With the Holidays upon us, it is hard to believe that spring semester is just around the corner. This is the time of year that students are beginning to apply for graduate school admission, summer internships, and their first “real grown-up” jobs. Faculty members must ready themselves for the multitude of requests for letters of recommendation.
Letters of recommendation are an indispensable component of many selection procedures. They are required for almost all undergraduate and graduate school applications, academic award and fellowship applications, and job applications. The purpose of these letters is to provide information about an applicant that helps decision makers ascertain whether the candidate’s background fits an available position and whether the candidate is likely to be successful in fulfilling the expectations of the role. Letters of recommendation allow consideration of personal, relevant information that may otherwise be difficult to acquire (McCarthy & Goffin, 2001).
Liu, O., Minsky, J., Guangming, L., & Kyllonen, P. (2009) Found 11/17/10 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=39760624&site=ehost-live&scope=site
It is difficult to believe that there could be controversy surrounding letters of recommendation. On the other hand, tasks such as writing letters of recommendation were destined to be the subject of analysis sooner or later. With the growing popularity of academic assessment and SoTL (the scholarship of teaching and learning) on college campuses, professors are encouraged to analyze what they do, why they do it, and what affect it has on student success. These practices have transformed the higher education profession. Consequently, questions are being raised regarding letters of recommendation and student success. The questions the academy is asking are these: Are traditional letters of recommendation valid, fair, or even helpful? In a global society, how can admissions officers accommodate for cultural communication differences in letters of recommendation? Can faculty members maintain a sense of freedom in the recommendation process? Are computer generated, standardized letters of recommendation the best solution to current challenges?
Are They Valid, Fair, or Helpful?
According to some of the literature, traditional letters of recommendation have not been valid or helpful. Validity is compromised because the typical letters are not standardized. (Bruland, 2009, Liu, et al. 2009, and Lui, 2007) Traditional letters of recommendation provide qualitative data rather than quantitative data. Often-used vocabulary such as “good student” cannot be measured in terms of specificity. Therefore, it is difficult to compare one student with another. Also, readers tend to misread and misinterpret what is written.
Traditional letters of recommendation are not always fair and accurate. Close relationships between students and faculty sometimes causes “leniency” (Liu, O., Minsky, J., Guangming, L., & Kyllonen, P. (2009) Literature review Found 11/17/10). Professors who have a personal relationship with students feel pressured to give good recommendations in spite of glaring weaknesses. Most often, it is the case that students will ask professors for recommendations with whom they have a good relationship. Consequently, each letter submitted is written so positively, highlighting each student’s strengths, it is impossible for readers and processor to distinguish fairly between applicants.
Additionally, fairness is complicated because the student has the right to view or waive their right to view the letter prior to it being sent. Studies indicate that students who do not waive the right to view the letter received better recommendations than those who agree to keep it confidential. (Liu, O., Minsky, J., Guangming, L., & Kyllonen, P. (2009) Literature review: Ceci and Peters (1984) Found 11/17/10).
Another issue affecting fairness is the recommending professor’s writing ability. Research shows that admissions officers often favor certain types of letters, particular language, etc. making the process more about the ability of the letter writer rather than the competence of the applicant.
Finally, traditional letters of recommendation are not always authentic. Fraud is a problem because students can easily impersonate professors. Letterhead is easy to get on campus. Students can create email accounts for professors. Nothing can prevent them from writing their own letters of recommendation and sending them to graduate schools and potential employers.
Cultural Communication and Bias
As higher education becomes more global, many students will apply for graduate school and employment in foreign countries. Therefore, cultural communication within letters of recommendation is an issue worth discussing.
The literature shows that the language used in a letter of recommendation influenced students’ success here in America. Students were most likely to be accepted or offered a position in America if their letters of recommendation had the following characteristics:
- An appealing layout and style
- A lengthy and thorough description of the applicant
- An introduction containing “speech acts and appeals to ethos”
- Some mention of scholarship and service
- A “stylistic and pathetic” closing
- “Capitalistic economic metaphors”
It is very likely that this list would look very different in a non-western culture. In certain cultures, China-for example, letters of recommendation are not even used. In many “collectivist” cultures, it is not acceptable to speak about someone or his or her qualities in a negative way. It is culturally more acceptable to be vague or imply a weakness, but not to overtly reveal negative characteristics. In cultures like the US, communication tends to be more frank. There are, therefore, implications for students from other nations applying for school or jobs in the U.S. The reverse is also true. If reader and writer have different values, speech patterns, nuances, subtleties in letters, conventions, etc., decisions will be based on cultural misunderstanding or biases instead of the applicant’s competence.
… what we say and do has meaning only within a framework of cultural knowledge. The ways that we organize and conduct our lives through language are thus ways of being and doing that are not only relative to other possibilities for communicating, but also deeply embedded within the particular framework by which we — as members of our own specific communities — make sense out of experience” (Schiffrin 1994:185).
Bruland, H. (2009) and Liu, J. (2007) Found 11/17/2010 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=44170227&site=ehost-live&scope=site
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24947723&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Academic Freedom or Discrimination?
Speaking of bias, should a faculty member have the right to refuse students letters of recommendation? The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a story of controversy about a biology professor named Michael L. Dini from Texas Tech University. Dini maintains a very clear policy about student recommendations. On his Web site he clearly states that students who request a recommendation for graduate school will have to “truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer” to the question: How do you think the human species originated? This was a problem for a student who needed a recommendation from a biology professor to be admitted to medical school. The student did not believe in evolution and could not, in good conscience, answer professor Dini’s question in the way Dini wanted it to be answered. To obtain the biology recommendation, the student had to take a biology course from another institution.
“It’s religious discrimination, and it’s the very antithesis of academic freedom. Universities should teach many theories and challenge their students to consider all the sides to an issue.” -Shackelford
Professor Dini and Cindy Rugeley, a spokeswoman at Texas Tech, argue that Dini’s recommendation policy is not religious discrimination. They say, ultimately, professors have the freedom to choose who they write recommendations for. Secondly, they say that the issue here is not the student’s religion, but his science. Mr. Dini does not believe that the student is using scientific thinking to answer scientific questions. He could not write a letter of recommendation for someone seeking a profession in the sciences if they are not able to set aside personal expectations or beliefs when engaging in scientific inquiry (Rooney, M. (2003) ).
Is Technology the Answer?
Some believe that technology has solved many of the problems surrounding letters of recommendation. There are now many options for computer generated standardized letters of recommendation. Companies such as ApplyYourself, Princeton Review, Xap Corportation are providing recommendation systems in business and higher education. Educational Testing Service produced an online “Standardized Letter of Recommendation” in 2004 that many university’s systems are based on. Below are some advantages and disadvantages:
The Advantages:
- Makes for more time efficient submission and processing
- Informs students immediately about recommendations that have been submitted
- Provides “specific and contextualized items” making levels of specificity and accuracy increase validity (Aamont et al., 1993)
- Translates qualitative data into quantitative data decreasing misinterpretation, political incorrectness and bias.
- Makes the recommendations uniform increasing comparability, reducing leniency, and helps address cultural communication issues by asking direct questions
- Reduces a previously multi-step process to one step
- Tracks internet addresses decreasing fraud and increasing authenticity
The Disadvantages:
- Time consuming for those who previously used a standard letter for most students
- Questions are “crude” and impersonal at times, but often provide alternative spaces for clarification.
- Computer systems crash or are not user friendly (but many argue that technology issues are typically due to user error).
Kiernan, V. 2004 http://rave.ohiolink.edu/databases/record/edua/BEDI04114800
Conclusion and Implication for CTL
It seems that the advantages of submitting Web-based standardized letters of recommendation out-way the disadvantages. And many of the reported disadvantages appear to be easily addressed with appropriate training. Centers for teaching and learning on college campuses may want to provide their faculty members technology support and training in this area.
