Specific Assessments
This is the section of the letter that contains the "data" or evidence for your argument. It should provide
specific information about the candidate. Generalizations will be much better received if specific
examples can be cited. Ask yourself “how does the information I just wrote support my assertion that this
person is a quality candidate?”
In this section, personal traits that are directly relevant to the job performance can be discussed.
Characteristics such as motivation, dependability, patience, creativity, ability to troubleshoot, poise,
listening skills, etc. can be discussed. Avoid personal statements that are not related to job performance
(past or future). For example, avoid irrelevant statements such as "she is practically part of my family" or
"he is very active in his church or other community organization." These may be true, but they decrease
the professionalism and impact of the evaluation.
Other characteristics that can be discussed include problem-solving abilities, management skills, teaching
abilities, knowledge of the subject area, and ability to work with colleagues. Avoid "doubt raisers." These
include negative language such as "while not the best student I've had" or faint praise such as "she worked
hard on projects that she accepted." Other types of doubt raisers include hedging statements such as "he
appears to be highly motivated." (Avoid such words as "appears to" or “seems”—you are the one writing
with concrete experience about the candidate). Finally, also avoid potentially negative or unexplained
comments. Make your comments direct. For example, unexplained comments that could be open to
negative interpretations include: "now that she has chosen to leave the laboratory," and "bright,
enthusiastic, responds well to feedback."
Summary Recommendation
This section briefly summarizes the main points of the letter and clearly states (or re-states) that you
recommend the candidate for the position. The language should be straightforward and to the point. Avoid
using jargon, clichés, or language that is too effusive. These are all elements that can be lost on your
readers, depending on their experiences, culture, and training. The most effective recommendation letters
also include a comparison of the applicant to a reference pool. For example, “…ranks in the top 10% of
all undergraduate students that I have ever taught.” You should avoid direct references to another
individual: “she/he is better than Joe Smith” or “she/he is almost as good as Jane Chen.”
Reading Recommendation Letters
Finally, the suggestions in this document are recommendations that can be used to construct effective, fair
recommendation letters. You can also apply criteria based on these suggestions when you read and
evaluate recommendation letters. Did the letter writer present you with an honest, concise and fair
document with which to evaluate the candidate?
Notes on Special Circumstances
How do you handle personal circumstances in the applicant’s history that may affect time-to-degree or
productivity? It is generally better to address this issue than leave it unaddressed. However, talk to the
applicant about it first. How do they want to address it? Do they prefer to not address it? Do they need
help in deciding if and how to address it? Please keep in mind that if you, as a letter writer, address this
situation but are too vague, it can leave a worse impression than not addressing it at all. To create the
strongest letter, it is often helpful to present the situation as evidence that the applicant has faced adversity
and overcome it, making him/her even stronger.
For additional reading:
Trix, F. & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and
male medical faculty. Discourse & Society 14(2): 191-220.