When graduate admissions committees meet to review applicant files, letters of
recommendation are one component of the holistic review process that provides
information about the applicant’s previous work, personality, and potential for
success as a doctoral student. In order to ensure that letters of recommendation
are effective tools for enhancing equity, we must critically assess how we write,
read, and solicit letters of recommendation. This is especially important because
numerous studies have demonstrated the presence of implicit biases in letters of
recommendation (Dutt et al, 2016; Madera et al., 2019; Trix & Psenka, 2003). The
presence of these biases in letters of recommendation can influence how
prospective students are evaluated by admission committees and therefore may
produce and reproduce racial and gender inequality in doctoral education.
Review previous letters of recommendation you have written or received and
assess their strengths and weaknesses.
Commit yourself to crafting a letter that is unlikely to trigger a readers' implicit
biases.
Plan for how you will contextualize the applicant's background and trajectory,
including any red flags in it, to enable a reader to clearly appreciate their
potential and abilities.
Before you start to write, consider the following three ways you can contribute to
more equitable outcomes as a letter writer:
Letters of recommendation are a vital component of the review process for many
selection processes in academia. Although letters of recommendation have been
used for over a century, there is very little training and guidance about what
should go into them. As part of an equity-oriented holistic review process, letters of
recommendation can provide an opportunity to obtain a more comprehensive view
of an applicant’s strengths and abilities.
As we enter the first admissions cycle after COVID-19, letters of recommendation
will be critical for contextualizing an applicant’s performance. This year, knowing
that context will be even more important than it has been in years past we would
like to share some tips about how letters of recommendation can be used to
advance equity-- in admissions, hiring, fellowships, and other selection processes
across the academy. Although there will be variation for different fields and the
contexts in which we use letters of recommendation, the following guidelines
generally apply.
Letters of recommendation are part of an application strategy; therefore,
consider how you might share unique insights that might not come across in
the other materials that are part of the applicant’s file
Letters of recommendation should highlight achievements that will allow a
reader to see a person’s potential
Letters of recommendation that are able to cover applicants’ characteristics in
detail are often at least 1.5 pages in length
Pay attention to the flow of ideas, because the effectiveness of your
recommendation will be influenced by the narrative you create
Ensure that your letter is on official department/university letterhead and
addressed to the appropriate department, fellowship, or hiring committee
Close your letter with your signature as well as your full title or titles.
Note: This is general guidance for most disciplines. Each department or scholarly community
may have different norms. If you are unsure of norms for a different field of study, please consult
a trusted colleague for guidance and counsel.
Review the call for letters of recommendation to gather information about the
primary purpose/function of the letter.
It’s fine to ask students for a short list of talking points they would like you to
note, but it’s never acceptable to ask a student to write their own letter of
recommendation.
Be thoughtful about how you choose to share any personal information
(family circumstances, financial hardships, etc.). Obtain the student’s
permission before sharing any details, keeping in mind that some readers may
read personal barriers as a sign of risk rather than resilience. This information
should only be used to provide insight into the student’s performance and
should only strengthen the letter.
Be aware of how you are using the limited space of a letter. If you want to
communicate a strength of a student that may be viewed as consistent with a
stereotype, it becomes especially important to balance this with descriptions
of qualities that are more consistent with field-level values.
Beware offering faint praise and doubt raising language which is often
described as phrases or statements that raise questions about an applicant’s
ability to be successful
Faint praise ie. Robert will only “need minimum help” to be successful
Doubt raiser ie. Sarah “might be a good” researcher in the future
Remember that it is likely the letter will be read by someone who is not aware
of the context of your relationship with the student or with insight about your
academic program. Explain the capacities in which you know the applicant
and for how long.
Describe how long you have known the student and in what capacity
Describe why the student is an ideal candidate for this specific program of
study, fellowship, postdoc, or professional opportunity
Provide an assessment/evaluation of the student’s academic
performance/coursework, highlighting any unique strengths or abilities
Share comments about potential contributions to research if you are privy,
with a focus on specific intellectual contributions to the student’s interest/area
of study. Put the student on a pedestal, at least for a moment.
Source: The content in this guide was adapted from resources developed by MIT Comparative Media
Studies, Inside Higher Ed's Conditionally Accepted, and the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning
Does my letter communicate the applicant’s trajectory to this point, including
how I know them and concrete details about their strengths?
Does my letter highlight contributions the applicant will likely make to their
academic program, department, or fellowship?
Does my letter of recommendation provide context or information about our
university’s response to COVID-19 (ie. grading policies, impact on student’s
performance, etc.)?
When writing someone letters for multiple institutions, have I customized (at
minimum) the name of the institution and the person to whom the letter is
addressed?
Have I checked for institution or fellowship specific details that are
requested in letters?
Does my recommendation meet field/discipline-specific norms and
expectations?
Click here to check your letter for bias
using the gender bias calculator.
Share specific stories, anecdotes, or information that support your assessment
of the student. For example:
positive comments from teaching evaluations from their service as a TA
positive experiences with the student in the lab and/or on research project
teams
Check your draft for language about student experiences and personal
attributes that may be interpreted as gendered, racialized, or classed stereotypes
Note whether content may be construed as “faint praise” (ie, indirect criticism
masked as half-hearted praise).
Check for “hedges” and other “doubt raisers.” Avoid doubt unless necessary!
Focus on topics that are most compelling to readers (e.g., Research,
Accomplishments, Skills) avoiding undue attention to effort & personal matters.
Avoid mention of personal life except in very rare situations.
Use formal titles and surnames for everyone & write letters of similar length for
all.
Be aware of what dazzles you and turns you off. Consider how both types of
things may be associated with race, gender, class, and/or other social identities.
Contextualize accomplishments by “distance traveled” (ie, how much opportunity
and privilege a person has had)
Develop means of bringing examples of biased language in letters to other
reviewers’ attention.
Account for the role of mentors in translating knowledge about what it takes to be
successful as a potential graduate student.
Note when you find yourself more compelled by letters from people you know,
remembering closed networks tend to perpetuate inequities.
Do not punish students for inappropriate comments from letter writers.
To help demystify the process for prospective students, make clear whom you
would like to see letters from, remembering that talented students who have not
had deep research experience, or who come to graduate school after years
working, may not have had access to three faculty members.
Utilize your request for letters of recommendation as an opportunity to raise
awareness about non-cognitive attributes as a component of merit in graduate
education.
In the prompt for letters, consider noting common forms of bias that emerge in
letters and provide a link to resources that delineate these.
bit.ly/EquityGradEd
Akos, P., & Kretchmar, J. (2016). Gender and ethnic bias in letters of recommendation:
Considerations for school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 20(1), 102-113.
Bensimon, E.M. (2018) Reclaiming racial justice in equity. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 50(3), 95-98.
Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom, L. (2012). Confronting the equity issue on campus: Implementing the
equity scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Engaging the “race question”: Accountability and equity
in U.S. higher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dutt, K., Pfaff, D. L., Bernstein, A. F., Dillard, J. S., & Block, C. J. (2016). Gender differences in
recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowship in geoscience. Nature Geoscience, 9, 805-
808.
Madera, Juan M, Hebl, Michelle R, Dial, Heather, Valian, Virgina. (2019). Raising Doubt in
Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Gender Differences and Their Impact. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 34(3), 287-303.
Posselt, J. R. (2016). Inside graduate admissions: Merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Posselt, J. R. (2018). Trust Networks: A New Perspective on Pedigree and the Ambiguities of
Admissions. The Review of Higher Education, 41(4), 497-521.
Trix, F. & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female
and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, 14(2), 191-220.
Julie Posselt
University of Southern California
Inclusive Graduate Education Network
California Consortium for Inclusive Doctoral Education
http://pullias.usc.edu/GradEd
MY TIMELINE
The Inclusive Graduate Education Network (IGEN) is a collaborative network comprised of the
following partner organizations:
