On Asking to See Letters After the Fact

[philstudent1991]

Everyone says it's best to waive the right to view letters. But, after apps are submitted, it seems like a student could benefit from viewing their letters later. Should a student ever approach a faculty member with that sort of request? Thoughts? 

[TakeruK]

No. It puts the faculty member in a really weird place if the faculty member wrote the letter intending for you to not read it (as expected). If they say no to your request, then it will could make it look like you don't trust that they wrote a good letter. If they say yes, then they would be doing so because saying no is awkward and it may annoy them that they felt the pressure to say yes when they didn't want to. There's no good way for it to end, in my opinion.

I think that if the faculty member wanted you to see the letter, then they would have showed it to you. Let them initiate.

I do agree with you that there is value in a "debrief" of sorts after you finish your degree program where you can find out your strong and weak points. However, this does not require you to read their letter of recommendation. Instead, you can just set up a time, just before you leave the school, to talk with your letter writer and ask them what they think are your strengths and weaknesses. Don't surprise them with this---make sure you ask them well ahead of time and make it clear that you are hoping to get feedback on how to improve as a philosopher before you leave your undergrad school! You should give them time to think about it between your meeting request and the meeting.

Note: You may not be able to do this with all of your letter writers---depending on how well they know you and how invested they are in your success. For some of my best mentors, they initiated this conversation near the end of my time with them and it's advice that have helped me a lot as I transitioned to grad school.  I'm just saying that this is a big commitment on their part, so you can't necessarily expect it from everyone.

Finally, I would say that this type of conversation is far more useful to you than being able to read the letter. This allows for a dialogue rather than the monologue of the letter. In addition, the letters are usually overly hyped, in that positive attributes are often presented enthusiastically and it should be a glowing endorsement. While it's nice to read such nice things, reading only glowing endorsements do not help you grow and improve. A conversation with your mentors/advisors can address small but important weak points that aren't usually put into a glowing letter of recommendation.

[maxhgns]

4 hours ago, philstudent1991 said:

Everyone says it's best to waive the right to view letters. But, after apps are submitted, it seems like a student could benefit from viewing their letters later. Should a student ever approach a faculty member with that sort of request? Thoughts? 

You can, of course, try, but be prepared for a firm 'no'. The letters are supposed to be confidential, and sharing them with the applicant just isn't done.

 

There's really nothing to be gleaned from your letters, as TakerUK has said. Letters of reference (especially from the US and Canada) are all overblown and overly effusive (except when they're not, and that's a sign). Your references are introducing you to your prospective department, saying something about your interests, accomplishments, plans, and "ability". You already know all about the first three, and the last is just BS. Reading it might make you feel good, but there's not even much reason to believe those judgements are reliable in the first place (or that they even pick anything out at all), so...

[SamStone]

Reading the responses, i'm now wondering about a more general issue. 

I have been told by most people that in your application, the two most important pieces are you writing sample and you letters of recommendation. But if, as the two above posters have suggested, that reading letters about yourself would be not helpful or uninteresting since they are "overly hyped" or that the statements about your ability are "just BS"; then, why are these letters so important in your application? Given that most (maybe all) professors on an admissions committee have also written such letters, they would know that the letters they are reading are sensationalized. I realize that the features of your work that the letters are describing are not necessarily completely false, but I'm curious about how (or through what filter) the exaggeration in letters might be read or judged by admissions committee.

[thatsjustsemantics]

1 hour ago, SamStone said:

Reading the responses, i'm now wondering about a more general issue. 

I have been told by most people that in your application, the two most important pieces are you writing sample and you letters of recommendation. But if, as the two above posters have suggested, that reading letters about yourself would be not helpful or uninteresting since they are "overly hyped" or that the statements about your ability are "just BS"; then, why are these letters so important in your application? Given that most (maybe all) professors on an admissions committee have also written such letters, they would know that the letters they are reading are sensationalized. I realize that the features of your work that the letters are describing are not necessarily completely false, but I'm curious about how (or through what filter) the exaggeration in letters might be read or judged by admissions committee.

The letters help to give a sense of what your professors think about you, and not just the work you did. You'll be working with your advisors for several years, if all things go well. What advisors want is a sense of what it might be like to have the person in question in the letter around the department, in their classroom, etc.

The letters may also be helpful because philosophers will take note of what seemed to be important to letter writer #1, #2, and #3, and whether the differences are significant or not. For instance, I have two letters from faculty whom I know well at my institution. However, I also have a letter from a faculty at another, even-better-according-to-PGR department who knows me much differently (although for less time). Although I'm sure each letter will say something nice about my potential as a student of philosophy, for example, they'll emphasize that potential differently -- giving adcoms a unique insight into the way I may or may not have impressed each letter writer.

[TakeruK]

I think there's a difference between "not useful" and "overly hyped". All of the attributes and qualities that the professor writes about you would still be true. However, they will likely be very positive and optimistic and as such, the professor might not want the student to read it and feel like they were the best person ever! If you could read all of the letters that the prof wrote, then you can put your own evaluation in context, but this won't happen for you. On the other hand, the admissions committee does see a lot of letters, so even if each letter is more positive than realistic, they have the context to evaluate it.

Also, I agree with the unique insight perspective presented by @thatsjustsemantics. This is what makes LORs important to an application. But having been on the "other side" of search committees (although different field than yours), I've seen how references really are just another "data point" and while they might appear high on a ranked list, I don't think the differences between the ranks is as high as I once thought.