Around the time stores trot out their Thanksgiving
decorations, academics enter Letter of Rec season. In a staggering display of
irony, both the academic job market and doctoral programs bear early winter
deadlines. Dossiers for both positions share letters of recommendation, a point
which speaks to academia’s value in word-of-mouth vetting. Typically, these
letters triangulate with the other dossier elements to give committees (hiring
or admission) a richer snapshot of someone’s potential.
Letters of Rec are tricky, because they assume a
relationship of trust and knowledge between referees and candidates; that is,
they rely on human connection and verifiable (in detail!) elements of a
candidate’s promise. “Damned with faint praise” becomes a bulwark against
writing letters that lack appropriate detail or enthusiasm. Many referees will
refuse to write this kind of letter, trading the student’s disappointment for
the unsavory task of writing a lukewarm (or negative) recommendation.
While many of the other job and doctoral dossier elements are textual artifacts within a student’s control, letters of recommendation gesture toward the human relationships we cultivate in academia. Personal Statements and writing samples can be revised ad infinitum and may improve with help from peers and advisors. Tests can be studied for. CVs can develop with elements like participation in professional development, publications, and conference presentations (though candidates should be aware of the “fourth-quarter” push problem where all of the activity happens in the same two months).
Letters of Recommendation, however, are different in two ways: First, these important relationships often develop early in a student’s graduate career. For MA and MFA students on a two-year plan, that means that these connections likely happen in students’ first semester in the program, since they’ll be asking for letters in their third semester. Second, the content of these letters exists beyond the candidate’s control. While it’s possible to revise a damaged relationship—depending on the damage—most of these programs are too aggressively paced to leave room for major flubs. To recap: Students asking for letters must have the forethought to develop meaningful relationships with faculty members so that, when the time comes, those faculty members can speak in detail to the student’s capabilities (as a scholar or a teacher or a teacher-scholar).
The whys and whats of recommendations are less murky than the hows. MA and MFA candidates may feel defined by their primarily evaluative relationships with professors and program administrators, the faculty who will write their letters. Requesting a letter can feel strange or presumptuous. It might cue uncomfortable conversations about FUTURE PLANS. Worse, some students misread the situation and ask for letters in ways that may negatively affect their relationship with their referee. Students should keep these points in mind as they approach faculty for letters:
While many of the other job and doctoral dossier elements are textual artifacts within a student’s control, letters of recommendation gesture toward the human relationships we cultivate in academia. Personal Statements and writing samples can be revised ad infinitum and may improve with help from peers and advisors. Tests can be studied for. CVs can develop with elements like participation in professional development, publications, and conference presentations (though candidates should be aware of the “fourth-quarter” push problem where all of the activity happens in the same two months).
Letters of Recommendation, however, are different in two ways: First, these important relationships often develop early in a student’s graduate career. For MA and MFA students on a two-year plan, that means that these connections likely happen in students’ first semester in the program, since they’ll be asking for letters in their third semester. Second, the content of these letters exists beyond the candidate’s control. While it’s possible to revise a damaged relationship—depending on the damage—most of these programs are too aggressively paced to leave room for major flubs. To recap: Students asking for letters must have the forethought to develop meaningful relationships with faculty members so that, when the time comes, those faculty members can speak in detail to the student’s capabilities (as a scholar or a teacher or a teacher-scholar).
The whys and whats of recommendations are less murky than the hows. MA and MFA candidates may feel defined by their primarily evaluative relationships with professors and program administrators, the faculty who will write their letters. Requesting a letter can feel strange or presumptuous. It might cue uncomfortable conversations about FUTURE PLANS. Worse, some students misread the situation and ask for letters in ways that may negatively affect their relationship with their referee. Students should keep these points in mind as they approach faculty for letters:
1.
Have a two-minute narrative ready when you make your
requests. Briefly describe your intentions (“I am looking at doctoral programs
in rhetoric and composition, specifically these six schools….”) and why you are
approaching this particular faculty member for a letter. Pro-tip: “Because you
seemed friendly to me” is not a good enough justification for asking someone
for a letter. When you choose referees for doctoral applications, think about
asking those people who know something about your scholarly curiosity and
potential as a researcher. It is also the case that many doctoral programs
expect candidates to teach in their first year, so it’s not unwise to ask for
one of your letters to address, at least in part, your potential in the
classroom. For teaching job letters, it’s wise to get a letter from the program’s
director or your teaching supervisor and letters from people who have directly observed your teaching.These observations should not be peer-observations, but observations by experienced faculty in the program.
2.
Asking a referee to be a referee can happen in person
or by email. If you decide to ask someone in person, make sure to set up an
appointment and give some context for the meeting (“I’m applying to graduate
schools, and I would like to ask you to write a letter…” or “After I finish my
degree, I hope to get a job teaching at the community college, and I’d like to ask
you about writing a recommendation…”).
3.
This goes without saying, but still: Ask far far in
advance. Most referees need at least a month to write a clear, detailed letter
that will serve you well. I expect my students to contact me at least eight
weeks in advance, since the fall semester is usually very busy.
4.
When asking someone to serve as a referee, consider qualifying
the request to say, “Would you feel comfortable writing me a positive letter of recommendation?”
Candidates have been burned by not-so-positive recommendations. (I don’t wish
to set up a paradigm where paranoia is default, but it’s helpful for referees
to see that you’re thinking into the impact of their letter of your dossier.)
5.
If someone agrees to write for you, provide that person
with all the necessary materials to speak to your capabilities in detail: an
updated CV, drafts of your personal statement, writing samples, and other
artifacts help ground a referee’s personal experience in your larger scholarly
context.
6.
Be aware that even if you apply to multiple schools or
multiple jobs, your referee will likely write one letter to serve for all
applications. Don’t expect customized letters. I’ve certainly written these
types of recommendations, but only in novel situations. It is not common
practice for a referee to produce multiple versions of a letter for a student.
(With great customization comes multiple chances for error.) That said, make
sure you give your referee enough context about why you’re applying for these
jobs (“I want to take what I’ve learned about multimodal writing and teach in
two-year colleges…”) or these programs (“My goal is to research second-language
writing and digital spaces…”) so that your referee can write one detailed, effective
letter.
7.
Courtesy: Follow up with your referee if and when your opportunities
come to pass. It’s always disappointing, as a referee, to spend hours and hours
writing a good letter for a candidate to hear nothing in response, good or bad.
If someone agrees to write for you, that person is invested in your success.
Let them know the results of their efforts, even if those results aren’t the
desired ones. And it’s old fashioned, but a thank you note goes a very long way
to showing your referees that you understand the time and energy it takes to
write a good letter for you as you progress through your career.
8.
What if someone declines your request for a letter of recommendation?
In the past, I have declined to write for students for a number of reasons: a
too-soon deadline, that student’s history in my classes or as an advisee, or
because I knew little of that student, beyond a face and name. Understand that
a referee who declines your request is doing so because the alternative would be
to write a not-so-helpful letter. Be gracious and learn from the refusal, even
if the only lesson is that not every faculty member you work with will be
available as a referee.
9.
Most applications—job and doctoral—request three
letters of recommendation. Sometimes, this number is bound by the method of
application, meaning you can submit only three. Consider asking one additional
faculty member than you need, since it’s the case that a referee could forget
or have to withdraw his/her letter because of other commitments. Incomplete
applications may be thrown out, so having a backup plan is wise.
No comments:
Post a Comment