethic for how quality is defined, and build in the possibility of a negative letter or no letter at all. By developing such policies and being up front about them, these professors help students realize the weight given to recommendations, and underscore the boundaries of the professor’s protocol—which certainly might be stretched for the right student, one would assume, but not without the student recognizing the rules of the game.

Being Honest with the Letter Evaluator

Beyond the need to be honest about your assessment of a student’s abilities, there are other areas where authors should uphold an ethic of honesty, in particular in matters of authorship, criticism in your letter, and letter confidentiality.

In some cases, letters may have multiple authors or be co-signed, and if such matters are ambiguously presented or only gleaned through the letter’s signature line, letter evaluators are likely to be puzzled, and the letter’s credibility could come into question. At Harvard, teaching fellows who author a letter are invited to prepare a draft and share it with a course instructor, who then rewrites or simply co-signs it (38). In such cases, a carefully worded statement defining the chain of authorship is appropriate in the text of the letter, perhaps even right up front. I’ve also seen cases where a professor endorsed a letter written by a grad student by providing an imbedded or separate signed statement, noting that the letter had been read by the professor and met with his or her approval.

Some writers, wanting to make sure that evaluators recognize why criticism is being offered even amidst full endorsement of a student, include statements about their own ethic when writing recommendation letters. One study suggests “A written qualifying statement acknowledging the tendency of recommendation letters to overstate candidates’ desirable qualities, and stating the writer’s intention to avoid this trap by providing a more complete letter covering both strengths and weaknesses” (39). The intention here, of course, is to lend credibility and context to your honest and complete assessment of the student.

Finally, some writers have strong feelings about whether or not a student should be privy to a letter’s contents, and some studies recommend that you “state in the letter whether or not it was shared with the applicant” (31). The effect of such a statement can go in either direction, in that some feel a confidential letter shouldn’t be shared with the student under any circumstances, thinking that it destroys the impact of confidentiality; others feel that the student should be highly involved in the process of generating detail for the letter, and thus the issue of confidentiality for them is much more flexible. If you do make such a statement, again your concern should be with making it without equivocation. To demonstrate, note how there is a great difference in how these three statements might be interpreted:

“Per the usual protocol, I have not shared this letter nor its contents.”

“After a lot of thought, I decided that John might be really upset if he saw this letter, so I’m keeping it confidential.”

“After she signed the right of access waiver, I shared portions of this letter verbally with Janet, respectful of her maturity in handling my evaluation.”

If no such statement is made, a confidential, non-shared letter should be assumed.

Sharing the Letter with the Student

Through both serendipity and design, I’ve seen most of the recommendation letters written for me. In addition to the scenario I discuss in the Preface of this manual, several of my professors and my dean have given me what are commonly called “blind copies” of my letters either before or after sending them and after I had waived my access rights. I’ve talked to many others who have also seen at least one recommendation letter they’ve had written for them, either because they were involved in the process of helping to generate detail for it or because the writer had a policy of sharing even confidential letters.

In reading my own letters and considering the process carefully, I’ve developed a practice of sometimes sharing a letter or portions of it with students, but I typically do so after the decision based on the letter has been made, and when the decision was favorable to the student. Though never obliged to share letters with students who have waived access, many faculty develop some sort of access policy. If you choose to do so, the safest practice is to consider each case individually, based on the detail of your letter, your level of criticism, the status of the letter at the time of access, and the student’s maturity.

Perhaps the best way to describe the value of minding practical details is to consider what happens when we do not. My favorite page of my Family Handyman magazine is the “Great Goofs” back page, where do-it-yourselfers bemoan how they accidentally built a beautiful brick patio overtop their septic holding tank cleanout, or miswired a metal bathroom fixture, which energized the bathroom’s foil wallpaper and shocked anyone who touched the walls. I have my own “Great Goofs” submission if I ever decide to own up to it: I once installed a tile ceiling in my basement, and as I proudly prepared to staple in one of the last tiles I noticed that the furring strip wasn’t tight up against the ceiling beam, so I forcefully drove in an extra long nail for good measure—smack into the house’s main water supply pipe that ran through the beam, promptly flooding my new ceiling.

After reviewing over 400 letters for this handbook and discussing the subject with faculty, I’ve come across a number of “great goofs” suitable for publication: The professor/scientist who wrote a five-page reference letter for his student, using 70 percent of the letter to describe his own research. The grad student who addressed her student’s letter of reference envelope and popped it in the mail, then found the letter back in her mail slot three days later—she had mailed it back to herself. The instructor who had to submit his letter electronically and resorted to a lot of cut and pasting to save time, pasting in his Social Security number where the date should have been. As these examples show, our ability to mind the details when writing a reference letter becomes critical to our student’s success (and our own pride and professionalism).

So attend to the practical matters discussed in this chapter. It pays off, and keeps you out of the “great goofs” club, which already has enough members.

Although most faculty can readily make their letters look good at a glance thanks to computer software and templates, many still puzzle through the fundamentals of appropriate length and overall form. The standards are well-established, as discussed below.

Length of the Letter

In one study that assessed over 500 letters of recommendation, results indicated that “the strength of the cooperative relationship between recommenders and applicants influenced the favorability and length of the letters” (1). Another study noted that “the more detail in the letter, the more persuasive” (2). In other words, a longer letter in the right circumstances gives favor to the candidate, as long as detail in the letter is relevant.

To determine the appropriate length for a letter, balance your knowledge of the student with the weight and opportunity of what the student is applying for. For instance, if the student is seeking a military position that you have little knowledge of and your evaluation form included a detailed checklist, your letter might be just one or two paragraphs long, efficiently endorsing the student within the context of the whole application. In most circumstances, however, your letter should fill a page neatly and perhaps go on to a second page. When students apply for graduate school or a national scholarship, two-page letters are the norm, and very short letters leave candidates at a clear disadvantage. As faculty who sit on review boards will confirm, letters of three pages or more are simply too lengthy (and often too full of irrelevant detail) for a selection committee to consider efficiently; pare them back.

Letterhead and Date

The letterhead should not be included on any pages except the first one, but be sure to number and perhaps date any subsequent pages in case they become separated. Many writers also provide an appropriate subject line at the top of any pages after the first one (e.g., “Letter of Reference for Janet Lerner—Page 2”).

Thanks to computer software, professional looking letterheads are easily generated, and many faculty use paper with a pre-printed letterheads for their first page. The best letterhead is that of the department, college, or other organization with which you are most closely affiliated. If you use some other letterhead, such as that of an inter-office memo or personal stationery, you have not clearly announced your connection to the student and you’ve weakened the letter’s suitability. If you attach a separate letter to a form, a letterhead is still appropriate. Date the letter two or so spaces beneath the letterhead at the left or right margin.

Address and Greeting

Some writers include the target employer’s or review committee’s address at the top left margin beneath the letterhead and date; others simply begin with a greeting directed to the name of the individual heading the group that will review your letter. Get the student to give you an actual name if possible. Archaic greetings such as “Dear Sir or Madam” should be avoided, but some writers still favor the generic “To Whom it May Concern.” If you do not have a person’s name to address the letter to, let the greeting reflect the circumstances to which the letter is tailored—e.g., “Dear Graduate School Selection Committee.”

Text Formatting and Paragraph Length

Font sizes of between 10 and 12 and standard publishing fonts such as Times New Roman and Century are preferred. The convention is to single-space your type, skip lines between each paragraph, and either consistently choose no indentation for paragraphs or indent each paragraph one-half inch. Preferably, keep your paragraphs reasonably short to enhance readability. For most circumstances, three to five paragraphs per page seems to be standard, but bulkier paragraphs are possible if introduced with sound topic sentences and with effective transitions imbedded.

Closing the Letter

Sign off with “Sincerely” or something similar, then put your handwritten signature beneath, then include your typed name and title on separate lines directly beneath. Your title connects you to the student directly and affirms your credibility and affiliation. Identify your full title (“Assistant Professor of Anthropology” rather than just “Assistant Professor”) and include more than one title where logical—if you chaired or advised an organization that the student was involved in, for example, you could include that title as well. Many writers include the initials of their degrees as well, and some writers include their phone number and e-mail address under their title to facilitate easy follow-up contact.

For students applying to medical schools and law schools, different rules often apply to the application process, and these rules directly affect recommendation letters as well.

Increasingly, schools serving the medical and law professions are using application services to manage the flow of applications in a streamlined manner. This allows students to submit applications through a single service to a number of schools at once, and such services provide checklists and benchmarks to applicants to help ensure a successful application. As one example, pharmcas.org, with the support of The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), is a centralized application service for applicants applying to colleges and schools of pharmacy. Students applying to dental programs use the Associated American Dental Schools Application Service (AADSAS).

Most medical schools subscribe to the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS), and students are required to use this service to submit their application materials if their target schools are participants. With some students applying to 10 or more medical schools, many of their recommendation letters will end up having something of a generic component (though certainly the letter should address the student’s aptitude for the medical profession nonetheless). Students can include up to 10 letters of recommendation in their application, with the reasoning that this allows recommenders to target particular schools on the student’s behalf—i.e., you might actually need to provide a student with more than one letter for the same application package, with one letter aimed broadly at medical schools and another targeted to a specific program. Letter writers also have a variety of options about delivering the letter, some of which will be influenced by the writer’s academic institution and its level of relationship with medical schools. For further information, see the first link in the “Further Study” box below.

As with medical schools, law schools also use a centralized application processing service, allowing for both generalized letters of recommendation (up to four) and additional letters targeted to particular schools. Hundreds of law schools use the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) Credential Assembly Service, and the LSAC also administers the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) required for law school applicants. Finally, students using the LSAC Credential Assembly Service typically have to fill out special forms that the recommender must sign as part of the process. For more information, see the second link in the “Further Study” box below.

As noted in a June 2004 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, increasingly graduate schools are creating ways for faculty to deliver recommendation letters online, and in some cases requiring it (3). Those singing the praises of this practice cite Yale’s graduate school receiving about one-third of its recommendations online during the first year it offered the option, and the fact that more than 100 grad schools were already using online forms as of 2004 (3).

The potential downsides to having to deliver recommendation letters online are many. Some faculty already resent having to use technology as much as we do, especially to deliver something as important as a letter of reference, and some find it even more time-consuming than the paper recommendation process. Some faculty also run into technology-related problems—for example, the requirement that the letter is formatted in a particular software, or that the text must be cut and pasted into a box and scrolled through. Different delivery systems and different websites, of course, have different levels of success, and some websites crash during the process or generate vague messages as to whether the letter has actually been sent. Weary faculty use the paper option if available, or they learn to adjust to the online system, sometimes seeking voice or e-mail confirmation that their letter has actually been delivered.

Nevertheless, given that online recommendations save processing time, paper, and money, the practice is certain to grow. In fact, the use of a “Standardized Letter of Recommendation,” where the writer essentially answers multiple choice questions, is also growing in popularity and practice. Many find such forms both incomplete and unsatisfying as evaluative tools, and some worry about whether they’re shortchanging the student if they don’t choose the highest ranking in all areas. On the extreme end, websites like www.letters-of-recommendation.org are also popping up, where you fill in cells with your contact information and student’s name, then pick a number of multiple choice answers in a variety of categories, and the letter “writes itself” (yuck).

At times you will be asked to deliver a letter by e-mail or fax. In such cases—especially if you’re concerned with potential software translation issues—it is wise to seek confirmation that the letter arrived successfully and is formatted as you intended. If the letter is sent as an e-mail attachment, prepare the attachment as a pdf file if possible to ensure a format identical to the original, and proof it in pdf form as well to be sure that both characters and format were translated properly.

Especially if you’re working with a student applying for a national scholarship, where online submission of materials is becoming the norm, you may also have to register at a website or have the student register you in order to ensure letter delivery. Such complications underscore how important it can be for faculty to partner both with students and, when relevant, scholarship representatives at your school. Such partnership is often the only way to be certain that all the mechanics of electronic delivery are addressed.

Frequently, especially when students apply for grad school or scholarships, the applications are complex enough that your must understand your role as a reference in a broader context. Otherwise, your letter won’t be as effective, in that it may become redundant or not fit in neatly with other application materials. Even if students simply ask you for a letter of reference and don’t mention the broader circumstances, it is useful to discuss the application process with them or even look over the application materials yourself, if only to confirm details and full context.

Finding Out Who Else is Writing Recommendation Letters

Knowing who else is writing letters for students and how many other recommenders there are—perhaps even suggesting specific individuals—can give you a sense of the necessary depth and scope of your comments. Students are not always aware that they should choose letter writers who, when considered collectively, provide a balanced, comprehensive picture—they sometimes just automatically try any professor from whom they received a high grade.

Once you know who the other letter writers are, consider how your letter can provide a slant that the others will not. In some cases, faculty even privately confer with other recommenders to discuss the kinds of details they plan to use—thus they can be sure to provide a balanced picture in relation to the other letters. There are times where your letter might provide very limited comments based on your limited relationship with the student, and there are times when you will want to be expansive in one area of the student’s background (say, the student’s performance in a research lab) while unconcerned in another area (say, the student’s character). In such cases, knowing who else is writing letters can also help you point letter readers towards the comments of others for fuller context.

Making Certain Access Rights Have Been Waived

Chapter 1 of this handbook discusses the issues of letter confidentiality and access rights in detail. It is always prudent to be certain that students have checked all boxes in their application confirming they have waived their access rights. I know of cases where students did not check anything in that category when showing the referees the application, assuring them they would “take care of that later.” I’ve even known of a few cases where the student seemed genuinely puzzled as to what the statement meant because of the wording (I’m afraid that some students misunderstand the meaning of “waive”). This issue is always worth clarifying with the student to avoid misunderstanding or any uncertainty on your part about the confidentiality of your comments. Of course, some letter writers aren’t much concerned with the issue, but selection committees do favor letters with confidential comments, assuming that they are more candid.

Filling Out Checklists

Frequently you will be asked to fill out checklists to assess the student, either instead of or in addition to sending a letter. The main issue when filling out checklists should be consistency and continuity in the context of your letter. If you simply check the highest assessment for every attribute (a potentially suspect practice anyway), and the corresponding letter doesn’t back up this assessment, your credibility as an evaluator suffers and the student is harmed. When filling out checklists, consider each attribute individually, and never hesitate to resort to the “no opportunity to observe” category if appropriate. If attaching a separate letter with the checklist, type or handwrite that information in the correct slot of the form, and look over the application for any instructions about how your letter should be attached. If handwriting, use black ink so that a Xeroxed copy is readable.

Delivering the Letter

Although it is ultimately the student’s responsibility to be certain the letter is delivered to the correct party according to application protocol, savvy faculty members check on such details carefully. Often, application materials instruct you to deliver the letter in a sealed envelope directly to a committee, signed across the seal, or you may be asked to give the letter to the student to be sent with a package of materials. Students are often invited right in the application to prepare the envelope for you or to use an envelope that comes with the application. In all cases, a standard practice is for you to deliver the letter in a sealed envelope, signed over the seal to ensure confidentiality. If the letter is sent through the student as part of a package and a mailing address is not needed, the envelope itself should contain a descriptive phrase, such as “Reference Letter for Janet Lerner,” followed by your name.

Attending to the Deadline

Always ask students for a firm completion deadline for your letter, and recognize that it might have to be done earlier than the full application is due if the student is sending in the application package by hand. Some faculty invite the student to prompt them with a reminder a few days before the letter is due. Just as we expect students to meet deadlines for us, we should give them the same courtesy.

Despite the numerous pronoun errors in the above quote, its message does speak to me as a reader of recommendation letters. I’ve read many letters that are brimming with words yet somehow vacant of content.

Consider these bloated sentences:

It is with distinct and sincere pleasure that I come to recommend this candidate for the desired opportunity.

 

He is an excellent student with stellar grades and one who has achieved the highest rankings.

The first example is so self-important that it’s almost silly, while the second manages to say the same thing three times but with no specifics. Unfortunately, such sentences are the norm in many recommendation letters. Readers of such letters find themselves begging for content. They want substance rather than puffery, especially in a recommendation letter, which should only have to be read once and should give us an individual snapshot of the candidate.

To help you create such a snapshot, this chapter discusses proven ways to generate content and provide examples and evidence in recommendation letters. Just as important is to consider the circumstances that influence the writing of the letter, and to provide relevant detail.

In writing an effective letter, perhaps it will help you to heed the same advice that I give to students when they’re writing a cover letter for a job—try to think of the document as an argument. You’re actually positing a premise followed by examples and evidence designed to lead the audience to a desired conclusion. Also, as in a cover letter, you’re working within an existing framework where efficiency and professionalism are expected, and where the goal is to produce a document with enough individuality that no one else could have written its particulars. Fill your letters with content accordingly.

One of the greatest challenges for many faculty writing letters of reference is how to generate effective detail. The answer to this challenge usually involves getting to know the student better, matching persuasive examples and evidence to the appropriate criteria, and understanding the common expectations readers have about detail.

Partnering with the Student on the Process

Some faculty require no help from the student in preparing a letter and don’t feel they should involve the student directly, but most ask for the student’s input, using it as a way to generate detail. Some faculty even advocate that the student begin the process by drafting a letter for them to work from. Even if that particular approach doesn't suit you, some form of partnership with the student in the process can be mutually beneficial.

Common ways that faculty partner with students to generate letter detail include: 

• asking students for copies of relevant application materials, looking for clues about the audience needs.
• reviewing a copy of the student’s resume, a writing sample, a written proposal, a graded paper, or a list of achievements.
• asking for a copy of the student’s transcript, so that you can put his or her academic performance into perspective.
• interviewing students, in person or by-email, asking questions such as why they want a particular job or entrance into a program, what their long-term goals are, where their strengths and weaknesses lie, how they view their chosen profession, and what circumstances brought them to their current career path—then including this detail in the letter.

At a minimum, most faculty at least review a student’s resume to help generate detail for their letter, which also helps students to view themselves as professionals.

One example from a faculty member at North Seattle College represents the above approach perfectly. In her Process for Getting a Recommendation Letter page, this faculty member spells out her protocol to her students, attending to everything from practical materials that she needs to write the letter to reminding the student to follow up with her. Such an approach helps students to understand the process and uplifts it to something closer to an appropriately professional partnership between mentor and mentee.

Giving Context to Your Relationship with the Student

Employers and committees are always interested in how you came to know and how long you have known a student, and many writers open their letters by directly stating this. Especially if you teach an upper-level course or run a lab or program, it can be effective to describe succinctly the curriculum or the exact nature of the class or work, including the types of students involved, texts studied, or goals and initiatives. Curriculum detail or a description of a student’s work community can also provide a handy segue for you to compare the student to others.

Despite the need to establish your relationship with the student, you must leave the reader with a strong impression that your ultimate connection to the student is a professional one. Beware of overstating your relationship, presenting it as too emotional or overly personal, or worse, puzzling through it right on the page.

Enhancing Your Own Credibility

This can be a tricky matter and it is sometimes best left alone, but subtly or directly enhancing your credibility can greatly aid a student if the circumstances warrant. For instance, if you are a professional engineer and the student also aims to be one eventually, citing your background briefly in connection with the student’s potential will certainly uplift the student. Likewise, if you’ve been teaching for thirty years and this student is among the top ten you have had in your classes, when you mention both of these facts you catapult the student in the audience’s estimation. Clearly, you do not wish to risk discussing your credentials in too much detail or for no apparent reason. Be selective and restrained, focusing principally on the student’s background and connection to yours.

Using Language That Reflects the Appropriate Criteria

When matching a student’s abilities to specific criteria, there is, of course, the danger of just lifting the criteria from a form and plugging in the student’s name alongside them: “I feel that [insert student name here] has strong analytical skills, emotional stability, maturity, and motivation.” Instead, use the language of the criteria, perhaps even by grounding your topic sentences in the diction, and apply the criteria directly to your experiences with the student. Thus: “John’s analytical skills have surfaced clearly in both his writing and his senior project.”

Providing Examples and Evidence

A letter of recommendation lives or dies on its examples and evidence. Not surprisingly, research shows that the specificity of the examples used in a letter enhances the perceived credibility of the writer, in some cases even more so than numerical data (1). Among the best ways to present concrete examples about student’s accomplishments are:

• compare the student to others, especially peers, graduate students, or professionals;
• comment on the student’s role in your classroom dynamic;
• quote from a paper the student wrote or otherwise interpret the student’s qualitative work;
• detail what your colleagues think of the student;
• discuss the student’s contribution to a team or in a lab setting, including a brief discussion of the team goals or research hypotheses;
• describe the student’s self-assessment of accomplishments, if known, and compare it to your own assessment of the student’s abilities;
• discuss your student’s favorable contribution to the recommendation letter or application process itself, highlighting evidence of professionalism;
• offer the student’s grade, academic record, or other types of quantitative measures used for evaluation (note the “Recommendation Letters and the Law” section in Chapter 1).

Be especially careful when using data in relation to student evaluation. Letter writers sometimes make claims such as “This student is in the top 5% of the nation’s graduates” without evidence to back it up, and thus the claim loses credibility. Also, beware of providing too much quantitative data about a student or appearing to have simply retreated to your grade book or attendance records to define a student’s academic character. Grades are good evidence, but only briefly—especially when letter readers possess the student’s transcript anyway. Emphasize virtues not apparent from a transcript.

Finally, amidst your specific examples, keep in mind that letter writers should also give attention to, as one educator puts it, “some general qualities employers would like to see in a candidate” (2). Tie your examples directly to traits and qualities that employers and grad schools seek, such as initiative, aptitude, trainability, willingness to learn, enthusiasm, leadership, self-motivation, intelligence, adaptability, imagination, and communication skills.

Besides being specific to the student being recommended in a letter, one of the most persuasive tactics you can use is to provide detail tailored to the student’s field of study. Assuming an audience that shares specialized knowledge, you can better inform the audience about a candidate by selectively showcasing anything from a poem written by the student to a technique that the student mastered in your lab. Also, an awareness and articulation of the attributes most valued in a particular field of study will help improve a candidate’s chances.

What follows are some ideas for providing content specific to a field of study. Although it certainly can be argued that it’s impossible to limit these list members to one particular field, I’ve populated this list based on some commonly accepted skills and experiences expected within these fields. A considered, targeted letter in each of these fields would attend carefully to most or all of these list members.

The Humanities

• Facility for analyzing text and interpreting meaning
• Potential for scholarship
• Creative aptitude and imagination
• Ability to use sophisticated rhetorical strategies
• Depth and breadth of understanding
• Specialization in a particular historical era or niche

The Sciences

• Laboratory experience, especially for more than one semester or in more than one lab
• Success with specific experimental techniques
• Hands-on practice with specialized equipment
• Technical facility with computers and computation techniques
• Poster presentations
• Publications in conference proceedings or journals
• Performance on the GRE exam

Business School

• Experience in running or working for a small business
• Ability to work in project teams
• Industry, self-discipline, and initiative
• Leadership ability as well as the ability to delegate responsibility
• Personal temperament necessary for success in business
• Performance on the GMAT exam

Engineering Programs

• Internships, especially in the branch of engineering to be pursued in graduate study
• Problem solving and troubleshooting ability
• Both written and oral communication skills
• Understanding of work-related processes
• Ability to speak a foreign language
• Participation in a national conference
• Membership in national organizations
• Potential to pursue professional licensure

Law School

• Potential for law study, especially if not enrolled in a pre-professional program
• Both written and oral communication ability, especially in relation to argument
• The ability to read and evaluate critically
• Evidence of earning the trust and respect of others
• General research skills necessary to pursue a depth of understanding
• Concern for the value of service and the promotion of justice
• Performance on the LSAT exam

Education and Teacher Certification Programs

• Student teaching experience and a teaching portfolio
• Knowledge of theory
• Understanding of curriculum
• Suitability for working with a particular age group
• Self-awareness and self-confidence
• Global and cultural awareness
• Performance on the MAT exam

Health Professions

• Concern for health and welfare of the individual
• Personality traits such as integrity, dependability, and sincerity
• Personal motivation for study in the health professions
• Trainability, especially if not enrolled in a pre-professional program
• Emotional maturity necessary to serve the health professions

Medical School

• Participation and performance in a pre-professional program
• Difficulty of the undergraduate program completed
• Intellectual capacity necessary to pursue medical study
• Time-management skills and the ability to handle stress
• Performance on the MCAT exam

As writers, we don’t always have ready words for every circumstance. When writing letters, special circumstances frequently arise and we may desire to make commentary beyond the usual. Just a few of the common special circumstances, with brief examples of how some writers handled them, are discussed below.

Defining Terms That May be Misunderstood

Since your recommendation letter is almost always read outside of your school, there are cases where you should define briefly any terms specific to your school, the name and role of a group, or even terms that might be unfamiliar to your audience. At my undergraduate program—Juniata College in PA—the term “program of emphasis” rather than “major” is still used, and explaining the distinction, noting that the program of emphasis allows students to design a major course of study to suit their needs, might be necessary in a letter endorsing the student’s course choices. At Harvard, the term “tutor” could mean a small seminar instructor, a thesis supervisor, or an academic dormitory supervisor (3).

Also, be sure to write out the names for a relevant course you teach that might otherwise sound like an alphabet soup. “OPMGT 418W” might mean little to an outside reader, but a description of the course as a capstone writing-intensive class in operations management educates letter readers about the course’s contribution to the student’s credentials.

Recommending While Discussing Shortcomings in Grades

Especially if you’d like to discuss a student’s inconsistent academic record—which is sometimes better done by the faculty member than by the student—straightforwardness and a movement towards positive endorsement can be very effective. Such commentary usually only comes after a frank discussion with the student, of course, in which you specifically ask permission to discuss the student’s grades so that you may give context to them. One such commentary in a recommendation letter follows:

In his high school, John did not have the sufficient background needed to prepare him for the rigors of college. His transition to Mythic University was not an easy one. In fact, in his first math course and chemistry lab, he received a D and a C, respectively. However, this did not send him fleeing to a major that he perceived would be easier; instead, his resolve was strengthened. He has since sought out tutorial resources to assist him and is now showing steady improvement in his grades, having just earned his first B+ in a college chemistry course and a 2.9 GPA for the most recent semester. Although John does not present the credentials of a scholar, his intent, passion, and motivation are genuine, and his progress is measurable.

Recommending the Under-Represented Student

For students under-represented in a field, the social and academic challenges can be both specific and subtle, a fact honored by scholarships sometimes earmarked for these students. The paragraph that follows—authored by the school’s Diversity Officer, which helps to lend it authority—is excerpted from a letter used to recommend a student for a minority scholarship in her field.

In the fields of science and engineering, students of color and thus professionals of color remain under-represented. This under-representation can result in a lack of faculty role models, peers of color in the classroom and laboratory, and often in an isolation that inhibits full participation in the university community. Despite these difficulties, however, some students strive and thrive as Janet Lerner has done. The commitment and scholarship of a student such as Janet must be celebrated.

Recommending by Citing Others

In the case that follows, the faculty member agreed to write a letter despite limited knowledge of the student, and revealed this in the opening paragraph.

I have only worked with John Lerner for one semester, in that he was originally brought into our program two years ago by my predecessor, who is currently the Director of Academic Advising in another program at Mythic University. When I contacted her for her evaluation of John, she was swift and overwhelmingly positive in her response, stating that “He is a diligent and memorable student committed to scholarship.” She went on to say that she felt great reward and satisfaction in John’s growing accomplishments.

Recommending While Acknowledging Limitations

As promoted strongly in Chapter 1 of this manual, faculty can effectively recommend students even while acknowledging areas where growth is needed. An example follows:

One way for me to comment on Janet’s maturity, motivation, and performance in my class is to discuss her final paper, a proposal arguing for the creation of a new school district in her local area. Using maps, basic spatial analysis, and newspaper articles local to her area, Janet wrote a mock proposal to a school board that was professional and truly worthy of the board's attention. Her paper went far beyond the scope of the assignment, and also reflected something I noted throughout the semester: her natural ability with language. Janet has a creative, confident, maturing voice as a writer. Although she did not receive an A in my course because her grades were not consistently high, her last two papers and some one-on-one meetings with her persuaded me that she can become an effective contributor to her chosen field of sociology.

Recommending the Student Who has Since Graduated

In the example below, when asked to write a recommendation letter for a student three years after he had graduated, the faculty member solicited the student’s input and was able to write an updated letter based on the documentation provided, rehearsing and connecting the student’s undergraduate record to his present path.

John has always been an academic standout. As I consider the types of academic projects in which John involved himself as an undergraduate—from his work in a sediment sampling lab to his active participation in a upper-level class in which he performed a field study of sea grass health—I am genuinely impressed by his drive, motivation, and the clarity of his vision for the future. The fact that John also won a prestigious Udall Scholarship (a national competition for students in the sciences) and received numerous other academic awards underscores his excellent undergraduate record. Since John has been in graduate school over the past three years, he has communicated with me once a year via e-mail, articulating clear professional goals in relation to his research on Southern New England salt marshes, discussing his presentation to the CT Coastal Audubon Society’s Open Space Inventory Steering Committee, and emphasizing his vision to work in estuary research and policy.

It is surprising how much irrelevant detail some letters of recommendation include, and just how much this can hurt the candidate. Consider this excerpt from a letter written in the medical field (4), in which the letter author goes into an inappropriate level of detail about a candidate’s medical problems:

Her last years in my laboratory were impacted by serious health problems that have fortunately gone away—she had really debilitating problems with a herniated disk that apparently was a paraneoplastic phenomenon that went away once an early carcinoma of the left ovary was identified and removed.

Here the detail is not just absurdly clinical in context, but discriminatory and potentially damaging. A generous reader might interpret that the writer is well-meaning—intending to explain, perhaps, a long number of years in a lab or a weak publication record—but many would interpret that the writer actually intends to do harm. Whatever the case here, clearly the detail presented is highly irrelevant. Several studies suggest that letters often reveal more about the idiosyncrasies of the writer than the characteristics of the applicant (5,6,7), and that letter readers certainly do attend to irrelevancies when reading, in some cases over-relying on them when making decisions (8). These irrelevancies might be about either the letter writer or candidate, and either way harm can be done. When writing letters, avoid providing details that are unimportant to the selection process and may only distract or puzzle the audience. Common irrelevancies in letters include commentary about the student’s personal life or health, digressive discussions of ideology, events, or research beyond the audience’s needs, vague examples or claims that simply go unexplained, or a focus on the letter writer’s personality or beliefs that ultimately doesn't matter to the reader anyway.

Consider these two excerpts from letters of recommendation:

I am of the distinct opinion that his breadth and depth of knowledge and his intellectual capacity augur such a level of grandeur that he seems almost predisposed to high achievement.

 

He is smart and bound to succeed.

Both sentences say essentially the same thing, but in different styles—the first with the luxuriance of Faulkner; the second with the parsimony of Hemingway.

Most recommendation letter writers fall somewhere between these two extremes, making sure that their diction and tone reflect their attitude towards the student even as they reveal their stylistic talents and traits as a writer. One can say that letters of recommendation have a common style in that they have a common purpose and share common phrasings, but the best writers aim to produce a letter that is nearly as individual as the student.

This chapter explores some of the stylistic categories we can choose from as we polish our prose while recommending students. Of course, as one composes a letter the issues discussed are naturally and tightly interwoven. The best writers express themselves in a way that is not artificial nor formulaic, but fluid and intuitive, and the best letters of reference characterize the student clearly while remaining true to the author’s style and standards. Most importantly, the goal is to write in a style that is natural both for you and for the circumstances of the letter, while ultimately uplifting and honoring the student you are recommending.

Formalities and Generic Phrases

Though some writers overuse them, formalities and generic phrases do have a place in the convention of letters of reference. Here are a few of the most popular:

Ms. Janet Lerner has asked for my recommendation, and I am most happy to give it.

I recommend him highly and without reservation.

Such phrases, often “bookending” the body of the letter, do no harm, but at the same time they are used so often that they become invisible and meaningless as well. A more creative and meaningful approach is to use sentences of more substance that fit the circumstances and the student directly. As examples, note two sentences that are used to end sample recommendation letters in Chapter 5:

I think he would be an excellent REU candidate, and I enthusiastically endorse his application.

She will be a rare catch for any graduate school, and I will watch her career develop with great interest and high expectations.

Such personalized endorsements represent the student more emphatically, with more style, and perhaps more credibly, than any generic line can.

The Role of Jargon and Informalities

Specialized vocabulary in a letter—assuming it’s clear in context, not overused, and audience-appropriate—can boost a letter’s impact, enhancing the writer’s credibility and lending the student’s work more value. Often, proper context has to be created for the jargon, and it’s most likely to be used within sentences where examples are provided. Considering just the example letters in Chapter 5, the recommendations written by scientists are more powerful because they comment on a student’s facility with nano-indentation techniques or mastery of quantitative RT-PCR, helping readers view the students being recommended as researchers.

Informal, anecdotal examples, colloquialisms, and even slang—used with discretion and restraint—can also help the reader feel a connection with both letter writer and the student. Again drawing from sample letters in Chapter 5, we hear of a student’s “excellent lab hands,” we find a professor noting that she competes with her student on the squash court, we are given examples of a student’s quirky and sardonic humor, and we even find a faculty member in a teaching job recommendation using an exclamation point. Such informal snapshots have the impact of helping us to know the student better, and prove that the writer knows well and genuinely admires the student.

Using Narrative

Using narrative can help you organize and help bring forth the student’s distinctiveness. Effective paragraphs often open with some narrative that sets a scene—“In the fall of 2009” or “I recall the time that William first came to my office to discuss. . . .”  Likewise, you might use narrative to underscore a student’s growth: “Our next contact was when Megan enrolled in my senior-level Logistics class, where I was delighted to discover her more matured perceptions on. . . .”

Some writers go so far as to open their letter with a brief narrative as a way to capture audience attention. Note this example excerpted from a letter in Chapter 5:

Perhaps the most memorable discussion I’ve ever had with a student about his decision to switch majors was three years ago. The student was a first-year Polymer Science and Engineering major on a scholarship, taking my introductory film class as an elective, and he told me he was considering a switch to Film. Assuming that this student was simply running into typical academic problems in first-year chemistry and physics courses, I asked how those courses were going. “Oh, I’m getting As in those,” he assured me with a calm wave of his hand. “But I long to study Film.” That student was John Lerner.

Beware of overuse or digressive use of narrative. Use it selectively to enhance the letter’s readability and show growth and change over the student’s career.

Striking the Right Tone

An ideal tone is one that suggests warm familiarity with and confidence in a student—the implication is that you approve of the student as a person and take the student seriously. Some ideas for fostering such a tone are:

• after the initial formal introduction, refer to the student by first name;
• narrate a personal interaction that took place in your office or elsewhere;
• recall your first impressions of the student, then contrast these with later ones;
• present intriguing asides such as spontaneous discussions or shared interests or backgrounds;
• describe the student’s specific contribution to your relationship;
• supply information demonstrating that you and the student have discussed career plans or graduate school.

Avoid such tonal extremes as referring to the student by last name only or excessively glorifying the student. A letter that becomes too flattering about the student or too personal in detail might actually do more harm than good.

Managing Persona

A touchy subject, this. We all develop particular habits as writers and often cling to them tenaciously, and when writing a letter we might think that we should produce a document either stripped of personality or one that is so personal in voice that it’s full of idiosyncrasy. Given that the persona one adopts in a letter can influence the reader’s opinion of the candidate highly, the prudent choice is to think about the student’s needs and the reader’s needs as primary and directive.

The writer’s persona should be a natural yet subdued part of any professional letter of recommendation. In an effort to add flair, it may be tempting to make clever parenthetical comments, digress, or even provide so much nifty narration that the student’s accomplishments get buried in a needlessly nimble plot. Conversely, some writers make the mistake of adopting such a clinical or artificially genteel manner that the letter might seem to have been written by a robot or a polished butler. Consider how dispassionate an employer or selection committee can become about a candidate when put off by the letter writer’s persona. I’ve been on selection committees where the members were openly judgmental of and distracted by the letter writer’s style, and thus the focus became on the writer’s quirks rather than the candidate’s strengths.

The bottom line is that your voice should suit the situation first and you second. Write with a persona that will humanize both you and the student, but keep the focus positively on the student, not on yourself or on the letter itself.

One of the distinctions of effective writers is their facility with active verbs. Active verbs carry analytical meaning with efficiency, and when selectively applied to a student’s accomplishments, simplify the goal of categorizing and interpreting the kinds of merits that a student has accrued. They can also help present a student as positive and energetic, admired and respected, mature and serious. In these excerpts from sample letters in Chapter 5, note how the active verbs are used creatively and repeatedly to uplift the student:

Although Janet struggled to see her own potential earlier in her college career, encouragement from her advisor as well as her labmates, coupled with her own growing desire to succeed, transformed this once tentative student into an important contributor to the lab.

Mr. Lerner challenged his class to find multiple ways to make a bulb light using only one battery, one bulb, and one wire.

She developed a solution, built the necessary coalition, developed creative compromises, and worked through to the proposal’s enactment.

For a partial list of some of the active verbs most commonly and effectively used in recommendation letters, consult the list below.

Active Verbs that Establish Potential, Define Character, and Underscore Accomplishment

As a reader, I often find that so much depends on contextual clues the writer provides. Note how the example below, excerpted from a letter in Chapter 6, consistently provides contextual clues related to time ("Over the past year . . ."), content (The NIWC is a cross-community coalition . . ."), and background ("She spent three months in Belfast . . .") about both letter writer and student.

Over the past year I have watched Janet’s interest in Peace and Conflict Studies blossom into a very powerful thesis topic on issues of gender and politics in Northern Ireland. My area of expertise is in the area of gender and nationalism in Northern Ireland; for this reason I am confident when I say she has chosen a fascinating topic for exploration. As part of her research, Janet conducted a case study of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition (NIWC) last summer. She spent three months in Belfast conducting ethnographic and archival research. The NIWC is a cross-community coalition that was formed in 1996 and fully participated in the peace talks which led to the signing of the Easter Agreement. Recently, the NIWC has found itself at the center of political debates focused on issues of gender, class, and nationalism.

Seeking even more contextual efficiency than in the above example, many writers embrace the economy and fluidity fostered by single transition words, especially as they open paragraphs. When a closing paragraph of a recommendation letter begins with a simple transition word such as “Clearly” or “Indeed,” readers sense that the student is viewed in a warm, subjective, and emphatic manner, and they are invited to agree with the detail and spirit of that assessment. A simple transition word also has much more impact than some informal and inefficient phrasing such as “As far as the way I currently see Daniella overall. . . .” Bleah.

Below is a list of transition words that many writers find helpful. As a teacher of writing, I’m always slightly hesitant about providing word lists for fear that writers will simply select from them blindly—a “plug and chug” mentality—or reject the idea of a word list as too elementary. However, my experience with faculty has been that they do appreciate lists and use them appropriately as they consider options for how best to argue a student’s case.

In addition to the transition words listed above, you might find frequent use for simple contextual transitions that announce a paragraph or sentence topic simply by categorizing the criterion that you are about to address—words such as “Academically,” “Analytically,” “Athletically,” “Culturally,” “Intellectually,” “Linguistically,” “Scholastically,” “Socially.” Such words are valuable because they lend economy and establish immediate focus. However, avoid nonstandard usage of the suffix “-wise” to mean “in relation to”; such a practice creates irritating coined words such as “Knowledgewise,” or “Intellectualwise,” resulting in sloppy writing (and, in the two cases just cited, unintentional irony).

Chapter 1 thoroughly discusses the issue of how to give praise effectively. Both in the literature and anecdotally, letter readers note that the superlatives used in a recommendation letter can be the most revealing characteristic of all. In particular, adjectives that express the level of quality in a student’s work or character—especially when they are presented with ethos and amidst convincing evidence—demonstrate both your belief in the student and your acumen as an evaluator.

Adapting from a study of 625 reference letters (1), what follows is a short list of some of the superlatives used in those letters, categorized here by function:

What’s especially interesting about this list, which can be used to generate ideas for superlatives when writing letters, is how the adjectives most definitive of work ethic and character (“pace-setting,” “tenacious,” “on-the-ball”) immediately suggest that the evaluator has thoughtfully assessed the student’s talents in context rather than just plugged in a term arbitrarily. One working in a lab where radioactive waste is handled, for example, needs to be “diligent,” “orderly,” and even “fastidious”; one seeking to teach poetry writing needs to be “creative,” “understanding,” and “enthusiastic.”

In this example—a paragraph taken from a sample letter in Chapter 6—we see how superlatives can be used both to leverage the student and to define a field in which the student works:

As Janet dared in English, she has come to dare in her other choices: in her application to and involvement in the Bucknell NSF-REU in physics; in her summer work with the Biomaterials and Bionanotechnology Summer Institute funded by NSF and NIH. A technical and rapidly expanding field such as neurophysics requires students to think out of the box. If ever a student were capable of extraordinary achievement in such a field, Janet is it—precisely because she thinks out of so many boxes simultaneously. Janet’s abilities extend from sophisticated mathematics to the clear articulation of computational problems and solutions; from high-level physics to the demonstration of concepts; from the smallest detail (or molecule, as she might say) to the biggest picture (or, the cosmos).

Of course, one needs to practice restraint when praising a student’s abilities as well. As one group of authors from a recent study on recommendation letters noted: “A member of my department once expressed to me his frustration that the prevalence of superlatives made it impossible to make anyone believe how good a certain student of ours actually was” (2). By sheer volume or the whiff of exaggeration, superlatives applied to a student’s accomplishments, especially without contextual evidence to back them up, might simply cloud judgment. Encomium heaped too generously only invites doubt.

As a teacher, I know well the problems inherent in providing anything resembling a template. When I first began teaching resume writing, I wanted my students to have authentic resumes as models, so I gave them copies of resumes by former students with the names whited out. Inevitably, a few students turned in a resume sans any name at the top, thinking they were dutifully following the model. Next I took to using example resumes from a text, but the textbook included boxes around the resumes to resemble page edges, so some students handed in their resumes with boxes around them. Finally, I turned back to real student resumes with fictitious names, but one student actually handed in his resume using the fictitious name, explaining later that he liked the name better than his own. As a teacher, no matter my approach, it seemed I always managed to find a few students who were determined to surprise.

Though I trust that faculty need no such warnings against viewing exemplars as plug-in templates, I am compelled to explain why I provide sample letters here, and to note how I think samples can best be used. I’ve heard the comment from colleagues many times: “I write recommendation letters all the time, but I’m really not sure how good they are.” Just as frequently I hear faculty or graduate students say that they’ve been asked to write a letter for the first time, and they’d like to see some good models.

When studied thoughtfully, the 10 sample letters in this chapter reveal far more than how letters can be formatted pleasantly—they represent a range of stylistic choices, show how writers handle specific circumstances, prove that a strong letter from a grad student can be just as helpful as a letter from a tenured faculty member, demonstrate an effective use of jargon, include the kinds of quantitative and qualitative examples that selection committees crave, and provide interesting narratives that bring individual students to life.

I urge you to use these sample letters, and others provided through the links below, to study the art of letter writing, and strive to outdo the samples.

The five sample letters that follow, which you can download by clicking on the link below, are for circumstances where the candidate is seeking an internship or job, and therefore academics are not the focus.

In the first letter, written by a campus Red Cross Director, the author speaks to qualities about the student such as his ability to work with others, his creativity, leadership, and sensitivity. Since the student is being recommended for a career in public service, these examples—provided by someone who has witnessed the student’s work outside of the classroom—are highly appropriate.

The next three letters, written for students seeking internships or summer program positions, are all sensibly just one page, using examples from classrooms and labs to demonstrate potential. One letter notes the fact that the student has a 4.0 GPA, while another represents how the student handled herself in the presence of the president of the university. Another letter even represents honestly how the student has grown over time, citing the student’s struggle “to see her own potential earlier in her college career.” For those reading such letters and deciding on whether or not to hire and help advance a student’s training, such details are all equally interesting—academic success, maturity, and evidenced growth are all traits that employers embrace in those they hire.

The final letter in this set recommends a student for a job giving tours of animatronic displays.  Accordingly, the writer focuses on the student’s depth of knowledge in a relevant subject area and her communication skills. The writer also dares to be even more personal, noting that the student has “firm spiritual roots and an active, diverse, social life; she is loyal, committed, and clear-sighted.” Such personal detail tells us that the recommender knows the student well and admires her, and thus we trust the letter author and her endorsement.

Click here to download a pdf of five sample short recommendation letters.

Two recommendation letters for students going into the teaching profession, which you can download by clicking on the link below, demonstrate the traits that employers seek in teachers. When students have done student teaching in schools, at least one of their recommendation letters is written by the faculty supervisor of their student teaching program.

In the first letter, kept efficient at one page, the writer makes it clear that she knows the student not as a teacher but as a performer in her class who has kept in touch with her outside of the classroom. She uplifts the student by tracing their two-year history, and noting that the student attended a fiction reading that she gave. Most importantly, she shows that she can comfortably view the student as a teacher, citing his resume: “And I see this same ideal—one that he wants to pass on to his future students—even in the careful wording of his career objective on his resume, where he speaks of helping students achieve their ‘academic, athletic, and social potential.’” This letter demonstrates that even a writer with limited knowledge of the student’s work can write an effective letter by partnering with the student on the process.

The second letter, more extensive at two pages, comes from the student teaching supervisor, who also taught a concurrent course and web-based portfolio workshop in which the student was enrolled. Therefore, the examples provided come directly from these relevant experiences, and they go into a good deal of depth—citing lesson design, scientific principles taught, direct interactions with students, and use of technology. The letter is also filled with affirmations about the student as a future teacher: “He is thoughtful, reflective, and committed to life-long learning and continued development as an educator.” One of the final sentences both recommends the student and reminds readers of the relationship that the letter writer had with the student: “After evaluating his work, observing his performance in class, and supervising his teaching, I feel confident that Mr. Lerner will make a significant contribution as an elementary educator.”

Click here to download a pdf of two sample teaching recommendation letters.

The three sample recommendation letters that follow, which you can download by clicking on the link below, are effective because they detail what makes the students stand out as exceptional and because they paint individual pictures of each student. Note how these excerpts, excerpted from each of the three letters, individualize and humanize the student:

“I have been especially impressed by Janet’s determination and sparkle.”

“I enthusiastically supported her application for the student position on the Mythic University Board of Trustees for the same reasons. She was the runner-up for that distinguished post, and Mythic University lost out on a true leader. But I believe her time is yet to come.”

“In short, John is both scholarly and culturally entrenched, ambitious but not pretentious, self-deprecating yet confident, forthright but unassuming, delightfully irreverent yet appropriately respectful—a complex and whole human being.”

In addition, the writers of these three letters take advantage of many of the rhetorical strategies discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this manual: enhancing their own credibility, narrative technique, anecdotal evidence, recommending by citing others, and using active verbs and transitions.

Finally, a late paragraph in the last letter, at the prompting of the graduate scholarship application, even provides a few criticisms of the student. Because these criticisms are offered even-handedly and efficiently, I would argue that the letter has even more ethos, and it is noteworthy that the student still landed the desired scholarship.

Click here to download a pdf of three sample graduate school recommendation letters.

A lot is at stake for students applying for national scholarships, which is why each recommendation letter for a scholarship candidate must be exceptionally strong, be written from an informed perspective, and exude a sincere tone. Simply put, to become a contender, a candidate needs every letter of reference to be excellent. It may be tempting to think that the academic records of top-shelf students speak for themselves and that their letters make little difference, but given the level of competition, exceptional students with ordinary letters of reference look unexceptional. As you review the sample letters in this chapter, note how often the writers invite us to imagine ourselves in the presence of the student—the narratives aim to help us know the candidate well, to in fact admire the student. The writers of these letters made it a point to sing their students' praises, both proudly and professionally.

At the same time, you’ll find cautions here about the need for a credible letter not given to hyperbole. In particular, evaluators from outside the US have long been clamoring for honest evaluations that aid selectors in the winnowing process, even asking writers specifically to comment on a student’s weaknesses as testimony that the writer is indeed painting a complete picture. Thorough discussions of how to go about this are in Chapter 1, with specific calls for criticism in this chapter from the Marshall, Rhodes, and Gates Cambridge scholarships.

The samples in this chapter come from my review of hundreds of recommendation letters for nine national scholarships, with the letters selected reflecting skill and variety. The brief summary included here about each scholarship will help you to write a letter of maximum efficacy. Also, if you wish to learn more about the scholarship the student is applying for, you can go to the website provided for each scholarship as well as turn to the student’s application materials.

The Udall Scholarship honors Morris K. Udall, an Arizona Congressman known for authoring legislation to protect wilderness areas and for his commitment to the Native American population. Sophomores and juniors are eligible for the scholarship money, which covers educational expenses for one year up to a maximum of $5,000.

Candidates for the Udall scholarship supply three letters of reference and prepare extensive application materials, including biographical background, personal narrative, educational plans, and an essay of 800 words applying Congressman Udall’s achievements to their own background. Ideally, references for the student should be highly familiar with the student’s application, particularly the essay question responses.

Writing the Udall Scholarship Recommendation

The criteria you should address in a Udall Scholarship recommendation letter include:

• evidence of and continued potential for academic success;
• the student’s level of interest in the environment;
• the student’s communication skills, especially as they might be exercised in relation to environmental public policy;
• the student’s potential to have an impact on his or her field.

The best Udall Scholarship letters provide concrete evidence of the student’s abilities and demonstrate a strong personal relationship between the student and the letter writer. The strongest letters emphasize the student’s dedication to his or her field of study and stress the student’s communication skills. In addition, the letter writer’s ability to comment briefly on the student’s 800-word essay or on the student’s potential for making contributions to the field of environmental public policy can have a significant impact on the student’s chances of winning a scholarship. In the second sample Udall letter provided, note how the writer addresses these issues with sentences such as the following: “As I’m sure you will note in her application materials, Janet is—especially for her age—a true stylist, and she will bring her respect and ability for both written and verbal expression to all of her work. She has spoken with me of a goal to become a scientist writer, and I am convinced of her ability to do so.”

When writing a Udall recommendation, beware of shortchanging the student by providing too little detail or by focusing too much on the nature of the scholarship itself. Perhaps because of the scholarship’s link to Udall and the Congressman’s indubitable impact on the nation’s environmental policy, some letter writers in the past have spent considerable time discussing Udall and his work. But such a practice can become digressive, especially because it is the student’s job to evaluate Udall’s accomplishments in the application materials. Any discussion of Udall himself or the scholarship’s goals should be done with efficiency, as in the final paragraph of the first sample letter in the pdf link below, where the writer fluidly comments, “I cannot imagine a better student to meet your goals of ‘educating a new generation of Americans to preserve and protect their national heritage.’”

Advice from a former Udall Selection Committee Member

In 2002, a former Udall selection committee member noted that backgrounds of committee members vary widely: “ . . . from professors of environmental policy and science, EPA officials, directors of scholarships and Honors programs, to representatives of Native American interests” (1). She also noted that evaluators had just 10 or 15 minutes to consider each application package, including the time needed to read the three letters of reference, and that the selection committee read about 450 applications in two and a half days. In a more recent blog from 2009, that same committee member notes that the number of Udall candidates has now grown to over 500 (2). Candidates who stand above the crowd are those who show a commitment to activities, volunteerism, and leadership.

Given these evaluative constraints, letter writers should favor brevity (note how each sample letter in the pdf link below is just one page) and not shy away from offering personal perspective about the student’s activities and character.

A Few Concerns Specific to the Udall Scholarship

There are some special award categories for the Udall Scholarship. Specifically, The Udall Scholarship Foundation Board of Trustees awards scholarships to Native American and Alaska Native students who intend to pursue careers in health care or tribal public policy. In these circumstances, the candidate and the three references must tailor their materials accordingly, giving special attention to the student’s background in ethics, public policy, or community service.

Click here to download a pdf of two recommendation letters written for former Udall applicants.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) awards fellowships for graduate study in science, mathematics, and engineering. The fellowships can support students for one year or more, and the stipend is generous (in 2009 each fellow received $30,000 for a 12-month tenure), with an additional cost-of-education allowance granted to the fellowship institution ($10,500 in 2009). Therefore, these awards are highly competitive, and the selection panels—made up of professors, scientists, mathematicians, and engineers—are most interested in students who will have a great impact on their fields and bring further reputation to their institutions. The NSF program also allows for a one-time international research travel grant if the student seeks to do research in a foreign country for at least three continuous months. Letters of reference for NSF Fellowships should be written with the above facts in mind.

Writing the National Science Foundation Fellowship Recommendation

The Fastlane website, which NSF candidates and their recommenders must use to process the application, details the criteria that recommenders should address in their letters (3), as follows:

Intellectual Merit: The intellectual merit criterion includes demonstrated intellectual ability and other accepted requisites for scholarly scientific study, such as the ability to: (1) plan and conduct research; (2) work as a member of a team as well as independently; and (3) interpret and communicate research findings. Panelists are instructed to consider: the strength of the academic record, the proposed plan of research, the description of previous research experience, the appropriateness of the choice of references and the extent to which they indicate merit, Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) General and Subject Tests scores, and the appropriateness of the choice of institution for fellowship tenure relative to the proposed plan of research.

Broader Impacts: The broader impacts criterion includes contributions that (1) effectively integrate research and education at all levels, infuse learning with the excitement of discovery, and assure that the findings and methods of research are communicated in a broad context and to a large audience; (2) encourage diversity, broaden opportunities, and enable the participation of all citizens—women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities—in science and research; (3) enhance scientific and technical understanding; and (4) benefit society. Applicants may provide characteristics of their background, including personal, professional, and educational experiences, to indicate their potential to fulfill the broader impacts criterion.

The best NSF recommendation letters include thorough detail about the student as a scientist, mathematician, or engineer, with special attention to the student’s ability to make significant contributions to research that will have broader impacts in the field. Effective letters discuss such quantitative measures as a student’s grades, GPA, GRE scores, and class ranking, but also give special attention to such qualities as a student’s willingness to represent the college at functions, attendance and presentations at meetings or conferences, work as a teaching assistant or lab assistant, quality of the student’s publications, if any, and temperament and vision as a researcher.

Common problems in NSF recommendation letters are a failure to demonstrate the student’s potential in a manner specific to a discipline, and a lack of context or commentary by the letter writer about the student’s research goals. You should not hesitate to obtain more detail from the student if it helps you write a more thorough letter, and you should also feel free to create the proper context by discussing the type of research or teaching that the student has done or will be doing. Students prepare extensive essays as part of their application, including a plan for graduate research, and it is critical that recommenders read and comment on these documents.

Note how the first sample NSF letter in the pdf link below provides abundant detail about the student’s research project so that the selection committee can judge the worth of the student’s work as a researcher and assess the student’s ability to work as part of a team. Some readers might even say that the letter provides excessive detail about the science, but the writer prepares us for the lengthy science discussion with the sentence, “To emphasize the scope and importance of Janet’s work, a summary of the relevant science follows.” The second sample letter focuses more on the student’s temperament as a researcher, using superlatives including “well-organized,” “quick,” “confident,” “cheerful,” and “helping.” These superlatives are effective because they define exactly the qualities the student possesses without overstating them.

Special Categories of NSF Fellowships for Women

In awarding fellowships, the goal of the National Science Foundation is to “ensure the vitality of the human resource base of science, technology, mathematics, and engineering in the United States and to reinforce its diversity” (4). Although awards are first made on the basis of merit, other considerations such as gender are also used as secondary criteria. Thus, some recommenders see the letter as an opportunity to comment briefly about whether or not women are underrepresented in the student’s chosen field (the second sample letter in the pdf linked below provides such a comment in its closing paragraph). Whether such commentary is offered or not, some awards are reserved each year for the categories of Women in Engineering (WENGS) and Women in Computer and Information Science (WICS).

Click here to download a pdf of two recommendation letters written for former NSF Fellowship applicants.

The Fulbright Scholarship gives a student the financial resources to complete a proposed research or study abroad project for one year. Applicants submit written research or study plans in the form of a personal statement and statement of grant purpose, and their work may include a year of graduate study, original dissertation research, a creative or performing arts project, or a teaching assistantship.

It is clear from the reference letter form, where you are asked not only to assess academic ability, but also to judge adaptability and personality, that the Fulbright committee is very interested in the student’s maturity and character, especially given that awarded students will spend a year abroad studying at another school. Students supply letters from just three references, and it is important that each letter illuminates both the student’s academic excellence and the potential and maturity to carry out a project while abroad.

Writing the Fulbright Scholarship Recommendation

The criteria you should address in a Fulbright Scholarship recommendation letter include:

• strong level of knowledge and potential for future growth in the chosen field;
• ability to carry out research and think and write analytically;
• emotional stability, maturity, motivation, and seriousness of purpose;
• appropriate linguistic preparation and ability to adapt to a different cultural environment;
• a proposed project that is feasible and has merit;
• likelihood of making a favorable impression as a United States citizen abroad.

The best Fulbright recommendation letters detail the student’s background in connection with the proposed project, and are written in a tone that is energetic and genuine. Among the recommendation letters from previous years, one successful letter complimented a student’s ability as a designated discussion leader to keep up with current events in the Middle East and to motivate the other students in an 8:00 a.m. class. Another letter offered the relevant aside that the Federal Aviation Administration had shown interest in a student’s research, while another letter took a moment to comment on the kind of vision that a student’s specific study plan had in relation to the agriculture and economy of the host country. Finally, one letter ended with the simple and genuine declaration: “She should become a diplomat.” Such personal, considered, emphatic testimonies reflect familiarity with and abundant confidence in the student.

Weak Fulbright recommendation letters tend to be so generic that they could apply to almost any student’s background. Weak letters from previous years made no attempt to match a student’s abilities and character with the proposed study plan or type of program. Some letter writers were careful to detail the student’s academic excellence, but made no comments beyond what could easily be gleaned from a review of the student’s transcript. It is vital that a letter of support offers some detail that fits only that individual being recommended, and that the recommender comments specifically on the student’s statement of grant purpose.

In this regard, note how the first sample Fulbright letter in the pdf link below comments on the appropriateness of Senegal for the student’s research, while the second sample letter comments on how the student would specifically benefit from a year in France. The first letter emphasizes how the recommended student has already grown through several study abroad tours, while the second stresses the student’s versatility through participation in campus activities. Note also that both letters are only one page long, yet filled with useful detail about the students’ scholarship, leadership, and maturity.

Commenting Only on Your Area of Experience

Despite the application’s request that you comment in such areas as a student’s linguistic ability and the resources available abroad, you should not feel compelled to reach beyond your experience in any of your comments. For instance, you may know nothing about the student’s linguistic ability or the availability of resources in the host country. In this case, trust that the student’s application as a whole will serve the committee’s needs, and that a stumbling, unsure effort by you in an area outside your bailiwick might only do harm. If you appear to be reaching for detail, it will likely show.

Click here to download a pdf of two recommendation letters written for former Fulbright applicants.

The Goldwater Scholarship awards sophomore and junior students up to a maximum of $7500 annually for tuition, books, fees, and room and board. Because the scholarship assists those pursuing a research career in mathematics, the natural sciences, or engineering, your letter must provide specific examples of the student’s potential and research abilities in these fields. The essay that students write as part of their application is instructive here: They must describe an issue or problem associated with their field or describe an ongoing or intended research project. This shows that the committee is most interested in how a student can excel in a research environment, or work as part of a design team, or contribute to the understanding of a technical problem. Write your letter with these attributes in mind.

Writing the Goldwater Scholarship Recommendation

Goldwater candidates submit the names and e-mail addresses of three recommenders, and once the names are submitted an e-mail is sent to the recommenders with instructions for completing their recommendation online.

The criteria you should address in a Goldwater Scholarship recommendation letter include:

• potential and intent for a career in mathematics, the natural sciences, or those engineering disciplines that contribute significantly to technological advances;
• the ability and desire to pursue advanced degrees in the sciences and engineering;
• developed career objectives and involvement in an academic program that fosters the student’s ability to make a significant contribution to the chosen field;
• demonstrated outstanding academic performance, maturity, initiative, and motivation.

The best Goldwater recommendation letters submitted in previous years detailed both the type of research the student could do and the student’s academic achievements. Some letter writers effectively expounded on some technical detail of a student’s research project, or they smartly noted the fact that the student was already working on a research project funded by, say, an NSF Grant or a Howard Hughes Research Fellowship. Other letter writers focused more on the student’s academic character, pointing out that a sophomore was already looking toward her senior thesis, or that a student was willing to give up his Saturdays to work in the lab without pay. All these examples underscored the letter writer’s faith in the student as a motivated and mature working researcher and specialist.

Among the unsuccessful Goldwater letters submitted in previous years, the least effective were those that lacked detail or betrayed a lack of confidence in the student’s abilities. Other poor letters were far too technical about the nature of the student’s research, while some provided too much quantitative data about the student, relying only on a student’s class ranking or test scores as evidence of potential. You must avoid being too clinical in tone or detail, favoring personal interpretation and analysis of the student’s motivation or actual research.

In the first sample Goldwater letter in the pdf link below, note how the writer thoroughly details the learning and testing procedure the student must go through in order to select an ion permeable membrane that will function in the space shuttle. Thus, we focus on the context of the student working on an important scientific problem, and the nature of the problem itself—adequately but minimally described by the writer—remains in the background. The second letter focuses more on the personal traits of the student—one with a “photographic mind” who produces accurate field notes and observes keenly in the field—with emphasis on the student’s future as a geologist. Both letters are effective because they present the students as genuinely admired contributors and achievers.

A Few Concerns Specific to the Goldwater Scholarship

Students are sophomores and juniors when they apply for a Goldwater Scholarship, and often they are not wired in to their programs well enough to know many faculty. Some students even rely on high school teachers, work supervisors, or military superiors as references, which can produce an unusual mix of letters. Therefore, it’s valuable to know who the students other referees are, and where possible you should comment on both the student’s character and the student’s potential in the sciences or engineering to be sure both areas are covered.

Click here to download a pdf of two recommendation letters written for former Goldwater applicants.

In the United States, only 32 Rhodes Scholarships are awarded per year, supporting two or three years of graduate study at Oxford University in any field. This, along with the fact that students must supply excellent letters from five to eight references, underscores just how incredibly competitive the award is and how necessary it is for you to write a detailed, emphatic letter in support of the candidate. If you cannot be genuinely positive and substantive in support of a student, you should encourage the student to seek a different reference. Students submit a transcript, a statement of academic and other interests, and a statement detailing why they wish to study at Oxford University. Because the application package for the Rhodes is due early in the academic year, students might even request a letter of recommendation from you during the spring.

Writing the Rhodes Scholarship Recommendation

The criteria you should address in a Rhodes Scholarship recommendation letter include:

• proven intellectual and academic quality of the highest standard;
• the student’s integrity of character, and demonstrated interest in and respect for their fellow beings;
• the ability to lead and the energy to use their talents to the full.

The Rhodes Scholarship “Request for Letter of Appraisal” form is detailed about the kind of letter the selectors are seeking. To win a Rhodes Scholarship, the student must truly be among the nation’s best, and the letter writer’s comments must provide highly concrete evidence of the student’s superior intellect, integrity, and leadership. Go well beyond the student’s transcripts in your comments (many of the applicants will have a 4.0 GPA anyway), helping the committee to discern the distinction of the student’s accomplishments, and present your opinion of the student as a prospect to influence the nation and enhance the scholarship’s reputation. Since the Rhodes Scholarship is grounded in esteemed public service, concrete examples that you give of a student’s public service—altruism, volunteerism, activism—are especially beneficial. Strong athletic ability can give a student a slight edge as well. Write a tightly focused, uplifting, savvy letter.

Considering the two sample Rhodes scholarship letters provided in the pdf link below—written for the same student—the first paints a picture of the student in fairly broad strokes, focusing in particular on the student’s character and commitment. The second letter digs deeper, commenting extensively on the student’s interest in the European economy, and giving appropriate context to the recommender’s 40 years in the United States Foreign Service. Both letters directly tie the student’s background in agriculture to his future research commitment, thus giving us a sense of the student’s motivation and character.

A Call for Candor from the Rhodes Trust

The Rhodes Scholarship “Request for Letter of Appraisal” notes that you are not necessarily expected to speak from firsthand knowledge about all criteria, but to address those most relevant to your relationship with the student. The document also notes that you should not hesitate to speak of a student’s limitations as well as strong points: “Committees tend naturally to be dubious of appraisals that imply a given individual has no limitations whatever” (5).

In recent years, this call for candor has grown to more of a clamor. Excerpting from a 2004 listserv among members of the National Association of Fellowships Advisors, the American Secretary of the Rhodes Trust had this to say: “Let me add [the perspective] of Oxford admissions dons. The comparison between British and Americans letters of recommendation is stark. I am frequently told that many U.S. reference letters are so over-the-top and hyperbolic as to become parodies. The lack of credibility attributed then generally to U.S. references ill-serves all American students, especially those who truly are exceptional in the ways that the merely average American student is often described” (6).

In short, the Committees of Selection for the Rhodes Scholarships require letters that are rich in ethos. If you affirm that the student is exceptional yet you simply provide a scenario of the student’s performance in your class, or if the evidence you provide does not support the assertion that the student is excellent, you have weakened the student’s chances considerably. At the same time, a forthright tone and your willingness to critique a Rhodes applicant’s limitations and potential for growth are also linked to your credibility. For a discussion of ways to offer effective criticism in letters, see “The Role of Criticism” in Chapter 1 of this manual.

Click here to download a pdf of two recommendation letters written for a former Rhodes Scholarship applicant.

Preference for the Marshall Scholarship is given to those students of high academic ability, mature character, and the capacity to play an active part in the life of their host United Kingdom university. Students must argue as to why their studies and proposed career would be best served by study at a UK University. Only the best students who apply will make it beyond a school’s internal selection committee to the regional review panel interviews, where about 130 students are interviewed out of 800 applicants, for about 40 awarded scholarships. Therefore, it behooves both the student and letter writer to work together closely and be sure that they have a good match. If you cannot be fully positive and detailed in support of a student, encourage the student to seek a different reference.

As instructed by the Marshall application, your college or university uses an internal review committee to designate one of the student’s references (out of four) as the “preferred recommender” and another as the “secondary recommender.” If you are the preferred recommender, it is vital that your letter is detailed, frank, and focused on the student’s academic performance and potential. Also, as the “preferred recommender,” you should make it a point to review the student’s proposal.

Writing the Marshall Scholarship Recommendation

Criteria to address in a Marshall Scholarship recommendation letter include:

• distinction of intellect and character as evidenced both by a student’s scholastic attainments and by his or her other activities and achievements;
• adequate preparation for the proposed course of study, particularly in upper-level course work, and demonstrated strength in the major field;
• the student’s ability to play an active part in the life of a UK university, with potential to make a significant contribution to his or her own society.

The selection committee is helped enormously by letters that are frank, concrete, and informed. Amplify on such matters as the student’s contribution to your relationship, the potential of the student in post-graduate life, and even how the student fares when measured by standards outside the context of university life. Additional detail that will enrich a student’s application includes an assessment of what others think of the student; the student’s self-esteem; your view of the student’s character; your confidence in the student’s professional future; your opinion of how the student would benefit from the Marshall Scholarship.

A common tendency in weak Marshall letters is to rely solely on a summary of the student’s performance in one class or a cursory review of the student’s transcript. Another common problem is dwelling on the student’s intellect and GPA. Keep in mind that about 75 percent of the finalists for the scholarship have GPAs of 4.0 or above (with A+ grades), so academic excellence is assumed (7).

The two sample Marshall Scholarship letters provided in the pdf link below are interesting to compare to each other, in that they are written for the same student but with different approaches. The first letter reaches deeply into detail about the student as a musician, even citing pieces he performs on the piano, and discusses the student’s personality and character at great length. The second letter is more subdued in tone but equally emphatic, referring to the student as “a true Renaissance man.” Both letters end on a note suggesting that the award of a Marshall Scholarship to this candidate would be, as the second letter puts it, a “mutual honor.”

The Role of Critique in a Marshall Scholarship Recommendation

Reading the first sample letter in the pdf link below, which is highly positive overall, you’ll find the phrase “If I have any concerns about John’s future possibilities . . .” followed by commentary about potential limitations of the student’s background. This criticism is in keeping with the desire on the part of scholarship selection committees—particularly those including evaluators from Great Britain—to read a credible evaluation letter mindful of and giving voice to the student’s weaknesses as well as strengths. Though most writers hedge about making even subtle negative comments, Marshall selection committee members rely on your candor.

Commenting on this issue in a 2004 listserv among members of the National Association of Fellowships Advisors, a fellowships advisor and member of the Marshall Scholarship selection committee had this to say: “ . . . unless we attempt to promote a collective effort to avoid hyperbole and address genuine weaknesses honestly, it is going to be difficult to scrape off the patina of perfection that often covers a candidate’s dossier” (8). In plain terms, as an evaluator, you are urged to exude good will, yes, but by all means tell the truth.

Click here to download a pdf of two recommendation letters written for a former Marshall Scholarship applicant.

The Mitchell Scholarship, named to honor the former U.S. Senator George J. Mitchell’s contributions to the peace process in Northern Ireland, funds one year of graduate study at an Irish university to twelve students per year. The scholarship provides airfare, tuition, fees, housing, and a stipend for living expenses. The Mitchell Scholarship Selection Committee interviews 20 finalists for the 12 scholarships in Washington, DC.

Students applying for the Mitchell must have no fewer and no more than five references. With at least three of these references required to be from persons with whom the student has done academic work, it’s important that you detail the student’s academic success in your subject area. Recommenders must be registered by the applicant and their letters must be submitted online, with the deadline for letter submission an absolute that will not be waived for any reason. Because the application package for the Mitchell Scholarship is due early in the academic year (October), students may—and probably should—request a letter of recommendation from you during the spring.

Writing the Mitchell Scholarship Recommendation

The criteria you should address in a Mitchell Scholarship recommendation letter include:

• documented evidence of a student’s achievements in academics, leadership, and service;
• ability and maturity to pursue advanced study at an Irish university of the student’s choosing;
• if appropriate, commentary on how the student’s proposed plan of study could contribute to US-Ireland relations.

Recommendation letter writers are urged to provide candid commentary in the above areas, without ignoring the equally important areas of leadership and service. Some recommenders fail to address leadership and service directly in their letters, or fail to define the categories broadly enough in their examples. Although there is no minimum GPA necessary for the Mitchell Scholarship applicant, an excellent undergraduate record and preparation for the proposed field of graduate study are vital to an applicant’s success.

In the two sample Mitchell Scholarship recommendation letters provided in the pdf link below, note how the first letter amplifies on the student as a leader enrolled in a graduate-level seminar, and how two full paragraphs are devoted to context for the student’s interest in Peace and Conflict Studies directly connected to “issues of gender and politics in Northern Ireland.” The letter does not skimp on detail about either the student or the political circumstances in Northern Ireland where the student aims to study. The second letter, even more detailed than the first, gives abundant examples of the student’s personality and character, linking these directly to her leadership skills. Most interesting, perhaps, is how the student is characterized as a “forceful advocate” particularly interested in contemporary politics and “issues important to youth.” As with other national scholarship contenders, this student is unafraid of conflict and challenge, and thus the recommender can present her as a person engaged in the struggle to solve real-world problems.

A Call for Candor in Mitchell Scholarship Recommendation Letters

On the Mitchell Website page, “Mitchell Scholars Program Application Procedures” (9), this advice is offered the recommendation letter writers:

Letters of reference should comment on a candidate’s general fitness for the proposed course of study. Confidential observations, negative as well as positive, on the candidate's character, integrity, generosity of spirit, intellectual distinction, leadership and commitment to service will be of great value to the selection committee in deciding which candidates should be Mitchell Scholars. By requesting these letters through the online application system, applicants are waiving their rights of access to these letters.

As with other national scholarships that are reviewed by readers abroad, there exists an open concern about the tendency that American reviewers have to exaggerate a student’s accomplishments and offer no criticism. Mitchell Scholarship letters should be rich in ethos, established in part by a forthright tone and your willingness to critique an applicant’s limitations and potential for growth where appropriate. For a discussion of ways to offer effective criticism in letters, see “The Role of Criticism” in Chapter 1 of this manual.

Click here to download a pdf of two recommendation letters written for a former Mitchell Scholarship applicant.

If an applicant for the Truman Scholarship becomes a national finalist, he or she is interviewed by a regional review panel composed of senior government officials, former Truman Scholars, and college and university presidents. The stakes are $3,000 towards the student’s senior year and $27,000 towards graduate study. Students applying for the Truman Scholarship must be outstanding and presented as such. Truman Scholars are those headed for careers in government, education, the military, and non-profit public-service organizations and advocacy groups. Applicants must write an analysis of a public policy issue and be headed to a grad school program in preparation for a career as a public servant. Truman Scholars are also required to fulfill a special public service requirement, committing to work in public service for 3-7 years following completion of their graduate degree.

Writing the Truman Scholarship Recommendation

The criteria you should address in your recommendation letter are identified on the nominee’s cover sheet. Carefully note the criteria listed on your cover sheet and be certain to address each of them in your letter. One letter of recommendation defines the student’s leadership abilities and potential; another letter discusses the student’s commitment to a career in public service; a third discusses the student’s intellect and prospects for continuing academic success. Be certain that your comments are on-point in relation to the letter’s category. Truman candidates are also advised to choose a faculty member or community member who knows them well over a dean or politician who does not. Ask students who else is recommending them, and try to give your letter a slant different from the others.

Among the Truman recommendation letters from previous years—coming from individuals as varied as program directors, a Red Cross volunteer, and a local political candidate—the best writers often used narrative technique to highlight students in action as citizens, volunteers, initiators, innovators, activists. We hear of a student organizing volunteers to help coordinate a trip to the Washington display of the AIDS Memorial Quilt, or rallying poll workers on the day of an election, or challenging classmates to shake off their apathy in the classroom, or working to help victims of domestic violence. Such concrete examples, linked with evidence in support of a student’s character, go a long way in helping a Truman applicant become a finalist. Some Truman letter writers are genuine enough to present students even at their most publicly abrasive—i.e., calling a student a “gadfly” in a Truman letter would not be considered a red flag. The Truman is for students who are movers and shakers, out to change the world. Be honest, good-willed, reflective, sincere, and detailed.

The least successful Truman letters in previous years were those that provided a mere listing of a student’s accomplishments with no evidence of the letter writer’s personal contact with the student, or a flimsy character reference that included no detail about the student’s service to others. To rehearse a student’s resume or assert that a student is a good person is not nearly enough.

In the pdf link below, the first sample Truman Scholarship letter that follows ably demonstrates how the recommender views the student as a potential Truman Scholar. We find characterizations including “ . . . likeable and assertive . . . ”; “She pushes issues other students may be reluctant to discuss . . .”; “As a White student double-majoring in African and African-American studies, and a straight woman leading a campus gay and lesbian activism group . . . .” Here is a student who is a gutsy, bold leader, recommended by a faculty member who understands well the needs of the selection panel. The second sample letter, written for a different student, also affirms the student’s maturity and leadership, by examples including her study tour in Cuba, her organizing a trip to a New York film festival, and her solving problems during a field trip to Madrid with her skills in Spanish. As we read these letters, we sense that these students clearly have strong potential as public servants.

Click here to download a pdf of two recommendation letters written for former Truman Scholarship applicants.

The Gates Cambridge Scholarship program, created by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, offers numerous types of scholarships funding between one and four years of graduate study at Cambridge University in England. The areas of study funded by the scholarship are graduate, affiliated (a second undergraduate degree), clinical, and MBA. About 80 to 100 scholarships are awarded each year, with 44 percent of Gates scholars coming from the U.S (10).

The ideal Gates Cambridge scholars will become leaders who will address such global concerns as social equity, health, and the role of technology. Students are not nominated by their host university, but apply directly to Cambridge themselves through the usual procedures, with the scholarship award decision being heavily driven by the Cambridge department to which they apply (56). There are over 200 Gates Cambridge Scholars studying at the university at one time.

Writing the Gates Cambridge Scholarship Recommendation

The criteria you should address in a Gates Cambridge Scholarship recommendation letter include:

• the student’s aptitude for advanced research, analysis, and creativity at defining and solving relevant problems;
• the ability of the student to use his or her education for the benefit of others;
• your opinion of the student’s language proficiency if the applicant’s native tongue is not English.

On the last point, if you don’t feel qualified to comment on the language ability of a non-native speaker of English, trust that these applicants will be required to achieve a minimum score on the TOEFL test to gain admission to Cambridge. Regarding the other criteria, comment specifically in such areas as a student’s intellectual ability, leadership, work ethic, and altruism. To give a student maximum advantage, describe also your opinion of the student’s maturity and character in relation to completing a degree internationally and potentially following up on this degree by doing influential and international work.

Considering the two sample Gates Cambridge Scholarship recommendation letters in the pdf link below, note how the author of the first letter uses examples to demonstrate how well she knows the student: the student was home-schooled; she completed summer research funded by the NSF and the NIH; she wrote creative papers addressing such original topics as “the physics of the pendulum in a William Morris poem.” Such exact examples can apply only to this student, ultimately uplifted as “a sterling ambassador for the Gates Cambridge Scholarship.” The second letter, written for a student in the physical sciences, is equally detailed and presents the student as a research scholar, but is relaxed enough in tone that the author even uses an exclamation and refers to the student’s pivotal four-year role in the annual chemistry “magic show” for youth. In both letters, we come away with a strong sense that the students are genuinely admired by the recommenders.

The Role of Critique in a Gates Cambridge Scholarship Recommendation

As with other national scholarship competitions—particularly those that include British evaluators, who often look on the tradition of American hyperbole in letters with suspicion—recommenders are encouraged to offer honest criticism where appropriate as well as praise. In a 2004 listserv on the subject of candor in recommendation letters, a fellowships advisor who has served on several national scholarship selection committees comments thus:

“ . . . the Gates program is quite explicit in asking for weak areas in relation to their program mission—something I have found to be a great relief when writing final endorsements of wonderful but ultimately young and human individuals. Ultimately the program mission must be kept in view. Scholarships belong to larger missions and programs, and are not generic rewards for predictable superstars” (8).

For a discussion of ways to offer effective criticism in letters, see “The Role of Criticism” in Chapter 1 of this manual.

One final potential concern for recommenders offering critique is access rights. Unlike other national scholarships, the Gates Cambridge asks the recommender rather than the student to make a choice about access rights. On the recommendation letter form, you are asked to agree/not to agree “to the release of this reference if the person concerned seeks disclosure.” Thus, you must decide how comfortable you would be in the rare circumstance where the student might later seek access to your letter. For advice on this issue, you might consult the section “The Ethics of Authorship” in Chapter 1 of this manual, or e-mail the Gates Cambridge representatives directly via the website below.

Click here to download a pdf of two recommendation letters written for former Gates Cambridge Scholarship applicants.