Writing good letters for grad applicants

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Amanda asks:

Can someone explain to me the basics of writing a letter of recommendation for a PhD applicant? How long? What do you spend time talking about? Do you make direct comparisons? Is there a big difference between writing one for an undergrad vs a MA student?

Great questions! Although I've had a few students accepted to MA and PhD programs, I can only report on what I do. Here, in brief, is how I go about things...

Generally speaking, my letters are usually somewhere around one-and-a-half single-spaced pages. I normally describe some of the work they have done for me in different courses, explaining what was good about it. I normally also describe some of their personal qualities, such as whether they are particularly conscientious, hard-working, whether they challenge themselves to take "philosophical risks", and so on (taking care to avoid gender stereotypes). Third, I normally compare the student to others I have had, giving a rough idea of whether they are in the top 10% of philosophy students I've had, one of the 10 best I've ever had, and so on. I also sometimes compare students to where I estimate I was at a similar stage in my philosophical development--as I think this can be an illuminating comparison in some cases.

Finally, although this may be a bit controversial, I may include frank (but careful) evaluations on where I think the student can improve. For example, if I think a student is a good thinker but their writing could be clearer, I may say that (being careful to add, perhaps, that my writing was comparable at a similar level of my development). Or, if I think the student is brilliant at understanding and summarizing philosophy but could work on developing better original arguments, I may say that (noting improvements I have witnessed in their recent work).

I say this may be controversial because some might see it as "undercutting" the student. However, I do it for three reasons, all of which I'm hopeful are good ones. First, I think admissions committees deserve the truth. If my sincere judgment is that a student is excellent at X but (at this point) only good at Y, it would be dishonest of me to either say they are great at Y or withhold saying anything about Y. I'm inclined to think committees should be given frank information so that they can make informed decisions. Second, although I could be wrong about this, my hope is that my letter will hold more weight if it comes across as honest and forthright rather than overselling a student or ignoring their weaknesses. As I'm sure we've all heard, there seems to be a real problem (at least in the US) with "letter inflation." If every letter says that every applicant is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I imagine it can be hard for admissions committees to take them seriously--especially if one's own letter doesn't cohere with what the committee sees in the applicant's materials themselves. Third, I'm inclined to think that being frank in my letters promises to serve future students well. For suppose I write an inflated letter for a student now, they enter a program, and the program finds that student has weaknesses I knew of but didn't identify in my letter. In that case, future admissions committees at that program could be more likely to discount my letters for future students. 

While this frank approach to letter writing may be controversial (I'm not sure), I will say that I've had students get into programs. I'll also add that I don't agree to write letters at all unless, in my judgment, the letter I can write is very positive overall, and that even when I mention weaknesses, I often spin in them in a positive direction--with integrity, I think, as I normally work with students on their weaknesses and see them improve on them (which I may also talk about in advocating for the student's overall promise and prospect for future growth). No student is perfect: I certainly wasn't the perfect applicant when I applied to grad school. Like any student, I had my own unique blend of gifts and liabilities. My general view is that if a student is a good applicant for a PhD program (that is, if they are promising enough to admit given their actual abilities), then that should come through both in the kind of letter I write as well as in the rest of their materials--in which case it is, I think, good for my letter to be honest (since my letter may cohere with what the admissions committee sees themselves in the rest of the student's application.

But these is just my approach, and my rationale for it. What do the rest of you think? What do you think a good letter for a PhD admissions looks like? It would be great to hear from both people who write letters, but also from people who have served on admissions committees!

Comments

[Amanda]

Thanks Marcus!

I struggle with knowing how "honest' to be as well. It is a weird game with so many people overselling things, that I worry that being honest will be taken as "code" that a student is not good, and that you have to go way over the top to even give the impression they are ready for a PhD program. However, I think I am leaning toward the side that I landed on with my own application materials. Everyone told me as a grad student that even if it sounded obnoxious, I needed to "sell myself" and basically just write a list of my accomplishments where I try to make them sound as impressive as possible. I did this once. But then I thought about it, and I came to the conclusion that the advice I was give was off. Because real humans read these letters. And very few real humans are impressed by obvious, over the top bragging, whether it be about yourself or someone else. I think sounding sincere is usually helpful. I hope so, anyway.

[European professor]

Are formulations such as "these are impressive accomplishments for someone before his 30s..." appropriate for a letter of recommendation?