Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
The Graduate Adviser

Let Them Read Our Recommendations

Why graduate students should be allowed to see the letters we write on their behalf

By Leonard Cassuto May 2, 2016
Let Them Read Our Recommendations 1

I got some great news last week: One of my Ph.D. advisees just won a residential fellowship for next year. I had helped her with her application and, of course, had written her a letter of recommendation.

I worked hard on that letter because I wanted it to count. If I’m going to take the time to write a recommendation, I naturally want the student to get the fellowship, win the grant, or get into the school. Of course that starts with my writing persuasive, bell-ringing prose. But I also need to make sure my presentation harmonizes with the graduate student’s own.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

I got some great news last week: One of my Ph.D. advisees just won a residential fellowship for next year. I had helped her with her application and, of course, had written her a letter of recommendation.

I worked hard on that letter because I wanted it to count. If I’m going to take the time to write a recommendation, I naturally want the student to get the fellowship, win the grant, or get into the school. Of course that starts with my writing persuasive, bell-ringing prose. But I also need to make sure my presentation harmonizes with the graduate student’s own.

In last month’s column, I focused on how graduate students should ask for a recommendation letter. I noted that they shouldn’t just ask and then step back. Instead they need to assume a guiding role in creating the letter. That includes supplying me with information at the outset, including a copy of the personal statement (for admission to a graduate program) or project statement (for a fellowship or grant).

But there’s also something I can give the student in return: a copy of my letter. That has been my policy for years, and I base it on principle as well as practice.

Let’s consider the practical advantages first. If students know what I’m saying about them, then they can write a better application themselves. Where I speak in general terms, they can fill in the details — and vice versa. I tell students that their applications should be unified, and the best way to create that unity is for students to be familiar with all of the parts of their application.

My observations can also help theirs. One of my graduate students told me recently that my overview of her project — communicated in a recommendation I wrote for her — “helps me see my work more clearly.”

I’ve had that experience myself. When I applied for promotion some years ago, one of my outside referees sent me a back-channel copy of his recommendation letter. He saw ideas that ran through my work that hadn’t occurred to me, and I thought about them for a long time afterward.

It’s bound to be useful to see what someone else writes about you. That fact is obvious enough to qualify as common sense. Teaching observation reports are often shared — other kinds of assessments and recommendations should be, too. We produce better scholarship when we can learn from different views of the work we do, especially the views of experts.

So why do we keep our students in the dark about how we view them? Our recommendations can generate better results when their audience includes the person who is being written about.

But students also deserve to see what’s being written about them. It’s only fair. Instead, we pressure them so hard to waive their right of access to letters of recommendation that they now do it more or less automatically. They are already the weaker party in the transaction. The waiver only adds to their powerlessness.

ADVERTISEMENT

The standard counterargument is that we as faculty can only be honest if we know that the student won’t see the letter. Really? The idea that we promote honesty by removing accountability flies in the face of logic.

It also flies in the face of real life. In my experience, most professors are mostly honest most of the time. But we all know of ugly cases where a writer uses the cover of “confidentiality” to sneak a negative letter into a dossier. That’s not confidentiality. That’s secrecy of a malignant kind.

Sometimes a dossier can be skewed by accident. In an essay in Voices From the Edge: Narratives About the Americans With Disabilities Act (Oxford, 2004), C.G.K. Atkins tells the story of person with a disability who applied for academic jobs. At first he got no interviews. Then he got an anonymous call from one of the institutions where he had applied. “You’ve got to change your reference letters,” the caller told him. It wasn’t that they were uncomplimentary, but rather that they talked about his illness. The caller’s committee was afraid to interview him because they feared that he’d sue them for discrimination if he were rejected.

Let’s leave aside the venality of that hiring committee, and the difficulties the story suggests in enforcing the Americans With Disabilities Act. If the applicant hadn’t gotten that call, he wouldn’t have known what his letters said. His recommenders meant well in this case, but they made mistakes, and he had no way to know. When he asked his recommenders to revise their letters and omit mention of his condition, he got a job.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sociologists tell us that some professors can’t get comfortable with the idea of writing a letter that the applicant is free to read. Maybe so. But the problem doesn’t lie with the applicant’s right to access. It’s with the custom of denying that access, and, yes, with the professors who don’t try to work through their discomfort.

Some professors claim that recommendations won’t be taken seriously if the applicant hasn’t waived access to them. I doubt that very much. I’ve been party to more than 20 years’ worth of discussions of applicants and their recommendations, and not once have I heard anyone remark on whether the letters were confidential. Many readers don’t even notice.

Not all assessments will be positive. Sometimes my own recommendation will be for the publisher to reject the book, or for the journal to reject the article. Another reader may judge differently. After all, everyone is coming from somewhere, and it helps the author to know where. In fact, that’s exactly what I write at the close of these evaluations, along with the request to share my name.

If I can’t write a positive letter for a student, I’ll tell the student so up front. If a student got, say, a B+ from me, I’ll explain that I can write a “B+ type letter,” and that “you may be better off asking a professor who gave you an A.” Sometimes those B+ students have their own reasons for wanting my letter anyway, and if that’s the case, I write it — and give them a copy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Professors write a lot of recommendations, but we don’t think enough about the culture of evaluation that those letters maintain. By sharing my letters, I’m trying to stay true to the values that are literally embedded in the word “evaluation.”

Higher education is supposed to be an open society based on free and honest intellectual exchange. We’re not the CIA or the NSA. We promote the creation and sharing of knowledge. And we do it through evaluation, inside and outside our classrooms. That’s our job. Let’s do that job openly, for the sake of our students, and also ourselves.

A version of this article appeared in the May 27, 2016, issue.
Read other items in The Graduate Adviser.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
cassuto_leonard.jpg
About the Author
Leonard Cassuto
Leonard Cassuto is a professor of English at Fordham University who writes regularly for The Chronicle about graduate education. His newest book is Academic Writing as if Readers Matter, from Princeton University Press. He co-wrote, with Robert Weisbuch, The New Ph.D.: How to Build a Better Graduate Education. He welcomes comments and suggestions at cassuto@fordham.edu. Find him on X @LCassuto.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

Bad Letters of Recommendation: A Cautionary Tale
Welcome to Graduate School
The Idiocy of Promotion-and-Tenure Letters

More News

Vector illustration of large open scissors  with several workers in seats dangling by white lines
Iced Out
Duke Administrators Accused of Bypassing Shared-Governance Process in Offering Buyouts
Illustration showing money being funnelled into the top of a microscope.
'A New Era'
Higher-Ed Associations Pitch an Alternative to Trump’s Cap on Research Funding
Illustration showing classical columns of various heights, each turning into a stack of coins
Endowment funds
The Nation’s Wealthiest Small Colleges Just Won a Big Tax Exemption
WASHINGTON, DISTICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2025/04/14: A Pro-Palestinian demonstrator holding a sign with Release Mahmud Khalil written on it, stands in front of the ICE building while joining in a protest. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally in front of the ICE building, demanding freedom for Mahmoud Khalil and all those targeted for speaking out against genocide in Palestine. Protesters demand an end to U.S. complicity and solidarity with the resistance in Gaza. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
An Anonymous Group’s List of Purported Critics of Israel Helped Steer a U.S. Crackdown on Student Activists

From The Review

John T. Scopes as he stood before the judges stand and was sentenced, July 2025.
The Review | Essay
100 Years Ago, the Scopes Monkey Trial Discovered Academic Freedom
By John K. Wilson
Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin