In a recent post, FemaleScienceProfessor recounts the “legend” of a friend whose job candidacy was inadvertently doomed by an adviser’s complimentary letter of recommendation and the pettiness of a search-committee member who read it, or so the story goes:
Years ago, a friend of mine had a highly unsuccessful interview for a faculty position. According to the legend, the department chair, who had had the same adviser as the candidate, was upset that their mutual adviser had written in the reference letter that the candidate was THE BEST graduate student he had ever advised. This was humiliating for the not-best professor, and he did not support hiring the candidate.
While FSP concedes that there’s no shortage of petty people in (and out of) academe, she thinks it’s improbable that her friend’s candidacy was sabotaged by one:
Perhaps I am naïve, but I don’t believe that the wounded ego of one professor would be enough to sink someone’s chances at a job if there weren’t other reasons for other faculty member to not prefer this particular candidate. The reasons might be good ones or bad ones, but I think there must have been other reasons. I also think in this case that it was true that the candidate was indeed the best graduate student of that adviser; the years since the fateful interview have demonstrated this well.
Historiann agrees, while adding that the adviser’s letter did contain one major no-no. She notes that letters containing a superlative such as “the best … ever” are viewed more often than not with suspicion by hirers:
I suspect that the fateful letter of recommendation for her friend might also have been a product of laziness and hyperbole, rather than an honest evaluation of the job candidate in question. There is a famous historian, probably the leader in his field, who teaches at an Ivy League university and who is legendary for his ridiculously inflated letters of recommendation. He writes to search committees that each of his graduate students is THE BEST student he’s EVER worked with in his career. Never mind that three, four, or five of his students might be applying for the same job—they’re all THE BEST. (Needless to say, few people take his recommendation letters seriously.)
So tell us, those of you on the hiring side, what are your recommendation-letter turn-ons and turnoffs? What role do recommendation letters play in the candidate-selection process at your institution?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
12 Responses to Recommendation Letters
schultzjc - January 28, 2010 at 1:50 pm
It is certainly possible for a single letter and single offended person to kill an application. These days – at least in the sciences – the top candidates are equally qualified, and “minor” or personal issues can make all the difference. And in at least some departments an uncooperative or disapproving chair can definitely kill an application.My advisor wrote in his first letter “for” me that I’d be a great scientist if I ever decided that I wasn’t a musician. Needless to say, that didn’t help.
wagamama - January 29, 2010 at 6:40 am
I’ve been on close to a dozen search committees during my tenure and would say that laudatory, if not hyperbolic, recommendations are the norm. I can’t recall any application being derailed by complimentary letters; OTOH I think any recommendation that comes off as equivocal or unenthusiastic definitely can sink a candidate by providing a reason to take one more folder out of consideration.
woodstock - January 29, 2010 at 6:59 am
Probably ALL US universities are hypocritical when it comes to hiring and they are corrupted when it comes to open mindness judging by the fact the Norman Finkelstein can not get a job anywhere.
snwiedmann - January 29, 2010 at 7:43 am
I don’t find hyperbole, itself, to be a problem necessarily. If the letter contains specific evidence to support high praise, then I think most committees will accept it as legitimate. Such hyperbole will be viewed with a jaundiced eye if that’s all the letter contains. In my experience, a comment remarking on a candidate’s weakness will or will not kill that candidate’s chances depending entirely on the nature of the comment. The example given by schultzjc is the kind of comment that can damn an application. No one wants to hire someone who is seen as less than serious about the job/position. On the other hand, I once read a letter of recommendation that explained an applicant’s poor student evaluations for two semesters as likely due to a very vituperative divorce. That sort of negative factor can (and probably should) be overlooked since it involved an event (the divorce) entirely in the past. I have found that members of search committees truly value(and properly appreciate) balanced and honest letters of recommendation. Not all hires are those whose letters were the most hyperbolic.
cordelia - January 29, 2010 at 8:05 am
I’ve read some odd things in recommendation letters over the years, such as the memorable “She was a cheerleader for many years, and it shows.” But usually committee members put it down to quirks in the recommendor rather than the candidate. While it doesn’t help much if the letter sounds like standard, generic gushing, it only hurts if that praise is not accompanied with specific details. I also agree with the writer above who feels it helps if letters honestly address and problem areas.
22113683 - January 29, 2010 at 9:02 am
I’ve read–and written–some pretty outrageous letters of recommendation during my career. I still haven’t figured out how to give an honestly negative evaluation without fear of litigation. My nearest approach is “damning with faint praise.” Some of the most fulsome recommendations have come for candidates whom we appointed and who turned out to be complete disasters, so I have learned to discount hyperbole by about 97%, and if it’s from a current employer, discount it entirely. On the other hand, the absence of a letter from the candidate’s current chair is probably a bad sign, too, because it can mean that the candidate has good reason not to have input (warning?) from the person closest to the situation. Moral: writing or reading, you can’t win.
maw57 - January 29, 2010 at 10:10 am
Worth noting too that recommendation inflation is more an American phenomenon than a British one. Be wary of asking Brits to write outside letters for tenure cases: you may have to explain the different conventions to those higher up in the administrative food chain.
optimysticynic - January 29, 2010 at 10:18 am
To #4: it’s all in the eye of the beholder. I would be very interested in a candidate who had a major creative side interest (no, I’m not in the arts or humanities, either) and would be VERY wary of anyone who’d had a “vituperative divorce.” Either they selected the partner for life very poorly in the first place or are at least more than somewhat to blame in the ensuing “vituperation.” I would also much rather have someone who spends some time on the weekends restoring his/her enthusiasm for life playing music than someone whose personal life is screwed up and can’t rise above it while teaching.
skocpol - January 29, 2010 at 11:19 am
Beware of intentional or accidental double meanings — “You will be lucky if…1) you can get this person to work for you.”2) this person chooses to come to your department.”3) this person teaches undergraduates for you.”
ellenschrecker - January 29, 2010 at 11:21 am
Sometimes whats NOT in the letter is just as important — like not explaining strange gaps in the CV. At that point, no matter how laudatory the letter, you have to wonder.
22010152 - January 30, 2010 at 12:32 am
Letters are useless. I’ve never figured out why academic search committees rarely seem to call references. You can tell so much more from talking to someone, even if they don’t want to say anything bad about a candidate.
timebandit - February 4, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Remember also the issue of highly favorable letters to get rid of someone they hate. Letter writer doesn’t want to give them a claim of some negative issues, plus goodie – the jerk might just get the job and go away.