What questions do they get on the questionaire?

[spectastic]

The LOR writers usually have to fill out a questionaire. What kind of questions do they ask? Anyone have any examples?

[gellert]

I know they are asked to rank you compared to all the other students they've taught.  I think they also rank you on values like intelligence, conscientiousness, creativity, etc.

[Maleficent999]

I don't think every school does it but the few I've seen asked them to rate me as far as my intelligence, research potential, creativity, etc. (top 1% of students? top 10%?).

[Leuco]

Here's an example of a sort of "checkbox" letter, like that at University of Maryland - Baltimore.

 

They have you send the professors the link to this to fill out the rec. 

http://cf.umaryland.edu/graduate/letter_of_recommendation/

 

And the one for MSU, a bit less check box-y.

http://grad.msu.edu/apply/docs/recommendation.pdf

[TakeruK]

Here is the example for the University of Hawaii Astronomy program.

 

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/gradprog/pdf/evaluation.pdf

 

Note the waiver at the top means that the applicant has to print it first, then sign the waiver, then mail the form to the recommender, then the recommender has to mail the form to the school!! It might not be so bad if the recommenders are at the same school as you but if not, then there are two chances for the postal system to screw up the mail somehow!!

[Canis]

For future reference, almost every school has a 'mail-in' LOR form for letter writers who want to fill it out and mail it in, it's almost always easy to find on their web site and it gives you a pretty good indication of what the online form asks! Search for those and you'll know for each school. I downloaded all of mine so I made sure to give my letter writers the best information, and they're pretty interesting!

[Loric]

This is the first time i've ever really heard of "forms" that needed to be filled out.. but perhaps it's because in the arts they care more about the pulpy emotional stuff or something. I can just envision them not trusting a radio button survey result.

[m-ttl]

This is the first time i've ever really heard of "forms" that needed to be filled out.. but perhaps it's because in the arts they care more about the pulpy emotional stuff or something. I can just envision them not trusting a radio button survey result.

 

The radio button surveys are in addition to the letter. The Hawaii example above still expects an accompanying letter, it seems like. 

Edited January 4, 2014 by m-ttl

[Loric]

But I've honestly never encountered the survey at all before. Everything was "have rec send letter to..."  deals.

[TakeruK]

But I've honestly never encountered the survey at all before. Everything was "have rec send letter to..."  deals.

 

It might be just differences in fields. But when your LOR requests say "have rec send letter to...", did the program actually want the prof to go ahead and write a real letter on letterhead and mail it in (or do the equivalent via email?). Or, do you register your letter writers via some application system and the system emails your prof the URL and username/password combo to use to submit their thoughts about your application directly. In the sciences, it's almost always the latter, and what seems to happen is the prof first fills in basic details about themselves, then fills out the radio button survey and then if they want (hopefully they do, or it is not going to be a good LOR), they upload a PDF or type some thoughts into a text box. 

 

The radio button survey is helpful because they provide a quick way for a prof to communicate some metrics and allows for LORs to be "graded by rubric" if the program gets so many applications that they have to use some filter system (doubtful that they won't at least read the LOR though). In my field, profs will expect to see statements like "This student is an excellent communicator, he/she is in the top 5% of all students I have supervised", or "This student is able to think and solve problems independently, but could use more training in writing for a scientific audience. I would rate his/her writing skill as average compared to all of the students I have supervised." etc. etc.

 

I think that the radio buttons helps prevent profs from having to write (and read) a set of sentences that drone "X is in the top Y% in category Z" for every category, and also prevents the committee from having to digitize these numbers if they want to do some kind of crude ranking. Then, the rest of the letter can be used for things that cannot be quantized, such as the potential of the student in improve in certain categories, or further descriptions of certain examples of success or failures. I think that while the radio buttons/numbers stuff is good for quickly categorizing applications, you really want to read the actual content and words to give the numbers the right context.

 

I am curious what kind you mean by "pulpy emotional" stuff. I can't imagine emotional stuff belonging in a LOR but maybe I am not understanding what you mean by "emotional" stuff at all. I would think that the LOR's contents would be a supervisor's frank and thorough assessment of a candidate's proven success/failures and potential for future success. 

[Loric]

No registration system - just a number (it's usually 2, and i know people who were accepted before the 2nd one even arrived or was written).

 

It gets emailed or mailed directly to a certain address to be processed.

[Loric]

I think in my field saying a student was in any top X% would seen as suspect.. It just doesn't jive. It seems like a complete fabrication to say something like that. Can it look good? Sure, but it rings very hollow.

 

Edit: In my training, only the top students were allowed to finish. People talk all he time about quals, but in my field had a review at the end of every academic period and had to go before a committee and was judged on if i would be permitted to continue - regardless of my grades. If i "peaked" too soon, I was out. I saw this happen to others.

 

The basic class of students for my year/period started with like 30 people in the design fields. By midway it was down to 15, and by the end I was the only scenic designer, there were 2 lighting designers, 3 costume designers, and all the technical people (stage management, technical driection, etc..) had all dropped or been cut.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Loric

[Loric]

And no one in my field/department would write a letter out of courtesy or just because someone had decent grades in their classes (as i mentioned, you can get good grades and still be asked not to continue - or rather, prevented as they wont release the required permits.)

Edited January 4, 2014 by Loric

[TakeruK]

Interesting. I would not want to be in a program where I am not secure in the fact that as long as I met the requirements, I would be able to continue (i.e. not a limited number of seats).

 

In most STEM programs, there is an annual review of students too. But this is not a "competitive" process, that is, they are not trying to pare down a class. It is a review to make sure your grades meet the minimum standards and your research output is satisfactory. It doesn't even have to be stellar, just meet minimum requirements. This is partly to make sure that the school isn't paying a student to just watch YouTube videos all day, but also to make sure that the student is actually progressing, and it could be a way for an outside party to identify a problem like a toxic advisor (and the student may be too naive or inexperienced to even know that they have a bad relationship). 

[Canis]

I would just like to take a moment to say that as an anthropologist I have the awesome job, sometimes, of watching YouTube videos all day...