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.