LoR: to see or not to see?

[modernity]

what professor fears their students?

also, it's just the status quo?? what? the state of affairs is that profs and adcomm members are ignorant/unfamiliar with the admissions process?? um, okay.

I've known several professors who have had serious issues with their students tracking them down outside of class, at their homes etc. And several students who involved their parents and other family members into harassment of a prof. because they didn't get a good grade on something. I also remember in college one person crying over not getting an A on a paper. I think you give humanity too much credit to think that every adult behaves as an adult should. Professors don't "fear" their students, but there are certainly situations they would rather avoid with them.

Its the status quo, "the state of affairs", that you're expected to waive your rights - it is the customary thing to do. I can link many websites from colleges around the US, and graduate application handbooks that will state the exact same thing we have been saying, and the reasons we have been giving as to why that is the state things are in.

But to be fair- and get a third party opinion from both sides of the fence, since we seem to be arguing in circles and the OP just wanted advice- I found this statement on Cornell's website:

Factors to Consider in Deciding to Retain Access

* You will have an idea of the information schools/employers have and therefore can prepare for interviews accordingly.

* It may relieve stress and anxiety to know exactly what has been said.

* Factual mistakes in the letter can be corrected, if the writer chooses to make those corrections.

* If you conclude that the letter is unfavorable, you can choose not to use it as part of your credential file; however, you may not withdraw a letter submitted to HCEC.

* By reading a subjective evaluation, you have a chance of benefiting from criticism.

* A potential recommender may choose not to write a letter for you if you retain your right of access.

* If you retain access, you need to be prepared to explain your reasons for your choice during interview(s).

* An employer or a member of an admissions committee at a graduate or professional school receiving the letter might tentatively draw one or more of the following conclusions:

1. The evaluation may be less candid as the writer knew that the student would see it. As a result, less weight may be assigned to such letters.

2. The student is determining that the recipient is receiving full information.

3. The student wanted to discuss the letter with the recommended/evaluator before it was put in final draft.

4. The student feels a moral obligation to exercise his/her civil rights.

Factors to Consider in Deciding to Waive Access

* If your recommender knows you well and has said he/she can write a letter in support of your candidacy, the chances are slight that inaccuracies or unfair statements will be presented in the letter.

* An employer or a member of an admissions committee might tentatively draw one or more of the following conclusions:

1. The evaluation may be more candid if the writer knew that the student would not see it. As a result, more weight may be assigned to such letters.

2. The student has nothing to conceal.

3. The student is not determining that the recipients are receiving full information or is using other methods to make this determination.

4. The student did not feel it was necessary to review the letter before it was sent.

5. The student does not feel a moral obligation to exercise his/her civil rights in this way.

It is, of course, not possible to know how each individual receiving the letters may react to the fact that a student exercised or did not exercise the Right to Know under FERPA.

http://www.career.cornell.edu/HealthCareers/HCEC/letters/waivingAccess.html

[fuzzylogician]

and what is this worst case scenario? what are you paranoid about? that your prof is ignorant/unfamiliar with the process? that the profs of the institution you're applying to are just as ignorant/unfamiliar with the process? are you sure you want an LOR from them then? are you sure you want to enroll in that school then? there's a crazy person on the adcomm?? one unfamiliar with the process?

....

i don't actually care what people choose- opt not to see it or opt to see them! who cares. but the reasons given to opt not to see it are just ridic and i just wanted to express my opinion on them.

....

we are all capable of doing it. we are all capable of weighing who will be our best choice to write our letters. and i think it's safe to be unafraid of profs' ignorance about the admissions process.

OK, I resisted writing this yesterday two or three times, but I just can't any more.

I have to admit I didn't read all of your last post. But:

Content-wise, you come across as very naive.

- Not everybody can make the best choices for themselves. There are scientists (in economics, psych, etc) who spend their entire careers studying rationale (or lack thereof) in decision making.

- Not every professor is knowledgeable about the American grad school process. I know Americans forget that a world exists outside their continent, but it does. And one of my LOR writers, for example, had never before had a student apply to US schools. He was "ignorant about the process", as you so delicately put it. I still him to write me a letter. Surprising, I know.

- You confuse "has a different opinion than me about what it means not to waive one's rights" with " ignorant about the process". But that's exactly the point of this thread. Dismissing the other opinion as crazy and therefore not worthy of considering is condescending and doesn't help us further the conversation at all.

Style-wise, the reason I didn't read the whole post is that it came across to me as dismissive and quite aggressive. There's no need to use excess punctuation marks or whole UPPER CASE words. I can understand just fine when you just say what you think. You can disagree with my opinions, that's what drives this forum forward, but saying you don't care what others think? You really think that's respectful to the other participants in this debate? We're not just a wall for you to echo your ideas off of.

[Tam]

I don't have any problem waiving my "rights" here because I don't think I should have that "right" to begin with. If a professor at a school I applied to wanted to call one of my recommenders and have a frank phone call about me, would I think I had a right to a recording of the phone call? Why shouldn't they be allowed to write a confidential letter?

[glasses]

I don't have any problem waiving my "rights" here because I don't think I should have that "right" to begin with. If a professor at a school I applied to wanted to call one of my recommenders and have a frank phone call about me, would I think I had a right to a recording of the phone call? Why shouldn't they be allowed to write a confidential letter?

This is how I feel, too. Legalese is all well and good, but I asked my recommenders to write a letter about me for the admissions folks to read -- not for me to read.

[samjones]

OK, I resisted writing this yesterday two or three times, but I just can't any more.

I have to admit I didn't read all of your last post. But:

Content-wise, you come across as very naive.

- Not everybody can make the best choices for themselves. There are scientists (in economics, psych, etc) who spend their entire careers studying rationale (or lack thereof) in decision making.

- Not every professor is knowledgeable about the American grad school process. I know Americans forget that a world exists outside their continent, but it does. And one of my LOR writers, for example, had never before had a student apply to US schools. He was "ignorant about the process", as you so delicately put it. I still him to write me a letter. Surprising, I know.

- You confuse "has a different opinion than me about what it means not to waive one's rights" with " ignorant about the process". But that's exactly the point of this thread. Dismissing the other opinion as crazy and therefore not worthy of considering is condescending and doesn't help us further the conversation at all.

Style-wise, the reason I didn't read the whole post is that it came across to me as dismissive and quite aggressive. There's no need to use excess punctuation marks or whole UPPER CASE words. I can understand just fine when you just say what you think. You can disagree with my opinions, that's what drives this forum forward, but saying you don't care what others think? You really think that's respectful to the other participants in this debate? We're not just a wall for you to echo your ideas off of.

i didn't realize telling a professor about the process was beyond the realm of possibility for a student, whether they be from the US or not.

and uh, everyone has to think about who they choose to write letters. this is one of those decisions that are definitely conscious and make everyone think and over think. and i don't know what scientists studying rationale have to do with that- if you've gotten as far a choosing someone, then you went through a thought process with that.

and where do i say i don't care what others think? i say i don't care what they choose, yes. and if you actually read the whole post (ha. kind of ironic that YOU accuse me of not caring what others think when you can't take the time to read an entire post before responding to it. ha!) you would know that i don't care what people choose but i am concerned about the arguments presented of why one 'should' waive their rights. everyone must make their own decision but i don't think it should be based on something illogical. you might have gotten a clearer idea of where i'm coming IF you had read the post, though.

modernity, how do you know that it's expected that one waives their rights? has there been some sort of survey of adcomms and LOR-writing profs?

[modernity]

and where do i say i don't care what others think?

everyone must make their own decision but i don't think it should be based on something illogical.

modernity, how do you know that it's expected that one waives their rights? has there been some sort of survey of adcomms and LOR-writing profs?

Where do you say it? Your dismissive tone is woven throughout your entire statement, a few examples:

1. I don't care what you choose and why you chose them.

2.it makes no sense and i think spreading senselessness around is ridic, honestly. just ridic because they make no sense.

3. i don't actually care what people choose- opt not to see it or opt to see them! who cares. but the reasons given to opt not to see it are just ridic and i just wanted to express my opinion on them.

Illogical? I sent you a link from a school arguing from many of the same points that fuzzy, others, and I have cited- so now, not only are we illogical but so are many of the schools that suggest you waive your rights for the very same reasons? I really don't want to have to dig up website after website, and book after book - repeating the same thing over and over again. If you don't believe me or others about it being the customary thing to do, then please google "waiving your rights recommendation letters" or some variation there of- I'm here to offer the advice I have learned over the last year or so if people are interested in it, not make a second career of it. You will find many many other people (students, professors, etc.) saying the same thing we are - that its strongly suggested for the reasons listed above. Its not a hard rule, because professors and adcomms cannot force you to not exercise your rights that are bestowed on you by federal law.(Although apparently some schools do very strongly suggest you do so on their admissions pages- as someone else said earlier in the post). I don't think there really needs to be a poll to understand commonly accepted culturally specific knowledge. I guess the simplest way of stating this is - if LORs and Adcomms really didn't care if you read the letters, and were as relaxed about you not waiving your rights as you seem to want everyone to believe - why bother putting the waiver on the admission sheets in the first place? why bother asking you to waive your rights?

You are very obviously entitled to your opinion samjones, and to tell people not to waive their rights as well as the reasons why they shouldn't. I am more than happy to see opinions opposite of my own, because I am certainly not omniscient. What I don't find very attractive about your attitude is that you are repeatedly dismissing everything we have say as "ridic/illogical/senseless" when we've offered you various examples of outside sources and personal experience that say the same thing for the same reasons. If you are so confident that what we are saying is ridic/senseless,where did you receive this information from? Can you please offer up some graduate application handbooks, or some school websites that echo that sentiment? So far, it seems like you've just based this all on personal opinion - which is all well and good, but not a place from which I think you should be quite so dismissive.

[samjones]

again, i haven't told anyone not to waive their rights or suggested they do anything. i'm expressing that i think the reasons given to waive rights have been ridiculous.

all the points that you highlight to show that i don't care what people think all refer to me not caring what people choose; not to me not caring what people think.

i've already explained why i think these are illogical but i will do it one by one (and yes, they are from the website you cited)-

1. The evaluation may be more candid if the writer knew that the student would not see it. As a result, more weight may be assigned to such letters. (why a prof care that an admitted student would see a letter after the whole process is said and done? that makes no sense.)

2. The student has nothing to conceal.

(the student still has no control over what the writer has already written almost a year after the letter has been submitted and adcomm-reviewed.)

3. The student is not determining that the recipients are receiving full information or is using other methods to make this determination.

(again, the right to see the letter has nothing to do with the student's ability to control what is written. the right only gives student a do ahead to see the letter after they have been admitted and enrolled.)

4. The student did not feel it was necessary to review the letter before it was sent.

(what? the right only pertains to the letter being student-reviewed after the student is admitted and enrolled and no time before the letter is sent.)

5. The student does not feel a moral obligation to exercise his/her civil rights in this way.

(so students should feel like they shouldn't have rights? that's probably a good start to a really healthy relationship with academia and being taken advantage of as RAs, TAs, and such. great.)

also, the same source you quoted is one of many that have given the positives of retaining your rights. contrary to what you have states, it didn't strongly suggest one way or the other.

[dzk]

When a student chooses not to waive their rights, the admissions committee does not know if the letter is concealed to the student or not. It is illogical to assume that the student will not have seen the letter before it is sent, because there is no longer any ethical concern about it. When the student waives their rights to see the letter, it is assumed they will not have seen the letter at any point in the process. Right now, you just have a big strawman going... all of the arguments against make the reasonable assumption that the letter is open.

If there exists a situation where a student is asked if they want the letter to remain confidential until after their admission, then yes, your arguments are valid. However, I have only seen it stated as it is in the OP, which leaves the question of whether this letter is truly confidential until the student is unrolled completely open.

5. The student does not feel a moral obligation to exercise his/her civil rights in this way.

(so students should feel like they shouldn't have rights? that's probably a good start to a really healthy relationship with academia and being taken advantage of as RAs, TAs, and such. great.)

No, you misinterpreted that. Those are not arguments against, those are possible thoughts that go through the head of the person who sees the student did not waive their rights. So #5 is the best-case scenario.

[samjones]

When a student chooses not to waive their rights, the admissions committee does not know if the letter is concealed to the student or not. It is illogical to assume that the student will not have seen the letter before it is sent, because there is no longer any ethical concern about it. When the student waives their rights to see the letter, it is assumed they will not have seen the letter at any point in the process. Right now, you just have a big strawman going... all of the arguments against make the reasonable assumption that the letter is open.

If there exists a situation where a student is asked if they want the letter to remain confidential until after their admission, then yes, your arguments are valid. However, I have only seen it stated as it is in the OP, which leaves the question of whether this letter is truly confidential until the student is unrolled completely open.

No, you misinterpreted that. Those are not arguments against, those are possible thoughts that go through the head of the person who sees the student did not waive their rights. So #5 is the best-case scenario.

a student may have access to the letter before it is sent in regardless of this right because the right has nothing to do with the letter being seen before it is sent in. the right has to do with whether the student will see the letter after they have been admitted into the school and enrolled for classes.

it would be illogical to assume whether a student has seen a letter based on that student's decision to waive or not waive their rights to see the letter later on. many students who choose to waive their rights may have actually seen their letters before it was sent in or some other time in the process. the right we are discussing has nothing to do with seeing the letter at anytime other than when the letter has become something filed in your student files at the school to which you are admitted and enrolled. the right is about whether you want to see the letters that probably helped you get into the school you're attending. and that has no connection to whether or not you may or may not have seen the letters before.

a straw man would be trying to divert attention from the topic. i think i have been on topic as the topic is waiving or not waiving your rights to see the LOR letters that helped you get into a school.

also, the situation is whether the student wants to read the letters after they have been admitted and enrolled because that is what the right pertains to.

[dzk]

It's what the right pertains to, but it's not what is necessarily implied by checking that little box. It is unfortunate, but it is how it is perceived by some, and were it not often perceived that way, we would not be having this discussion in the first place. If you do not waive your right, it could affect the content of the letter, and that is an ever-present concern.

You can complain about the logic as much as you like, but while the little check box refers exclusively to FERPA, it can imply more. A quick search finds plenty of websites that suggest you waive your right for exactly the reasons that have been given.

Basically, I see no positives in this except that you want to exercise your rights at every opportunity. The negatives are clear.

[edit:] Also, you're absolutely right that you can still see the letter from the writer after having waived this right. Not quite sure what I was thinking with that.

Edited November 8, 2009 by iggy

[glasses]

a straw man would be trying to divert attention from the topic.

And also going to the Wizard to get a brain.

[modernity]

again, i haven't told anyone not to waive their rights or suggested they do anything. i'm expressing that i think the reasons given to waive rights have been ridiculous.

As I said I take no offense to your opinion. The only thing I took issue with was that you seemed to be painting us as fear mongers (with no sources besides personal opinion to back you up). We're not - it is the common practice, for those (and more) reasons. Please don't shoot the messenger(s).

[fuzzylogician]

I swear this is the last time I post on this thread. But for the sake of anyone who's gotten this far -

This is about risk management. This is not about what your professor, who you know and have a good relationship with, will think about your not waiving your rights. This is about what people you don't know sitting on an admissions committee for a school you really want to get into will think. We've established that you're not going to gain anything from not waiving your rights. I will also agree it's very unlikely that doing so will cause your application any damage. This is probably insignificant legalese schools are forced into putting on their applications.

So, we're talking about a small chance that this decision will make any difference at all. But I've been around long enough to know that sh*t happens, even if it's unlikely, unfair or down right illogical. Would you rather this small chance go your way or the other way?

[samjones]

It's what the right pertains to, but it's not what is necessarily implied by checking that little box. It is unfortunate, but it is how it is perceived by some, and were it not often perceived that way, we would not be having this discussion in the first place. If you do not waive your right, it could affect the content of the letter, and that is an ever-present concern.

You can complain about the logic as much as you like, but while the little check box refers exclusively to FERPA, it can imply more. A quick search finds plenty of websites that suggest you waive your right for exactly the reasons that have been given.

Basically, I see no positives in this except that you want to exercise your rights at every opportunity. The negatives are clear.

[edit:] Also, you're absolutely right that you can still see the letter from the writer after having waived this right. Not quite sure what I was thinking with that.

you see, it doesn't matter how many people are ill-informed about what the law pertains to. it only matters what the law actually refers to, and i actually trust that professors know and/or are willing to be told what the law pertains to since they are professors in academia themselves. the right/law doesn't exist in order to trick people into choosing something that will jeopardize their chances.

it's not my opinion but an actual interpretation of the right to say that the right only gives you a chance to see the letters after you've been enrolled at the school you've been accepted to.

and since most people ONLY posted the reasons why one should waive their rights, the thread definitely had a fear-monger feel to it.

personally, i'd rather be logical and base my choice on logic and in my experience, it didn't hurt my chances. i got into all three MA programs i applied to and none of my profs seemed to care/notice/fear that i hadn't waived my right. again, it doesn't matter to me if people waive their right or not. it's just that the reasons that had been given made no sense and seemed to be based on a small, tiny, rare chances that a prof wouldn't be able to read a law an figure out what it meant. i mean, honestly, the right (waived or not) is right there for the prof and adcomm members to read and discern themselves.

and you can gain something from not wiaivng your right/retaining your right. you gain the ability to read the letters that got you in. if you hadn't gotten to read the letters before, you now will be able to know what was said that might have helped you get into your new program. you get to find out what kind of student you have been and how you can improve weaknesses or cultivate strengths.

[samjones]

members on an admission committee will know what the right pertains to, which means they shouldn't be concerned that you have had any affect on what is said or not said in your LOR letters because you have retained your right.

even if you waived your right, no one can be sure you didn't have a hand in the letter writing. the right only gives you the right to read the letter after you have been admitted and enrolled. an admissions committee will be aware of that.

[peppermint.beatnik]

see below-I double posted accidentally

Edited November 25, 2009 by peppermint.beatnik

[peppermint.beatnik]

I asked one of my recs this question because he's approachable. I had already waived my rights anyway, but was just curious.

He said it is standard to waive your rights and normally frowned upon if you don't.

[newage2012]

5. The student does not feel a moral obligation to exercise his/her civil rights in this way.

(so students should feel like they shouldn't have rights? that's probably a good start to a really healthy relationship with academia and being taken advantage of as RAs, TAs, and such. great.)

LOL

You exercise your rights, you will be the first one to show the door when a budget cut comes.

I constantly spent 30% more time in my office on campus than my assigned hours without overtime pay. Guess what? Last December when the budget cut for our office was announced, one grad student got laid off, all other student got 50% reduction in work hours (thus the pay), and I got to keep all my 20 hours (plus the tuition waiver) afloat. For that, at least my PhD dream is still alive for now.

This is our culture. I am proud of my Chinese heritage.

[peppermint.beatnik]

When a student chooses not to waive their rights, the admissions committee does not know if the letter is concealed to the student or not.

This actually isn't true, they do know. When the prof gets the e-mail prompt from the on-line system it tells them whether the student has waved their rights AND it is report to the committee. Maybe not at every school, but I know of 12 where this is the case, and I'm sure they're not the only 12.

Someone else said something earlier about "why would a professor fear their students?" I was told by my rec that if they get an e-mail from student they don't know as well (who wouldn't take "I think you should find a faculty member who knows you better" as an answer) AND the student DIDN'T waive their rights, the prof would be wary of writing much of anything useful or positive because they can only say what they do know. My rec also mentioned fear of getting sued, if the person didn't get into the program, and has the ability to access their letters.

This might be less of an issue if you've done an MA, but it happens a lot at the undergraduate level.

[modernity]

Someone else said something earlier about "why would a professor fear their students?" I was told by my rec that if they get an e-mail from student they don't know as well (who wouldn't take "I think you should find a faculty member who knows you better" as an answer) AND the student DIDN'T waive their rights, the prof would be wary of writing much of anything useful or positive because they can only say what they do know. My rec also mentioned fear of getting sued, if the person didn't get into the program, and has the ability to access their letters.

All right... I promised myself I would stay away from this thread, but since it has been resurrected from its grave I read what people had to add. The other person was right I believe, about the fact that the letters could not be accessed unless the student got into the school - so if they didn't get into the program, there should be no way they have access to the letters. The argument was more that if they got in (based on the merit of the other 2+ letters they sent in) and read one that was less than nice...there could be the potential for backlash. I don't know why anyone would do this, and it would have to be an extreme circumstance...but I am sure the professors have considered the possibility - if they have less than nice things to say, or if they don't have much of anything to say and the student doesn't waive their rights.

One of my professors told us a story about how when they read their letters later (I believe they had extra copies), they found out that the one professor had essentially confused them with another student...which of course made the professor look a little silly. I would gather this might happen on occasion considering the number of students that go through certain undergraduate programs. Which may be yet another potential reason professors don't necessarily want you to have access.

All of that aside... I am in the application process now, and have already found the following warnings: "It is strongly suggested you waive your rights" or "If you choose not to waive your rights be aware some recommenders may refuse to write for you." So...I still feel my point stands that it is customary to waive - if you choose not to for various reasons I don't think it will absolutely kill your chances - especially if you are on a familiar basis with all recommenders and the adcomms at the program you're applying to, which I know some of you are. However, I would say if there is any question in your mind, it's probably better to waive.