A gift for future applicants

[Humanomics]

Your right to read your letters is an anti-discrimination law imposed by the government and not welcomed by the academy, whose mission in this process is precisely to discriminate among candidates.

 

Schools give you that form 1) because they have to disclose the law. They 2) ask you to waive your rights at the bottom because otherwise they have to severely discount everything your writer says about you while trying to avoid hurting your feelings.

[Guest 8675309]

The second letter is what we call stellar.

[AurianSky]

Wow at the second letter. I read a letter I got for an REU and besides a typo I thought it was the best, and now I'm wishing I would have had a more personal relationship with my Advisor

[artichoke]

I think 08Applicant's letter is weak because it adds little to what the committee can already see. It describes your work in one econometrics course as "stellar", but rather than discussing your stellar analytical mind, it goes on to say you attended every class and are an earnest young man. Damning with faint praise. They want people who could skip half the classes out of arrogance and still get an A. As you might have seen in studying information theory, the agent tries to show the principal that his performance is due to ability rather than effort.

 

I think you should get some credit for the academic related work experience. Perhaps you didn't have a chance to contribute in a more meaningful way, but a committee might have been looking for a statement that you had incisive analytical insights.

 

The summary "better preparation than most graduate school applicants" is far from "than most top school admittees" and yet farther from "than most top school PhD graduates".

 

The overall impression is of someone who is maximizing his performance with hard diligent work, thus producing the numbers you have (whatever they are.) That's the problem I think. He never says you're brilliant, and if you're not coming from a top undergrad program, the prior is that you're not. They might be especially concerned if you're such a diligent student that you pass the qualification process for candidacy even without the ability to write a clever dissertation. (The qualification process is designed to weed out such people, if their interest is in theory.) But a lower tier program which flunks out a lot of students might be interested in admitting you to their obstacle course and using you for research assistance for two years, or longer if you make it.

[artichoke]

Teardrop's letter is strong. Analytical skills demonstrated stronger than some PhD students -- who are presumably doing OK themselves, and with benefit of more experience and coursework. Demonstrated success in writing, not just assisting, in research related to her application area. Massive determination, required to persist and make progress in a world where hardly anyone is your friend, some are your very devious enemies. These are clues for success. One can see these qualities resulting in a good job offer and eventual tenure at that institution.

 

Admit.

[DavisWhome]

I think 08Applicant's letter is weak because it adds little to what the committee can already see. It describes your work in one econometrics course as "stellar", but rather than discussing your stellar analytical mind, it goes on to say you attended every class and are an earnest young man. Damning with faint praise. They want people who could skip half the classes out of arrogance and still get an A. As you might have seen in studying information theory, the agent tries to show the principal that his performance is due to ability rather than effort.

 

I think you should get some credit for the academic related work experience. Perhaps you didn't have a chance to contribute in a more meaningful way, but a committee might have been looking for a statement that you had incisive analytical insights.

 

The summary "better preparation than most graduate school applicants" is far from "than most top school admittees" and yet farther from "than most top school PhD graduates".

 

The overall impression is of someone who is maximizing his performance with hard diligent work, thus producing the numbers you have (whatever they are.) That's the problem I think. He never says you're brilliant, and if you're not coming from a top undergrad program, the prior is that you're not. They might be especially concerned if you're such a diligent student that you pass the qualification process for candidacy even without the ability to write a clever dissertation. (The qualification process is designed to weed out such people, if their interest is in theory.) But a lower tier program which flunks out a lot of students might be interested in admitting you to their obstacle course and using you for research assistance for two years, or longer if you make it.

 

This is an interesting response, what do other people think, is it actually a bad signal if adcom's don't see the writer specifically praising the student's aptitude?

 

Also, on another note, around what range of programs would OP's letter seem bad/lukewarm for?

[Food4Thought]

This is an interesting response, what do other people think, is it actually a bad signal if adcom's don't see the writer specifically praising the student's aptitude?

 

I think it is not very good, because it undersells the importance of having the right mindset when going into graduate school. Getting a PhD is more of a marathon than a sprint: just because you are brilliant and can get straight A's with ease, that does not mean you have the dedication and the work ethic to sit down and study an independent research question. This is why research experience is so important in admissions: after a certain point, intelligence and ability in coursework doesn't help determine one's ability to become successful researcher.

 

I can almost guarantee you that a letter of rec that says 1) he has the preparation and ability to do well in coursework, and 2) he has the motivation and drive to become a successful researcher is definitely going to be more valuable than a letter of recommendation that simply touts your brilliance. Moreover, it is dumb to aspire to have letters of recommendation that say the latter, because that is something completely out of your control.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Food4Thought

[chateauheart]

I'll just assert that diligence is an important and path-dependent trait almost everywhere, and is probably more highly weighed in grad school success than undergrad success.