Search The Site
 
More options | Back issues
Home
News
Opinion & Forums
Careers
Multimedia
Leadership Forum
Technology Forum
Resource Center
Campus Viewpoints
Services
The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle Review
A weekly special section
Brainstorm: Lives of the Mind John L. Jackson Jr.

Dear Search Committee

Dear Search Committee:

Are you bleary-eyed and exhausted from all the applications you’ve received and read thus far? Hey, have you already decided on your choice for the position? Is there an inside candidate I don’t know about, somebody who effectively makes my reference letter a waste of everyone’s time?

I usually don’t ask such questions when I start recommendation letters for graduate students, but I’ve decided to cut to the chase this year. I want the skinny. There are so many credible candidates for your advertised post (I know of at least 10 folks, and I’m writing reference letters for three of them); I can’t imagine that the process will be easy.

First of all, we know that sometimes such letters are pitched at a level of gushingly celebratory support that they rival grade inflation in terms of rendering their measurements/benchmarks useless. We deploy terms like “brilliant” and “exceptional” with reckless abandon these days. I know. I know. I only write for students I think are truly “exceptional,” but I also realize that you may not buy all of my enthusiasm — may not find it sufficiently objective. So, I sometimes try to temper things a bit, to play it straight and put on a writerly pokerface of distanced appraisal. I did that for the letter I wrote you all last year, the one for my other student applying for that other highly-coveted job. (Hey, who landed that one, anyway?)

The catch is that I don’t want you to read my tone as cloaked indifference (or even as a purposefully negative valuation) offered up in positive terms but with a wink and nod of mutual recognition to the contrary. I remember one colleague from my own department (several years and institutions ago) who wrote a recommendation for a student applying to work with us. My colleague wrote all the right things, but every single faculty member in the department (independently!) read that same letter as just lukewarm, as a way of saying, “the student is OK, but not great.” The faculty member was mortified — and was there to refute our collective misreading. We couldn’t put our fingers on exactly what had given us the impression that the letter was really a non-recommendation recommendation, but I have never forgotten that lesson. We all think we have to read between the lines of rec letters, and that can sometimes mean we see hidden signs that may have nothing to do with a recommender’s intent.

But I digress. And I don’t want this letter to turn into a silly rehashing of post-structuralist discussions about the recommender’s/author’s death and a concomitant ascendency of one very specific audience (you, the search committee). In some ways, it is too obvious to say that search committees determine the meaning of texts in this instance. Of course. That’s too easy. Instead, I want you to know that I realize how difficult a job you have. And I appreciate you taking the time to read this, even though I also must admit that I will probably internalize your rejection of my student (if that is, in fact, what you all decide to do) and shoulder all the blame for it.

That probably isn’t fair to you or me. There are so many variables you all are considering as you make your final decisions that only a bloated and self-deluded ego could ever allow me to imagine my two- or three-page letter being the single and deciding factor. At the same time, I want to make sure my letter is an honest form of advocacy that tries to champion my student’s application without reducing the genre to clichés and histrionic cheerleading — to nothing but a waste of your time.

I’m never totally sure if I’ve reached the right balance. But you should know that I wouldn’t have taken the time to write this letter about this student’s “brilliant” dissertation topic, work habits, classroom skills, teacherly background, and personal attributes unless I really thought it was worth it. Hope you think so, too.

Sincerely,

Posted at 10:48:36 AM on November 25, 2008 | All postings by John L. Jackson Jr.

Comments

  1. I’m not sure letters of reference are even read by search committees. I once wrote about a colleague that he was “huge and hairy, yet leprechaun-like.” He got the job.

    — Joe Erwin · Nov 25, 11:45 AM · #

  2. ROTFL Joe!!! Seriously??? Perhaps he was so far ahead of the other candidates that they only skimmed the letters.

    I have never been on a search committee, but have been on several grant review committees and can say that at least for grant applications the recommendations can make a major difference. It helps a lot if the person writing the recommendation knows anything about the grant (replace with position) being applied for and if the letter is written specifically with the candidate’s qualities for that grant (position) in mind. It comes across better for the impression of the candidate’s interest in that grant specifically. Mentioning the grant name (position/institution) once at the top of the letter is a lukewarm way to do that – instead, describing how the applicant’s qualities are perfect for this grant (position) is a much more warm approach and does sway the end result of the reading, especially if the writer puts any thought into that. It helps a lot if you can give real examples. Since I’ve served on these committees, I now write my own reference letters differently – for instance instead of just saying “Cary is dedicated” I will say “Cary is dedicated. He has shown this numerous times such as… (examples here) ….” Then it doesn’t come across like fluff made up to sound nice. It also comes across well for the candidate if the recommendation comes from someone who writes in an organized, clear and mature manner.

    So if you ever feel like you are not making a difference, please know that your work does make a difference at least for some committees. You might not be the end-all and be-all of a decision vs. the candidate’s qualifications and presentation of themselves. But when it comes down to a hairs’ breadth difference between two candidates, your letter could make a real difference.

    — bta · Nov 25, 12:35 PM · #

  3. In most cases I don’t read letters. Most applicants are obviously not qualified/too qualified for our position. A shocking number are tossed out because they apparently didn’t bother to read our job ad.

    Maybe 30% of the applicants land in the “qualified” pile. I read the letters for most of them.

    What do I look for? If the letters don’t say things like “brilliant” or “exceptional”, that’s a red flag. Before I’m willing to put someone in the “interview” pile, though, I need to see some empirical evidence that the applicant has potential. “He has solved a problem that has plagued research even published in (name of top journal)”, “She has a good solution for (insert big unsolved question) and here is the solution in a nutshell”, “He won a teaching award”, or “She has taken courses from me in (field we are hiring for)”. Basically, I look for stories and opinions that are supported by facts, a supplement to the CV.

    As for “huge and hairy, yet leprechaun-like”, it might give us a laugh, but I’m not really sure how to interpret it, and thus it would probably not get much weight. “The guy farts in faculty meetings” would get a lot of weight.

    — me · Nov 26, 08:31 AM · #

  4. My experience with faculty searches indicates that during the initial stages the name/position of the recommender carries weight, but the actual content of the letters of recommendation doesn’t come into play until the finer cuts are being made in order to decide who to invite for interviews. And, of course, an applicant who knows someone close to a person who is part of the hiring department immediately goes to the top of the list. As in most things, who you know counts nearly as much as what you know.

    — prz' · Nov 26, 09:03 AM · #

  5. Have written and received such letters and, of course, once needed them for myself in job searches. The best ones avoided the predicable adjectives or, when used, justified them, as many have advised here, by citing specific accomplishments that told me the letter writer could speak knowingly and authoritatively about this candidate as something other than a specimen job seeker. Ideally, the letter should also be sensitive to the job requirements/description and be able to speak to how this candidate will fit. Finally, if the letter writer has seen the candidate as a TEACHER in the classroom, and can comment on that, that would be refreshing.

    This recommendation as to specifics is the same lesson we teach in beginning writing: don’t suffocate your subject with unwarranted generalizations and understand also that the writer’s subject is, to some extent, the writer. Lousy or unconvincing rec letters are deemed so because, quite frankly, I’d not hire the writers of them in my department.

    — George T. Karnezis · Nov 26, 11:41 AM · #

  6. Like everything else we write, the recommendation is an argument. “You should hire this person. Here’s why.” We’ve been running a search this year. I was very surprised by the number of times I saw “X is the strongest student I’ve had in this program,” or something like it. I thought it was bizarre, especially for a school like ours where being a superstar is not enough to get the dishes washed. Show me why this person is excellent for us. “X’s research contributes to the field specifically in this way…” “X’s rapport with the students is extraordinary for so young a teacher. For example…” “One of the ways X makes an excellent colleague is…”

    The kind of recommendation I find most interesting is one that notes where a candidate’s weaknesses are and how the candidate is actively taking steps to become stronger. “X’s strengths are in A, B, & C. Although X is less confident in D & E, s/he is becoming impressively competent in these areas in order to teach our introductory survey.”

    A few times we got “I would put X in the top 12% of our students,” or something similar. This was even weirder. How am I supposed to interpret that? By what criteria is X being ranked? Should I research how many people are in the program and do the math?

    — Bible Spice · Nov 30, 11:41 AM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.
Copyright © 2009 by The Chronicle of Higher Education | Contact us
User agreement | Privacy policy | About The Chronicle | Site map | Help
Subscribe | Advertise with us | Press inquiries | RSS | Today's most e-mailed
Home | Chronicle Careers | The Chronicle Review