any school that don't require letters?

[seanjx]

Does anyone know about any grad programs out there that don't require letters of recommendation for you to apply? Or any where it is optional?

Thanks,

Sean

[Eigen]

No.

Simply put your Letters of Rec are probably the most important part of your application.

You might find some really off the map masters programs that don't require letters, but....

What field are you in?

[Vacuum]

Some overseas programs don't require letters but go solely on grades (not USA or Canada).

[neuropsych76]

If there are programs that do not require letters of recommendation, those are programs you probably do not want to attend.

[Poppet]

I don't think that's a fair comment. Some very reputable schools don't require them, such as the University of Helsinki and for some programs at least, the University of Amsterdam. Both are very good schools (if not the best) in their respective countries, and are highly respected internationally as well.

[RJB]

There are overseas universities that do not require LORs. But that does not mean they are profit oriented, low educational quality diploma mills.

There is something people are forgetting here. Are you a good or excellent US graduate school applicant just because some professor's LOR says so?

I realize that nearly all graduate admissions offices in the US require strong LORs before even a talented applicant will be considered for admission. However in my opinion I think this rigid US graduate admissions policy is lowering the country's level of intellectual capital.

According to online articles I read on this matter at About.com and elsewhere, more and more US grad school applicants, including those in psychology and medicine, are bemoaning the difficulties they have in getting strong LORs no matter how hard they work at it. Instead of getting really helpful feedback on this, they are told repeatedly the same things: Make sure your professors know who you are, be sure you stand out academically, take non-matriculated courses if you have to, etc. This advice continues to ignore the reality.

1. There are US professors who are annoyed that some students who were not their personally selected favorites would be so bold as to ask them for an LOR, when surely these professors must know that the student must request it because it is mandatory. These professors frequently tell the student to ask someone else. There are documented cases of this.

2. Handicapped US students and female students have reported (not all, some) that professors from which they asked LORs were very reluctant to help.

3. Even when an LOR is a fairly good one, there might be "coded language" in it that a US graduate admissions officer could take the wrong way.

4. There are US postdocs and US associate professors also who have complained they have considerable trouble getting strong reference letters and LORs. This is not always because they do not qualify.

I think this is why at least some graduate US admissions programs have eased the LOR requirements, allowing applicants to ask employers, or someone who can vouch for their good character, rather than asking professors in academia, whose responses certainly can be subjective and biased, due to human fallibility.

When does politics and bias in academia end, and objectivity begin?

Today Brazil, India, Iran and Communist China are outpacing the US in terms of talented graduate school admissions applicants in business, IT/computer science, math and the physical/life sciences. I find it absolutely astounding that US graduate admissions offices still weigh the value of LORs far more than overall good grades/GPA, research, volunteerism and experience.

I am not saying LORs all should be scrapped. All I am suggesting is the whole graduate admissions package should be weighed together as a whole, not one component weighted more or less strongly than the other parts. There are students the professors like, and other students they might have had personality conflicts with. The same is true for some talented postdocs in the US having trouble getting good references. LORs do not tell the whole story.

A. Einstein never could get LORs from his professors, meaning for him to get a professorship position in physics after his graduation. In fact some professors even did not like Einstein. He turned in work at the last minute and frequently he cut classes. That is why he found work as a patent clerk in Switzerland. S. Ramanujan never did get LORs from any math professors for his higher studies in number theory. That was one of the biggest tragedies in mathematics. Those are just two examples of what superficial or biased evaluations of a student can lead to. I am sure there are more.

[dntw8up]

Today Brazil, India, Iran and Communist China are outpacing the US in terms of talented graduate school admissions applicants in business, IT/computer science, math and the physical/life sciences.

There is a preponderance of Indian and Chinese names among graduate students and professors in my field (CS), suggesting that any perceived "IT/computer science" outpacing can be credited to educations provided by U.S. universities, all of which require(d) letters of recommendation.

[Kitkat]

I think this is why at least some graduate US admissions programs have eased the LOR requirements, allowing applicants to ask employers, or someone who can vouch for their good character, rather than asking professors in academia, whose responses certainly can be subjective and biased, due to human fallibility.

I think that there are more reasons why schools allow this other then the fact that academic LOR's can be seen as biased. There is an increase in the amount of people who take some time off before to grad school. They happen to work in a field that is related to what they are applying to grad school for, and therefore is actually relevant. There also might be the fact that they have been out of school for so long that having all three letters from an academic source almost useless, since many of them would not remember you. It tends to be also that while people are allowed to have non- academic letters, they still have to have at least one when they are applying to grad school.

I find it absolutely astounding that US graduate admissions offices still weigh the value of LORs far more than overall good grades/GPA, research, volunteerism and experience. I am not saying LORs all should be scrapped. All I am suggesting is the whole graduate admissions package should be weighed together as a whole, not one component weighted more or less strongly than the other parts. There are students the professors like, and other students they might have had personality conflicts with. The same is true for some talented postdocs in the US having trouble getting good references. LORs do not tell the whole story.

While I agree with your point that LOR's should not be looked at as the most important part of the application, I don't think that is actually what most reputable sources would say is true when applying to grad school. Most would say that they are part of a number of things that grad schools look at in the package. I know that in the sciences, research is a very important factor, as well as your writing sample(for why you want to be there and be a good fit), as well as interviews if the school has them. So I think that most schools actually do what you say, and look at the whole package. As for who gives you a LOR, it is based on who you ask. I think that if you make the argument that there are limited options of people to ask, due to things like large classes or biased teachers, but at the same time, you have to remember that profs are people to. If they don't think that they can write you a strong letter, then they might not be able to, but if you have three, and only one of them is so so, I think it is less of an issue. People keep getting into grad school despite the difficulties in getting letters.

A. Einstein never could get LORs from his professors, meaning for him to get a professorship position in physics after his graduation. In fact some professors even did not like Einstein. He turned in work at the last minute and frequently he cut classes. That is why he found work as a patent clerk in Switzerland. S. Ramanujan never did get LORs from any math professors for his higher studies in number theory. That was one of the biggest tragedies in mathematics. Those are just two examples of what superficial or biased evaluations of a student can lead to. I am sure there are more.

It could be that profs didn't like Einstein because he didn't go to classes or do the work. And if he was not serious about going to class or doing the work, how could the profs he had say that he would be serious about his graduate work? Yes he was a smart man and did a lot of great things in the field of physics, but try to look at it from the profs point of view. Part of what they want to see is that you are really serious about going, and I can see the point of saying that Einstein did not seem very serious about it.

[finknottle]

There is a preponderance of Indian and Chinese names among graduate students and professors in my field (CS), suggesting that any perceived "IT/computer science" outpacing can be credited to educations provided by U.S. universities, all of which require(d) letters of recommendation.

How does that connect to Letters of Recommendation in any way? A sizable population of Indians and Chinese in Computer Science is a different thing altogether, and Letters of Recommendation don't enter the picture. Things wouldn't have been vastly different even if the U.S admission process didn't rely upon LORs. No one is arguing against the merits or the quality of education in US universities. The admission process is a different thing though. It's just one way to do things. US chooses to do so because the ratio of number of students applying v/s the no. of positions available is still manageable. In other places, like India and China for instance, it wouldn't be possible for a university department to leaf through 100K Essays and LORs. They rely on multiple levels of filtering where the first one is usually an examination.

Edited November 23, 2011 by prasun

[dntw8up]

How does that connect to Letters of Recommendation in any way?

Your question suggests that you are unaware that letters of recommendation don't just evaluate the student; they also evaluate the recommender. In addition to evaluating qualities of applicants, recommendation letters make it possible for admissions committees to calibrate the recommender and his/her institution. Grad school application readers can't be familiar with every letter writer and every institution, so they can't judge what any statements mean relative to their own standards. Therefore, graduate schools care not only what the letter writer thinks of the student, but also about their own perceptions of the letter writer. Since admissions committees are not familiar with all U.S. universities, and even less familiar with all foreign universities, letters of recommendation clearly helped make it possible for Indians and Chinese who attended grad school in the U.S. to accomplish the "IT/computer science" out-pacing that RJB perceives.

Edited November 23, 2011 by dntw8up

[DeeLovely79]

My 2 cents.

If you can find 3 people to write you a decent LOR you shouldn't be applying to grad school. There should be three people that you've interacted with in an academic/professional setting that believe you have the intelligence, maturity and drive to be successful in graduate school. Furthermore, if you're applying to graduate school you've gone to college and you had to go through the whole LOR thing just to get in. You should know how to master the process by now. Whether you are apply to graduate school or a new job you always need 3 references, part of being a successful professional is making sure you are prepared to take the next step in your career and having the tools necessary for that step.

[Sigaba]

My 2 cents.

If you can find 3 people to write you a decent LOR you shouldn't be applying to grad school. There should be three people that you've interacted with in an academic/professional setting that believe you have the intelligence, maturity and drive to be successful in graduate school. Furthermore, if you're applying to graduate school you've gone to college and you had to go through the whole LOR thing just to get in. You should know how to master the process by now. Whether you are apply to graduate school or a new job you always need 3 references, part of being a successful professional is making sure you are prepared to take the next step in your career and having the tools necessary for that step.

DL79--

I think you may be over-generalizing.. First, there are some colleges that do not require letters of recommendation. For example, the Forty Acres--an excellent university by almost any measurement--recommends but does not require LoRs. Second, some aspiring collegians travel paths that make required LoRs a mere formality that will not make or break an application. (This is to say that some high school seniors pick the schools they want to attend and their applications get rubber stamped.) Third, some of the larger state schools--like Cal and UCLA--GSI's do the lion's share of the teaching. In such an environment, undergraduates may not necessarily receive the mentoring on how to develop the relationships one needs to get LoRs. (A first year graduate student can be put in a position where she is asked to write a LoR for the first time.) Fourth, many departments do not structure majors in a way that facilitates a one-on-one relationship between a student and an instructor. For these reasons and others, it is not inconceivable that many undergraduates do not know how to ask for LoRs or to build the relationships that will lead to very good LoRs.

As far as your comments about "professionalism," I think you're guidance would carry more weight if it were tempered with irony, if not actual humility or if you're footprints in cyberspace were less revealing. After all, as a "professional" you know that the private sector is focused on risk management, that a part of risk management includes HR departments doing background checks on current and prospective employees, and that everything is fair game in this economy, and...well.

[finknottle]

Your question suggests that you are unaware that letters of recommendation don't just evaluate the student; they also evaluate the recommender. In addition to evaluating qualities of applicants, recommendation letters make it possible for admissions committees to calibrate the recommender and his/her institution. Grad school application readers can't be familiar with every letter writer and every institution, so they can't judge what any statements mean relative to their own standards. Therefore, graduate schools care not only what the letter writer thinks of the student, but also about their own perceptions of the letter writer. Since admissions committees are not familiar with all U.S. universities, and even less familiar with all foreign universities, letters of recommendation clearly helped make it possible for Indians and Chinese who attended grad school in the U.S. to accomplish the "IT/computer science" out-pacing that RJB perceives.

Yeah, it's still just one way of doing things. That doesn't make it the best way or the only way right? You are confusing correlation with causation. The current demographic in computer science has got very little to do with letters of recommendation. Letters of recommendation are just a part of the process. There can be other equally reliable and rigorous metrics to judge a person's aptitude. The best, of course, would be to spend time with the applicants in person to get the most accurate estimate, but since that is not feasible, we need to rely on letters, essays, interviews, examinations etc. It is up to the university to see what fits its bill. Why are you putting a process on a pedestal? Your basic argument is that Indians and Chinese benefited from an American education, which is true. What difference does it make whether the universities used letters or not? They could have just as well used a different metric and the outcome wouldn't have been very different.

[dntw8up]

...some of the larger state schools--like Cal and UCLA--GSI's do the lion's share of the teaching. In such an environment, undergraduates may not necessarily receive the mentoring on how to develop the relationships one needs to get LoRs....many departments do not structure majors in a way that facilitates a one-on-one relationship between a student and an instructor. For these reasons and others, it is not inconceivable that many undergraduates do not know how to ask for LoRs or to build the relationships that will lead to very good LoRs...

The structure of departments is irrelevant; it is the responsibility of undergraduates who want to go to graduate school to foster relationships with professors. It's a necessary skill for academics to develop these sorts of relationships. Undergraduates who are uncomfortable doing so, and unwilling to seek out ways to educate themselves about the process so that they feel more comfortable, do not belong in grad school.

[DeeLovely79]

DL79--

I think you may be over-generalizing.. First, there are some colleges that do not require letters of recommendation. For example, the Forty Acres--an excellent university by almost any measurement--recommends but does not require LoRs. Second, some aspiring collegians travel paths that make required LoRs a mere formality that will not make or break an application. (This is to say that some high school seniors pick the schools they want to attend and their applications get rubber stamped.) Third, some of the larger state schools--like Cal and UCLA--GSI's do the lion's share of the teaching. In such an environment, undergraduates may not necessarily receive the mentoring on how to develop the relationships one needs to get LoRs. (A first year graduate student can be put in a position where she is asked to write a LoR for the first time.) Fourth, many departments do not structure majors in a way that facilitates a one-on-one relationship between a student and an instructor. For these reasons and others, it is not inconceivable that many undergraduates do not know how to ask for LoRs or to build the relationships that will lead to very good LoRs.

As far as your comments about "professionalism," I think you're guidance would carry more weight if it were tempered with irony, if not actual humility or if you're footprints in cyberspace were less revealing. After all, as a "professional" you know that the private sector is focused on risk management, that a part of risk management includes HR departments doing background checks on current and prospective employees, and that everything is fair game in this economy, and...well.

I don't think I'm overgeneralizing, you should be able to produce letters from 3 people who believe in your application. I never said that they have to be professors which is what you assumed. Many programs do not require 3 professors to submit LORs, they ask for people familiar with your academic/professional work. This can be anyone, not necessarily a professor even though recommendations from professors are very important for fields where there is very little non-academic experience. Not every college in the US requires letters of recommendations but the vast majority do so this is something that the vast majority of US applicants have experience with so it's something that students should be prepared for. Same thing with my point regarding employment references, you have to good ones to get hired at any decent job and you need to be prepared with that information as you never know when you'll come across an amazing position and need to interview and submit references on short notice.

Yes the process can be intimidating, I went to one of those big schools with 101 classes consisting of 3,000 students and so I understand that getting one on one contact with professors can be challenging. However by the time begin applying to graduate school you are an upperclassmen and should have had some of those smaller upper level classes by that point where you are getting plenty of face time with professors in your major.

There are ways there ways to get the LORs and savvy students will get them. These are the type of students that will be successful graduate school and if you don't have the strategies to be successful you should be applying to graduate school.

As for your attempt a personal dig. It's unwarranted, how about we focus on respond to the comments in the conversation thread and not try to put each other down?

[dntw8up]

Yeah, it's still just one way of doing things. That doesn't make it the best way or the only way right?

Nobody said recommendations are "the best way or the only way", and that line of thought is irrelevant because this discussion is not about ideal grad school admission processes.

You are confusing correlation with causation. The current demographic in computer science has got very little to do with letters of recommendation. Letters of recommendation are just a part of the process.

No, I'm not. Since recommendation letters are a factor in admissions decisions among the vast majority of U.S. schools, they are part of what gets people in or keeps people out of grad school. Obviously this means letters have a direct impact on the "current demographic in computer science", because nobody with a U.S. grad degree in cs would have that degree without those letters.

There can be other equally reliable and rigorous metrics to judge a person's aptitude. The best, of course, would be to spend time with the applicants in person to get the most accurate estimate, but since that is not feasible, we need to rely on letters, essays, interviews, examinations etc. It is up to the university to see what fits its bill.

There are other methods of evaluation, and some of them may be equally reliable, but we do not know that for a fact, and there is certainly no evidence that face-to-face time would be the "best" metric for grad school admissions. Everyone has biases, and eliminating face-to-face interviews eliminates the influence some irrelevant biases have historically had on admission decisions. Further, given that so many U.S. universities struggle with grad student TAs who have a poor command of the English language, I suspect that face-to-face interviews would actually have a negative effect on international admissions.

Why are you putting a process on a pedestal?

I am not making any sort of value judgment of the process; I'm just stating facts.

Your basic argument is that Indians and Chinese benefited from an American education, which is true. What difference does it make whether the universities used letters or not? They could have just as well used a different metric and the outcome wouldn't have been very different.

It makes no difference to me what metric universities use; I'm simply observing facts about the metric being used. U.S. grad schools use an admissions metric that includes letters of recommendation; therefore, recommendations helped make it possible for admitted applicants to gain admission; therefore recommendations made possible the U.S. graduate education necessary for RJB's perceived outpacing of "IT/computer science" among Indians and Chinese.

Lastly, you can not possibly know that using a different metric would lead to the same or similar results. Your remark is simply conjecture.

Edited November 25, 2011 by dntw8up

[finknottle]

It makes no difference to me what metric universities use; I'm simply observing facts about the metric being used. U.S. grad schools use an admissions metric that includes letters of recommendation; therefore, recommendations helped make it possible for admitted applicants to gain admission; therefore recommendations made possible the U.S. graduate education necessary for RJB's perceived outpacing of "IT/computer science" among Indians and Chinese.

Lastly, you can not possibly know that using a different metric would lead to the same or similar results. Your remark is simply conjecture.

Of course it helped them. It helped them because it was a requirement for admissions. In that sense, by your definition, every other component in the application process helped them too. But we aren't talking about that, are we? You would see a sizable chunk of Asians in Computer science because 1) China and India are the two most populous countries in the world and 2) It is lucrative and in their interest to study Computer Science because of a host of other reasons which we needn't get into right now. Now, if a large number of students from the two most populous countries in the world decide to study computer science, without really doing any fancy analysis, you can safely assume that at least a small fraction of all those people would do really well, which would still be a decent number and also affect the demographic. Hence the perceived outpacing. How you can attribute that to 'LORs' is beyond me. Try stringing that in one sentence and I hope you'll see how absurd that sounds. Soviet Russia was churning out scientists during the Cold War. Would you have attributed that to something like Letters of Recommendation? Not I presume. And while we aren't in a cold war right now, my point is that demographics depend on far more important and influential things than Letters of Recommendation. Anyway, looks like we are digressing. I don't think any of this is relevant to the OP's question.

Edited November 25, 2011 by prasun