Comments on: Reference inflation http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:39:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SqueakyRat http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11708 SqueakyRat Sun, 21 Dec 2003 02:16:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11708 This is a vile practice, and the people who defend it are shameless. But having said that, there is a real problem that is driving this corruption: a gigantic increase in the demand for letters of recommendation, letters for tenure review (much more demanding), letters to dean's committees <i>reviewing</i> departmental tenure recommendations, letters even for <i>third-year review</i> of junior faculty, letters of reference for every conceivable program that students might apply for, letters in support of grant applications . . . this stuff has gone completely out of control. Academics are just being driven nuts by this stuff. This is a vile practice, and the people who defend it are shameless. But having said that, there is a real problem that is driving this corruption: a gigantic increase in the demand for letters of recommendation, letters for tenure review (much more demanding), letters to dean’s committees reviewing departmental tenure recommendations, letters even for third-year review of junior faculty, letters of reference for every conceivable program that students might apply for, letters in support of grant applications . . . this stuff has gone completely out of control. Academics are just being driven nuts by this stuff.

]]> By: cs http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11707 cs Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:36:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11707 Fair enough timothy. You're right of course. In mitigation, I plead categorical over reaction to prior categorical over reactions. Fair enough timothy. You’re right of course. In mitigation, I plead categorical over reaction to prior categorical over reactions.

]]> By: ac http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11706 ac Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:02:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11706 If this much controversy is generated by the authorship of recommendation letters, I'd like to hear commentary on the practice of professors putting their names on the papers published by their graduate students. I sat as an expert observing a deposition in a lawsuit in which a renowned professor of computer science at a top-five US university disclaimed having detailed knowledge of the work in a paper with his name on it saying that it was "a matter of courtesy" that students placed their advisor's name on the paper. If this much controversy is generated by the authorship of recommendation letters, I’d like to hear commentary on the practice of professors putting their names on the papers published by their graduate students. I sat as an expert observing a deposition in a lawsuit in which a renowned professor of computer science at a top-five US university disclaimed having detailed knowledge of the work in a paper with his name on it saying that it was “a matter of courtesy” that students placed their advisor’s name on the paper.

]]> By: Timothy Burke http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11705 Timothy Burke Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:47:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11705 CS, it would be nice if you'd be a little less categorically expansive about your own perspective and experience. Whatever works for you as a reader of recommendations and a writer, ok. I can only tell you that in BOTH roles, I recognize a difference between the reference written by its ostensible author and the reference written generically by the candidate (or by an uncaring author), and that the difference is meaningful to me, especially when I'm trying to make a distinction about the comparable substance that two candidates bring to a job. I can only tell you that there have been many, many cases in grant competitions I've had to judge where the details that one referees provided made the difference for those of us wondering about some specific issue in the grant application, whether it was the way a candidate proposed to do his/her research, or the general skills and talents of the candidate. And equally, where generic, inflated, possibly self-written references did not help a candidate who needed some extra explanation or context from a knowledgable referee to help get him/her over the hump. So you've got your experience and I've got mine. I know full well that mine does not extend to all contexts and all circumstances, but I equally know it's valid in many. I also know full well that I'm an employee of an institution that specifically offers personalized attention from faculty to students, so it's part of my job to write references and write them attentively. That's not true for everyone or in every circumstance, and so my sense of obligation would not hold universally. Is it so hard to recognize that in other directions, rather than casting yourself as the representative of the "the 21st Century" and everyone else a hopeless archaism? It may come as a surprise to you, but different professions legitimately have different norms and different requirements without being "backward" or "forward". CS, it would be nice if you’d be a little less categorically expansive about your own perspective and experience. Whatever works for you as a reader of recommendations and a writer, ok. I can only tell you that in BOTH roles, I recognize a difference between the reference written by its ostensible author and the reference written generically by the candidate (or by an uncaring author), and that the difference is meaningful to me, especially when I’m trying to make a distinction about the comparable substance that two candidates bring to a job. I can only tell you that there have been many, many cases in grant competitions I’ve had to judge where the details that one referees provided made the difference for those of us wondering about some specific issue in the grant application, whether it was the way a candidate proposed to do his/her research, or the general skills and talents of the candidate. And equally, where generic, inflated, possibly self-written references did not help a candidate who needed some extra explanation or context from a knowledgable referee to help get him/her over the hump. So you’ve got your experience and I’ve got mine. I know full well that mine does not extend to all contexts and all circumstances, but I equally know it’s valid in many. I also know full well that I’m an employee of an institution that specifically offers personalized attention from faculty to students, so it’s part of my job to write references and write them attentively. That’s not true for everyone or in every circumstance, and so my sense of obligation would not hold universally. Is it so hard to recognize that in other directions, rather than casting yourself as the representative of the “the 21st Century” and everyone else a hopeless archaism? It may come as a surprise to you, but different professions legitimately have different norms and different requirements without being “backward” or “forward”.

]]> By: cs http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11704 cs Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:18:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11704 Jonathon, I appreciated that. What you express to me is the value in representation from the other side an equation, so to speak. Best. Jonathon, I appreciated that. What you express to me is the value in representation from the other side an equation, so to speak. Best.

]]> By: jonathan http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11703 jonathan Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:02:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11703 Oh, and a seperate point; I'm not sure I believe in the `inflation' idea in this case. People have been writing <i>bona fides</i> for --- well, I imagine for a few thousand years, but certainly for a few centuries. People have been lazy since well before the present day, and the stakes involved in a good reference is the same now as ever --- a good job, prestigious post, what have you. <p> We'd all like to remember that academia was purer and more noble back when we first started, and that our supervisor's supervisor agonized for weeks about what to say in their letters before going through the time-consuming process of carving it into stone, but I don't see any evidence of this being new thing.</p> Oh, and a seperate point; I’m not sure I believe in the `inflation’ idea in this case. People have been writing bona fides for—- well, I imagine for a few thousand years, but certainly for a few centuries. People have been lazy since well before the present day, and the stakes involved in a good reference is the same now as ever—- a good job, prestigious post, what have you.

We’d all like to remember that academia was purer and more noble back when we first started, and that our supervisor’s supervisor agonized for weeks about what to say in their letters before going through the time-consuming process of carving it into stone, but I don’t see any evidence of this being new thing.

]]> By: Jonathan http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11702 Jonathan Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:54:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11702 I'm in the final spasms of the postdoc-application process now, and in the last months I've had six people dutifully churning out letters of reference. It's a thankless task, but they really only have to write it once and then send it out with minor edits. I think it's easier, too, to write a letter for someone you've actually worked with, rather than for (say) an undergraduate who you may have had only fairly modest interactions with. I agree with the pro-`ghostwriting' crowd that its easier all around, etc, but I also agree with Nasi that it's fundamentally dishonest and that the difference between agree-with and would-write is significant. All of my references (save one) wrote theirs from scratch; the other did what I think is a thoroughly acceptable compromise; he asked me to send him a list of two or three things that I'd like to have pointed out in a letter for me. Whether he included them in the end I don't know, but it gave me a chance to make some points that he might not have thought of, as well as trying to emphasize complementary things in my application materials and the letters; yet it left him the actual task of composing the letter. I'll let y'all know in a few months how well it worked. I’m in the final spasms of the postdoc-application process now, and in the last months I’ve had six people dutifully churning out letters of reference. It’s a thankless task, but they really only have to write it once and then send it out with minor edits. I think it’s easier, too, to write a letter for someone you’ve actually worked with, rather than for (say) an undergraduate who you may have had only fairly modest interactions with. I agree with the pro-`ghostwriting’ crowd that its easier all around, etc, but I also agree with Nasi that it’s fundamentally dishonest and that the difference between agree-with and would-write is significant. All of my references (save one) wrote theirs from scratch; the other did what I think is a thoroughly acceptable compromise; he asked me to send him a list of two or three things that I’d like to have pointed out in a letter for me. Whether he included them in the end I don’t know, but it gave me a chance to make some points that he might not have thought of, as well as trying to emphasize complementary things in my application materials and the letters; yet it left him the actual task of composing the letter. I’ll let y’all know in a few months how well it worked.

]]> By: zaoem http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11701 zaoem Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:41:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11701 It is indeed a very common practice. The other day a student when asking for a reference, actually sent a self-written letter along. The danger for the student here is that she may end up with very similar letters of recommendation, which ought to signal something about how the letters were generated. I don't like this practice, but on the other hand most profs who write their own letters, simply have a standard A, B, or C-letter that they then adjust with some pertinent information. The usefulness of the letter depends entirely on the added content of this info (such as in what percentile of the class my student ranked). I don't necessarily believe that adjusted versions of A or B letters contain so much more information than an edited personal letter. (this holds for students you had in classes only, ph.D students that you have worked with intensely obviously deserve their own letter). It is indeed a very common practice. The other day a student when asking for a reference, actually sent a self-written letter along. The danger for the student here is that she may end up with very similar letters of recommendation, which ought to signal something about how the letters were generated. I don’t like this practice, but on the other hand most profs who write their own letters, simply have a standard A, B, or C-letter that they then adjust with some pertinent information. The usefulness of the letter depends entirely on the added content of this info (such as in what percentile of the class my student ranked). I don’t necessarily believe that adjusted versions of A or B letters contain so much more information than an edited personal letter. (this holds for students you had in classes only, ph.D students that you have worked with intensely obviously deserve their own letter).

]]> By: cs http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11700 cs Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:06:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11700 I'm only staying in this, you know, from the 21st century, because I can't tell if you guys would be seriously offended, or could be interested in a less pompous perspective. Turn your head around. I've read buckets of recommendations. I hate recommendations. I read the guts, and put the rest in the who knows basket. If you ever get down to reference nuance, you will never be sure ... therefore you may go another lap on the rest of the guts. Bottom-line: a reference can, at, most, force closer scrutiny of the substance. Get smart. Ask the students to give you the guts, and you do a once over polish. If you're spending longer, you should be reviewed. Frankly, if you're spending longer you're just gonna waste my time at the other end. I’m only staying in this, you know, from the 21st century, because I can’t tell if you guys would be seriously offended, or could be interested in a less pompous perspective. Turn your head around. I’ve read buckets of recommendations. I hate recommendations. I read the guts, and put the rest in the who knows basket. If you ever get down to reference nuance, you will never be sure … therefore you may go another lap on the rest of the guts. Bottom-line: a reference can, at, most, force closer scrutiny of the substance. Get smart. Ask the students to give you the guts, and you do a once over polish. If you’re spending longer, you should be reviewed. Frankly, if you’re spending longer you’re just gonna waste my time at the other end.

]]> By: Timothy Burke http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11699 Timothy Burke Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:51:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11699 1. Yes, it's common in many fields to have the recommendee write his own reference. 2. Yes, it sucks to do this and I wouldn't do it even if I was the last person on earth writing references myself. I write my own; I ask students for supporting materials like their own personal statements and such, to give me a sense of how they self-present, but I write my own letter. That's what I'm PAID to do: it's an integral part of my job as a teacher. If it's not part of your job description, then I can well see why you would not regard this level of care and attention as either feasible or desirable. Fine. But for someone in my position, in my kind of institution, it would be lazy and sleazy to have students write their own letters. 3. Yes, it makes a difference in some cases to write a reference yourself. I agree there are many "nuisance" recommendations out there where it hardly matters what you say. I'm constantly annoyed at how many foreign study programs require recommendations from faculty, because I know full well that they're only trying to make sure that the student isn't a psychotic axe murderer, that there is very little filtering going on. But having sat at the other end in a wide variety of cases (searches for faculty, grant awards to grad students, competitions of various kinds) I can tell all the doubters in this thread that you can spot generic and self-written references in a minute, and when they're stacked against carefully written evaluations that give you a specific sense of the candidate's strengths and character, they're worthless. The only thing they do is assure you that the candidate knows some faculty or other recommenders well enough to get a letter out of them, and most of us know that doesn't have to be anything more than having been one of 400 students in a class and getting an A in the course. Big whoop. In particular, recommenders may forget that if they're recommending more than one person for the same post or award, and they lavish the same generic compliments on both, the recommendations become especially worthless. British academics are famously reserved in their references, and I can tell you that the consequence is that their evaluation actually means something, and is read seriously. Even American academics who are highly *specific* in their praise get read with care in those situations where it matters. To recap: if a reference letter is being asked for as a mere formality, then the contents don't matter. If the rest of the candidate's c.v. or resume won't survive scrutiny into the later rounds of a selection process, then the reference letters will never matter--no one looks at them in the first round. But if it's a selective process where highly competitive candidates will stack up against each other in the last rounds and need to be distinguished by small differences, the content of recommendations may matter a great deal. If you've got any professional pride whatsoever, and you believe that part of your professional obligations is to aid deserving junior colleagues or students in later endeavors through quality recommendations, for heaven's sake, write the reference yourself. It shows if you did and it shows if you didn't. Trust me. 1. Yes, it’s common in many fields to have the recommendee write his own reference. 2. Yes, it sucks to do this and I wouldn’t do it even if I was the last person on earth writing references myself. I write my own; I ask students for supporting materials like their own personal statements and such, to give me a sense of how they self-present, but I write my own letter. That’s what I’m PAID to do: it’s an integral part of my job as a teacher. If it’s not part of your job description, then I can well see why you would not regard this level of care and attention as either feasible or desirable. Fine. But for someone in my position, in my kind of institution, it would be lazy and sleazy to have students write their own letters. 3. Yes, it makes a difference in some cases to write a reference yourself. I agree there are many “nuisance” recommendations out there where it hardly matters what you say. I’m constantly annoyed at how many foreign study programs require recommendations from faculty, because I know full well that they’re only trying to make sure that the student isn’t a psychotic axe murderer, that there is very little filtering going on. But having sat at the other end in a wide variety of cases (searches for faculty, grant awards to grad students, competitions of various kinds) I can tell all the doubters in this thread that you can spot generic and self-written references in a minute, and when they’re stacked against carefully written evaluations that give you a specific sense of the candidate’s strengths and character, they’re worthless. The only thing they do is assure you that the candidate knows some faculty or other recommenders well enough to get a letter out of them, and most of us know that doesn’t have to be anything more than having been one of 400 students in a class and getting an A in the course. Big whoop. In particular, recommenders may forget that if they’re recommending more than one person for the same post or award, and they lavish the same generic compliments on both, the recommendations become especially worthless. British academics are famously reserved in their references, and I can tell you that the consequence is that their evaluation actually means something, and is read seriously. Even American academics who are highly specific in their praise get read with care in those situations where it matters. To recap: if a reference letter is being asked for as a mere formality, then the contents don’t matter. If the rest of the candidate’s c.v. or resume won’t survive scrutiny into the later rounds of a selection process, then the reference letters will never matter—no one looks at them in the first round. But if it’s a selective process where highly competitive candidates will stack up against each other in the last rounds and need to be distinguished by small differences, the content of recommendations may matter a great deal. If you’ve got any professional pride whatsoever, and you believe that part of your professional obligations is to aid deserving junior colleagues or students in later endeavors through quality recommendations, for heaven’s sake, write the reference yourself. It shows if you did and it shows if you didn’t. Trust me.

]]> By: cs http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11698 cs Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:18:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11698 As the token representative of the 21st century on this thread, I hereby vote myself off the medieval survivor show. As the token representative of the 21st century on this thread, I hereby vote myself off the medieval survivor show.

]]> By: Keith http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11697 Keith Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:56:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11697 In my field -- philosophy -- I still assume when I read letters of rec. for potential grad students that what I am reading was actually written by the person who signed the letter and was not drafter by the student being recommended, and even that the letter was then *not* shown to the student for her/his approval. If the letter was written by the student herself and then edited & approved by the person who signed it, and this were clearly indicated, I would give the letter far less weight, but wouldn't feel anything slimy had been done. If the student wrote the letter and this is not clearly noted, that strikes me as fraud. But that's because of the expectations in my field. Of course, if it really is assumed in certain other fields that this mere editing/approving is how things are done, then there is no fraud involved. (There is no fraud involved in a politician delivering a speech written not by herself, though there would be if I were invited to give a talk at a philosophy department and read someone else's paper, without acknowledging it as such. (If I did acknowledge it as such, I'd be stupid, but not a fraud.)) And of course, I'm not an expert on what the expectations are in fields other than my own. Still, like Nasi, above, I take it as significant if these letters don't announce that they were produced in that way, and wonder what would happen to their effectiveness if that were explicitly acknowledged. If they'd then be less effective, that would be at least some reason to think that expectations are not as clear-cut as some seem to think. If the expectations are fuzzy, then those letter writers who actually write the letters that they sign should start explicitly stating in their letters that they wrote them themselves. I guess that's what I'd do if things started getting fuzzy in philosophy. (It would be interesting to see then if those who merely edit/approve would then start also putting on their letters that they wrote them themselves, giving the rationalization that this false statement isn't so bad, since surely there is an expectation that such a lie will be told.) In my field—philosophy—I still assume when I read letters of rec. for potential grad students that what I am reading was actually written by the person who signed the letter and was not drafter by the student being recommended, and even that the letter was then not shown to the student for her/his approval. If the letter was written by the student herself and then edited & approved by the person who signed it, and this were clearly indicated, I would give the letter far less weight, but wouldn’t feel anything slimy had been done. If the student wrote the letter and this is not clearly noted, that strikes me as fraud. But that’s because of the expectations in my field. Of course, if it really is assumed in certain other fields that this mere editing/approving is how things are done, then there is no fraud involved. (There is no fraud involved in a politician delivering a speech written not by herself, though there would be if I were invited to give a talk at a philosophy department and read someone else’s paper, without acknowledging it as such. (If I did acknowledge it as such, I’d be stupid, but not a fraud.)) And of course, I’m not an expert on what the expectations are in fields other than my own. Still, like Nasi, above, I take it as significant if these letters don’t announce that they were produced in that way, and wonder what would happen to their effectiveness if that were explicitly acknowledged. If they’d then be less effective, that would be at least some reason to think that expectations are not as clear-cut as some seem to think. If the expectations are fuzzy, then those letter writers who actually write the letters that they sign should start explicitly stating in their letters that they wrote them themselves. I guess that’s what I’d do if things started getting fuzzy in philosophy. (It would be interesting to see then if those who merely edit/approve would then start also putting on their letters that they wrote them themselves, giving the rationalization that this false statement isn’t so bad, since surely there is an expectation that such a lie will be told.)

]]> By: cs http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11696 cs Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:54:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11696 OK, Nasi, ... now you've really done it ... go ahead, make a joke ... have fun ... but you'll get no references from me ol' chum, and that's final ... even if you draft it yourself and I agree with every single word ... no use in begging ... my mind's made up ... see if I care. Harrumph. OK, Nasi, … now you’ve really done it … go ahead, make a joke … have fun … but you’ll get no references from me ol’ chum, and that’s final … even if you draft it yourself and I agree with every single word … no use in begging … my mind’s made up … see if I care. Harrumph.

]]> By: Nasi Lemak http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11695 Nasi Lemak Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:47:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11695 Oh dear god. It's got nothing to do with "authenticity" as of works of art. References/recommendations get what-you-might-call respect on the assumption that they are actually by the person they say they are. Yours aren't, but they probably get treated with more respect than they deserve because of the very norm you are breaking. It's also treating your students badly, but why should you care, eh? Oh dear god. It’s got nothing to do with “authenticity” as of works of art. References/recommendations get what-you-might-call respect on the assumption that they are actually by the person they say they are. Yours aren’t, but they probably get treated with more respect than they deserve because of the very norm you are breaking. It’s also treating your students badly, but why should you care, eh?

]]> By: cs http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/reference-inflation/comment-page-1/#comment-11694 cs Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:38:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=790#comment-11694 I'm not into admin, but by all means nasi, put it to the faculty and I'll roll with majority opinion. I mean, who gives a flying ... I reckon we should also propose that actors should say who wrote their lines straight after they say them; that politicians should announce that they are only agreeing with what their speech writers served up to them; that authors should highlight their research assistants' work in a different font inside their books; that teachers should tell their students where they learned this and that technique as they use it; that parents should keep a diary everyday so that their kids can see everything they just copied off their own parents, that ... why, I even heard that Adam Smith didn't really think up what he wrote .. the cheating bugger just synthesised everything that was already prepared for him ... dirty false swine ... where are the bloody authenticity police ... it's not fair I tell you ...nothing's real ... not even Santa ... maybe I didn't even think up this comment all by myself ... aaaahh ... nobody told me there would be days like this. I’m not into admin, but by all means nasi, put it to the faculty and I’ll roll with majority opinion. I mean, who gives a flying … I reckon we should also propose that actors should say who wrote their lines straight after they say them; that politicians should announce that they are only agreeing with what their speech writers served up to them; that authors should highlight their research assistants’ work in a different font inside their books; that teachers should tell their students where they learned this and that technique as they use it; that parents should keep a diary everyday so that their kids can see everything they just copied off their own parents, that … why, I even heard that Adam Smith didn’t really think up what he wrote .. the cheating bugger just synthesised everything that was already prepared for him … dirty false swine … where are the bloody authenticity police … it’s not fair I tell you …nothing’s real … not even Santa … maybe I didn’t even think up this comment all by myself … aaaahh … nobody told me there would be days like this.

]]>