Why you should always wave your right to see your letter of recommendation.

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

A professor from my university touched on this today, he said when students don't waive their rights to view their letters from their recommenders, the university blocks which ever letter(s) the student did not waive their rights on from going through to the department they applied to. The idea is the university is protecting your recommender from you, because if the recommender says something which you feel ruined your chance at graduate school you could sue the recommender. I don't know if this is true of every university but at least it is true for mine, or so I'm being told by this faculty member. 

[velua]

Even if you do waive your rights, that information gets out. I applied to the NSF fellowship when I was applying to grad schools, and I recall at least one of the reviewers of my application commenting on specific things my recommenders had said. It wasn't difficult to figure out which of the three letter writers had said what.

 

But yes, you should waive your rights for obvious reasons. I don't know if universities essentially automatically reject you otherwise, however.

[1Q84]

A professor from my university touched on this today, he said when students don't waive their rights to view their letters from their recommenders, the university blocks which ever letter(s) the student did not waive their rights on from going through to the department they applied to. The idea is the university is protecting your recommender from you, because if the recommender says something which you feel ruined your chance at graduate school you could sue the recommender. I don't know if this is true of every university but at least it is true for mine, or so I'm being told by this faculty member. 

 

This sounds very untrue, especially because federal law (FERPA) protects a student's rights to inspect his or her own educational records (a category under which faculty LOR for a student falls). The legal right to inspect one's own records should also imply protection from official action against students who choose to exercise that right.

 

While it may be true that at the adcomm-level, faculty could be leery of a student's LOR if they did not waive access, there's no way in hell that this would be an official university procedure ("blocking" the letters from reaching the department, as you said) because it would open them up to serious legal ramifications.

 

Besides, in certain states there are good faith laws that protect professors writing LORs from repercussions if the letter is specifically being written in the context of a faculty-student relationship and the content applies only to the student's work-related characteristics. Of course, if your recommender wrote any defamatory (racist, sexist, homophobic) content, they would be open to legal action but it's not up to a university to "protect" your recommenders from the repercussions of illegal discriminatory action. 

 

I'm really wondering what your professor meant when he/she said what you claim they said.

[MastersHoping]

While I always waive my rights to view the rec letter anyway, I am very skeptical about this being the procedure.

 

Also, 

 

" if the recommender says something which you feel ruined your chance at graduate school you could sue the recommender."

 

Lol if someone actually did that, good luck getting a rec letter for anything ever again. 

[Eigen]

Just to weigh in, there are indeed students who have sued (and won, or had the University settle) based on bad recommendations. 

 

There are perennial discussions on the CHE forums on what to do for students for which you can't write a strong recommendation.

[Sigaba]

This sounds very untrue, especially because federal law (FERPA) protects a student's rights to inspect his or her own educational records (a category under which faculty LOR for a student falls). The legal right to inspect one's own records should also imply protection from official action against students who choose to exercise that right.

 

 

 

FYI. 

 

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2015/03/24/yls-deletes-data-following-ferpa-requests/

 

http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/04/22/ferpa-requests-yield-limited-access-files/

 

Also, http://bbrown.spsu.edu/recommendations/recommend_advice.html

 

 

Your recommendation becomes an "education record" under FERPA, and is subject to inspection by the student unless the student has waived right of access. So, you should maintain an orderly file of the recommendations you write.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Sigaba

[avflinsch]

for what itts worth - I waived my right to see the letters, and 2 of the 3 letter writers sent me a copy anyway (along with a 4th who wrote a letter even though I did not ask for one, as soon as he found out that I was applying for a grad program)

[uzbit]

I think this is why it's so important to deal with this before you submit. You should already know what they're going to write if you're really serious about the process (and they're serious about recommending you). If they deny a request to see the letter before submission, that is your clue that there might be a problem. This way you can flush out how they feel before the last leg of your application. There is a segment from this article that is good advice: 

 

"The last thing to put in your email with the draft letter, is a request to see the final version before they submit. This is easily the most controversial part, because many professors believe it is their right to submit whatever they wish without you seeing it. The truth is that it isn’t. This is your future and your application. If they don’t want you to see what they’re going to submit for you, ask yourself why that is. It’s likely that they plan on adding a few things you may not be so fond of, such as pointing out that you missed a lot of classes or that you struggled in a particular area. While this isn’t always a deal breaker as far as admissions committees go (sometimes it helps, because it shows honesty and proves that the student didn’t write the letter), more often than not it will get your application thrown out.

If they can’t write you a letter of recommendation (recommending you to another professor), they shouldn’t be telling you that they will, it’s that simple. Why would a professor lie in this way? Because they’re human, and humans hate feeling uncomfortable. They may also feel guilty because they worked with you for so long but still don’t think you can handle grad school. They may just be painfully arrogant and from a different generation, so they think that you have no rights in this whole process. It doesn’t really matter why they would lie to you, the point is that if they aren’t willing to cultivate a letter together–they’re not telling you something, and gambling on grad school applications is not recommended. Every year thousands of scathing letters of recommendation for grad school get sent to admissions committees. And not one of those people told the student they were going to submit something awful.

Keep this in mind: you spent 4 years of your life (and tens of thousands of dollars) working on your GPA, months (and hundreds of dollars) studying for the GRE, and you’ll likely spend upwards of a thousand dollars to apply to graduate school. Do you want to throw all that time and money away because one professor would rather lie to you than admit they aren’t willing to write you a glowing letter?

So what do you do if your professor responds and says they aren’t willing to show you the final draft? Here’s an example to give you some guidance on how to handle this situation."

 

It's from http://www.howtogetintograduateschool.com/faqs/my-professor-asked-me-to-write-my-own-letter-of-recommendation-what-do-i-do/.

I think anyone who is really serious about grad school should agree. Claiming that you'll write something positive and doing the opposite is dishonest and unprofessional. Feeling awkward saying no isn't a good reason to lie in a professional setting, even if it is "just" to an undergrad.

[Eigen]

I think this is why it's so important to deal with this before you submit. You should already know what they're going to write if you're really serious about the process (and they're serious about recommending you). If they deny a request to see the letter before submission, that is your clue that there might be a problem. This way you can flush out how they feel before the last leg of your application. There is a segment from this article that is good advice: 

 

"The last thing to put in your email with the draft letter, is a request to see the final version before they submit. This is easily the most controversial part, because many professors believe it is their right to submit whatever they wish without you seeing it. The truth is that it isn’t. This is your future and your application. If they don’t want you to see what they’re going to submit for you, ask yourself why that is. It’s likely that they plan on adding a few things you may not be so fond of, such as pointing out that you missed a lot of classes or that you struggled in a particular area. While this isn’t always a deal breaker as far as admissions committees go (sometimes it helps, because it shows honesty and proves that the student didn’t write the letter), more often than not it will get your application thrown out.

If they can’t write you a letter of recommendation (recommending you to another professor), they shouldn’t be telling you that they will, it’s that simple. Why would a professor lie in this way? Because they’re human, and humans hate feeling uncomfortable. They may also feel guilty because they worked with you for so long but still don’t think you can handle grad school. They may just be painfully arrogant and from a different generation, so they think that you have no rights in this whole process. It doesn’t really matter why they would lie to you, the point is that if they aren’t willing to cultivate a letter together–they’re not telling you something, and gambling on grad school applications is not recommended. Every year thousands of scathing letters of recommendation for grad school get sent to admissions committees. And not one of those people told the student they were going to submit something awful.

Keep this in mind: you spent 4 years of your life (and tens of thousands of dollars) working on your GPA, months (and hundreds of dollars) studying for the GRE, and you’ll likely spend upwards of a thousand dollars to apply to graduate school. Do you want to throw all that time and money away because one professor would rather lie to you than admit they aren’t willing to write you a glowing letter?

So what do you do if your professor responds and says they aren’t willing to show you the final draft? Here’s an example to give you some guidance on how to handle this situation."

 

It's from http://www.howtogetintograduateschool.com/faqs/my-professor-asked-me-to-write-my-own-letter-of-recommendation-what-do-i-do/.

I think anyone who is really serious about grad school should agree. Claiming that you'll write something positive and doing the opposite is dishonest and unprofessional. Feeling awkward saying no isn't a good reason to lie in a professional setting, even if it is "just" to an undergrad.

 

I cannot disagree with this more. It is absolutely the right of the professor to submit an honest and truthful evaluation without you seeing it. In fact, this is what schools expect them to do. Your application is your own, letters are not. They are sent to the school *not* through you as the applicant for a reason.

 

The whole point of a recommendation is for that recommendation is for that recommendation to be an honest assessment of your abilities from someone who is familiar with you.

 

I'd hate to see this go the direction of industry where no recommendations are ever given, including good ones, over worries of lawsuits.

 

Most professors I know would flat out refuse to write a letter for anyone that required me to show them a final draft, and I would consider it unethical of a student to ask me to do so.

 

I feel that people who are serious about graduate school are also serious about professional ethics regarding confidential letters of recommendation between peers, and the importance of such confidential letters in choosing the best people for a program.

[TakeruK]

I think it is certainly a student's "right" to ask to see the letter but that's not the same as saying it's a good idea to exercise this right and it's definitely not saying that a professor should always agree to show the student the letter. I have yet to write a LOR (I redirect all students who ask me to a professor that could write one with infinity more weight) but I would decline to show them the final version and instead, explain why LORs are confidential. 

 

Sometimes I do wonder about LORs creating an unfair playing field because they are not transparent and thus people cannot be held accountable for unethical behavior contained in a LOR. For example, there are articles written about how some LOR writers use unequal language to describe women and men and how this unconscious bias can lead to unfair outcomes. But because LORs are so secret, it's tough for a neutral party to evaluate/audit a department for transparency in its admissions committees.

 

But I don't think requiring professors to show their LORs to their students will solve this problem. It would bring unconscious bias to light but it would also make LORs not relevant so we would have a fair and equitable assessment tool that no one uses. Although I don't know how exactly, I think the best way forward is to have some kind of internal auditing / "watchdog" at the University/Institute level that monitors each department's admissions committees. In my opinion, this will lead to a useful and equitable assessment tool for admissions. 

[Eigen]

I think it's different to say that it's a student's right to ask to see a letter than to say that the professor does not have the right to not let them see it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

The student definitely has the right to ask, but it is also very much in the professors area to decline.

 

I tend to fall fairly strongly on the side that says students manipulating writers (prodding for a "strong" letter, pushing to see drafts/the final letter) is ethically shady. There are always cases where it's wise to do some of those things (ie, you're asking someone that's a non-native english speaker) but I've always declined when I've been asked to write/draft my own letters, and instead suggested they confer with a senior faculty member if they would like someone to read over it.

 

I do realize that there's always the chance of unconscious bias, but there's no way to completely avoid unconscious bias without removing the humanity and subjectivity from the system- something that I think is generally quite beneficial, overall. I think a lot of current measures help avoid this. We, as students, get to choose who writes our letters (rather than the admissions committee being able to ask anyone they want). We get to select multiple letter writers, so we if there is an effect, it should not be seen in all of our recommendations. And finally, while an important part of the package, LoRs are only one piece of a much larger application.

 

I would hope that we know our letter writers well enough to know what they think of us before we ask them. Similarly, I would hope that if, say, a writer had a tendency to use gender biased language, it would have been noticeable in circumstances prior to the letter being written.

 

I do understand, to some degree, the intense desire for equitability in graduate admissions decisions, but really that's not what the system (especially in STEM) is about. It's people hiring individuals they feel will best fit into a larger research team, as well as a community. And past grad school, that becomes even a bigger issue. Faculty need to be excellent in their area of expertise, but they also need to fit in well with the department that hires them. You can't make such subjective decisions in a completely objective fashion.

[rising_star]

I do realize that there's always the chance of unconscious bias, but there's no way to completely avoid unconscious bias without removing the humanity and subjectivity from the system- something that I think is generally quite beneficial, overall. I think a lot of current measures help avoid this. We, as students, get to choose who writes our letters (rather than the admissions committee being able to ask anyone they want). We get to select multiple letter writers, so we if there is an effect, it should not be seen in all of our recommendations. And finally, while an important part of the package, LoRs are only one piece of a much larger application.

 

I would hope that we know our letter writers well enough to know what they think of us before we ask them. Similarly, I would hope that if, say, a writer had a tendency to use gender biased language, it would have been noticeable in circumstances prior to the letter being written.

 

I'm just going to address this part since there's been a lot of talk about gender bias in recommendation letters in recent years. This article talks about one of the studies and, if you look at their recommendations about what to do, one of the first things they suggest is to offer to write your own recommendation letter and coach your recommenders so that you have some control over the language used to describe you. If you want to learn more, the training materials offered by Brown and UM Pace provide good overviews of the research. As an applicant, I'm not sure how you would know if your recommender is including doubt raisers or if you're portrayed more as a student than as a professional without actually viewing your letter. So, I can totally understand why people want to read their recommendation letters. It's also interesting to see how much of this bias depends on how long the reviewer spends actually reading the letter. Again, that's something that no one has any control over, unfortunately. 

 

For more information, the University of Vermont has a webpage with links to resources: http://www.portal.advance.vt.edu/index.php/tags/Letters-Of-Recommendation

[TakeruK]

I do think that we can avoid unconscious bias without removing humanity/subjectivity from the system. For people who are willing to learn and change, education is a great way to reduce unconscious bias. rising_star linked to the articles similar to the ones I was thinking of. I was not worried about professors who are purposely undermining certain students, but instead worried about professors who are trying to say great things about their students but end up hurting them due to an unconscious bias in choice of vocabulary (for example).

 

In general, I would advocate for more oversight and "watchdog" organizations within a University to audit the department admissions committee. I believe my school is moving towards this direction and the graduate students here support it. But this doesn't even necessarily require the student to view their own LOR. Just a shift away from the secrecy that some people seem to place on LORs, that it's a communication from one professor to another (or a few others) only. In the same vein, I hope Universities also move to discourage faculty from using information outside of the application to make admission decisions (e.g. private phone calls to a colleague at the applicant's school). In general, I would like to see much more transparency by admissions committee (not necessarily to the applicants, but to some other governing body) so that the admissions committee has documented reasons to support every acceptance and rejection decision.

 

And finally, I think it's important to not entangle "asking to see an LOR" and "acting unethically to manipulate a LOR". I think students have the right to ask to see their LOR without being judged as unethical (if they are simply asking) and I also think it's perfectly reasonable (although it may be awkward) to ask something like "Will you be able to write me a strong LOR?" instead of just "Will you write me a LOR?". Getting an LOR should not be like a test, where the student is not sure of their result. I believe every faculty member should respond to a LOR request with something like:

 

"Yes, you are a great student/researcher and I would love to write you a letter", or 

"Yes, I will write you a letter but I do not think I can write you a strong letter", or

"No, I will not be able to write you a letter."

 

I don't think a faculty member should ever write an actual fully negative LOR. They should not accept a LOR request if they do not want to recommend the student. This is not the same as saying they shouldn't write negative things in the LOR, but it is a letter of recommendation, not "confidential evaluation of student". That is, a faculty member should only write a LOR if they are doing it in the student's best interests, not for their own personal agenda.

[Eigen]

I guess I've just not personally run across many situations where a student would ask a professor for a letter of recommendation without being sure of the result. 

 

FWIW, I've read letters of my own from only two out of about 10 of the people I've gotten to write for me, and they were definitely not my strongest letters- both were faculty with language difficulty who wanted to make sure it read OK before submission. 

 

I do understand the desire to know what's in a recommendation, and make sure it's putting your best foot forward, but I really do feel like ensured confidentiality increases the strength of the letter and helps the system in the long run. 

 

To go back to your first point, I'm not arguing that we can't do things to avoid or reduce unconscious bias- I said we can't completely avoid it. I'm of the opinion that there will always be some remaining, and to remove it completely removes the human element from admissions decisions. 

 

I think the other point to bring up here, and we've discussed this in the past, is that especially in the US there's a legal quagmire to consider. I know professors that have been sued for not writing a letter of recommendation. I know faculty that have been sued (and lost) for not writing a positive enough letter of recommendation. I know schools that have been sued over admissions decisions. 

 

I definitely agree that there are cases where we need more oversight to ensure a reduction of systematic discrimination/bias, but I also think that we're too ready (not saying you two, in particular but rather us as a society) to break everything down to statistics and objective evaluations, when honest, truthful and subjective evaluations can be just as important. 

[xolo]

My department chair was as anal as he was brilliant. He didn't want to write me a LOR and went about saying so in a very round-a-bout way. I finally cornered him one day and told him I needed a great LOR and if he couldn't do that I would find someone else to write it. (It makes me shake just to remember that conversation) He said he would write it and I guess he did a good job since I got several acceptances.

 

I waived my right to see letters and nobody offered to show their letters to me.

[TakeruK]

I guess I've just not personally run across many situations where a student would ask a professor for a letter of recommendation without being sure of the result. 

 

I agree that in the ideal world, I would even give the advice "If you feel like you have to ask for a 'strong' LOR instead of just asking for a LOR, you probably should not be asking this person" to undergraduate students. I myself believed it once too. But then I started seeing and reading more perspectives where not every student fits into the "typical academic" mold that benefits from this kind of thinking. So now I no longer give such advice, because now that I think about how I got to the point where I never had to worry about LOR, I realise that some of that was due to having some privileges. Not to say that I didn't also work very hard in order to earn these LORs but I can easily imagine someone else who did just as much work to prove themselves but not end up with as many strong LORs. For example, it would have been a lot harder for me to gain my LORs if I was not able to work on research projects in the summer (but instead had to work a different job to pay bills or tuition etc.) So, now I am just a little more careful of taking many of the things that went favourably for me for granted.

 

I agree with the rest of what you said! I definitely think there is some value in subjective and non-objective measurements/evaluations. I am just wary of secret and subjective evaluations because that gives prejudice a powerful weapon and hiding place. For example, a non-secret but still subjective evaluation would be interviews.

[Eigen]

I wouldn't really classify LoRs as "secret"- at my school, all department faculty and administrators have access to them. Similarly, I think it would be a better option to increase the number of LoRs so one prejudiced faculty member didn't so strongly weigh in their opinion.

 

I do understand that not everyone has the same experience, but since you brought up the example I was supporting a family working through undergrad, and a lot of the students who had the strongest LoRs I know had similar backgrounds. IMO, the maturity that comes along with having to support yourself tends to make a much more favorable impression on a lot of faculty than a typical "good student, studies a lot" that fits what I would consider the "typical academic". It's why the "did well in class" letter can be such a kiss of death. Good letters speak to work ethic, determination, attitude- all things that most students working their way through school have, it's the time they lack. Showing that you're putting in the extra time for research when you're working alongside classes, even when it's a lot fewer hours than the other undergrads in the lab, frequently makes a stronger impression.

 

I know that has absolutely been the case for several undergrads from my department I've helped with applications, as well as some in my lab.

 

I take your point that most of us have advantages that we tend to take for granted that we can project onto others, I just happened to have a strong reaction to your particular example.

 

It's worth noting that the percentage of first-generation college graduates who are faculty members is often higher than the student population.

[TakeruK]

I wouldn't really classify LoRs as "secret"- at my school, all department faculty and administrators have access to them. Similarly, I think it would be a better option to increase the number of LoRs so one prejudiced faculty member didn't so strongly weigh in their opinion.

 

I do understand that not everyone has the same experience, but since you brought up the example I was supporting a family working through undergrad, and a lot of the students who had the strongest LoRs I know had similar backgrounds. IMO, the maturity that comes along with having to support yourself tends to make a much more favorable impression on a lot of faculty than a typical "good student, studies a lot" that fits what I would consider the "typical academic". It's why the "did well in class" letter can be such a kiss of death. Good letters speak to work ethic, determination, attitude- all things that most students working their way through school have, it's the time they lack. Showing that you're putting in the extra time for research when you're working alongside classes, even when it's a lot fewer hours than the other undergrads in the lab, frequently makes a stronger impression.

 

I know that has absolutely been the case for several undergrads from my department I've helped with applications, as well as some in my lab.

 

I take your point that most of us have advantages that we tend to take for granted that we can project onto others, I just happened to have a strong reaction to your particular example.

 

It's worth noting that the percentage of first-generation college graduates who are faculty members is often higher than the student population.

 

You're right and I think LORs still do a lot of the good that you mention here. But I did think LORs are secret that only the people involved in the admissions decision (not just the committee, but perhaps those who might be supervisors of incoming students) would see them. Good to know though and I am glad to learn that a large group will see most of the LORs that come in.

 

In Canada, the concept of everyone having student loans for undergraduate education is much less common, at least in the group of people I knew. Tuition is about $6000 per year so many people pay their way through college by living at home, commuting 1-2 hours to school, and working part time jobs. This usually means there is a chunk of students who can only be on campus for their classes and immediately leave afterwards, sometimes only scheduling classes to be on 2 or 3 days per week so that they can do the other things they need to do. For these students, the advice to "go to more office hours in order to build relationships" doesn't really work, and taking on volunteer research work or even part-time research work during the school year might not be possible if it doesn't pay the bills and they need another job. I completely agree with you that for some people, managing to get a strong LOR out of this situation can go a long way. Maturity in supporting yourself (especially compared to a peer student chose to take their work less seriously as their parents are paying for everything) is certainly noticed.  I'm not saying it's not possible, but I'm just saying that it doesn't always work. I still believe in the "spirit" of the advice that one should ideally only get LORs if you already know they will be good, but now recognize the reality that this is an idealism that won't work for everyone.

 

But other examples could just be personal things, like a faculty member who thinks more highly of students who spend time with them in a pub on an occasional Friday night or something. There's certainly a lot of folklore in my field about how great collaborations and brilliant ideas are thought up in some pub or bar, written on a napkin or something like that. Is it fair that people who choose not to drink (whether it's personal, an allergy, a religious belief, etc.) would miss out on these opportunities? There's discussions in my field whether or not we should stop trying to romanticize or tell glorified stories of such exploits as they can add to the idea that there are things you "should" do to succeed in academia when these things are not related to academic ability at all.

[Eigen]

In my opinion, a lot of the problem (going off your last paragraph here) isn't the romanticized stories so much as the fact that so many of us are so desperate to do everything we can to increase our chances, rather than just being ourselves, and following our research interests. It's something I've had to learn over time, for sure.

 

I went through that part in undergrad (I didn't drink, at all) where other students were forming some tight relationships with faculty they had more social interactions with. As time went on, I found niche's with faculty that weren't as outgoing and social. Personally, I loved doing community service and working with kids when I had the time, and I ended up making some fantastic connections with faculty from my (and other) departments that shared that interest.

 

I think often we try to typify "academics" or what will work well for someone who wants to be "an academic", but to be honest academics are a very, very wide array of people with different backgrounds, different interests, and different personalities. Some are extreme introverts, some are very extroverted. Some people believe that the major work at a conference happens in the bars, others love the actual lectures and don't socialize as much while they're there. There's a faculty member I know who works a 4 day week at school, and is a fairly large-scale farmer the other 3 days of the week. And he doesn't even study something remotely related to agriculture.

 

We can go back and forth on examples that will make a student more or less likely to get a "good" letter from a given faculty member, but most schools have dozens of faculty. Finding someone with interests and a schedule that you can make is likely. Finding one who's willing to meet you at uncommon times because you work/have a child/commute isn't all that uncommon if you ask nicely and plan ahead.

 

Also, I know we commonly have the notion that success is about academic ability, but frequently, it's not. People that have 'non-academic' abilities that they bring to the table (leadership, interpersonal skills, organizational skills, artistic ability) can frequently be the most successful, because they have something unique. Being the most brilliant person in the world does the world very little good if you can't effectively communicate and share that interest. Having a ton of great ideas does very little good unless you know how to collaborate with a wider group to bring them to fruition.

 

I know I'm rambling a bit, but I think we all worry far too much about doing everything "right" to get where we want, when most of the very successful senior people I meet got where they are by doing what they liked and were interested in, and being very genuinely unique individuals.

[TakeruK]

Also, I know we commonly have the notion that success is about academic ability, but frequently, it's not. People that have 'non-academic' abilities that they bring to the table (leadership, interpersonal skills, organizational skills, artistic ability) can frequently be the most successful, because they have something unique. Being the most brilliant person in the world does the world very little good if you can't effectively communicate and share that interest. Having a ton of great ideas does very little good unless you know how to collaborate with a wider group to bring them to fruition.

 

I am in agreement with you! (With everything you wrote, but especially the quoted part here).