Added August 2, 2017
School counselors write letters of recommendation for students pursuing postsecondary education and help teachers and staff prepare for this task. Although letters of recommendation may impact admission and scholarships opportunities, research about equity and bias in letters is minimal as compared to standardized tests, teacher expectations, and grading practices. This study analyzed letters of recommendation for evidence of gender and racial bias. Results demonstrate small, but significant differences by gender and race in the average length of letters as well as the types of language used to describe students. In particular, letters written for male applicants by female recommenders were longer than letters written for male applicants by male recommenders, whereas letters written for female applicants were the same length, regardless of the gender of the recommender. In addition, recommenders teaching humanities wrote longer letters, on average, than recommenders teaching math and science. Further, recommenders used slightly fewer grindstone adjectives (e.g., thorough) to describe underrepresented applicants. A full description of results is available in the article.
It important for school counselors and teachers to understand that bias is not inevitable. Even unconscious stereotypes can be deactivated by using social cues and individuating information, and by limiting time constraints and other cognitive demands (Devine, Plant, & Buswell, 2000). In other words, people can inhibit stereotyping when they are motivated to do so, and when they have sufficient cognitive resources (Kite, Deaux, & Haines, 2007).
Writing a letter for a student they do not know well enough may only harm the student in the long run. These data suggest students should ask for letters from teachers with whom they have developed a relationship. If a counselor or teacher has to say yes, ask students to provide more specific behavioral information about themselves when needed (e.g. via student interest forms, etc.) and gather more information about the student from other teachers and counselors.
Specific to content of letters, a focus on motivation, drive and persistence – or conscientiousness – should be primary since cognitive characteristics are represented in other measures in admissions. These characteristics should be familiar to school counselors as they are prominent in the ASCA mindsets and behaviors in the foundation of the ASCA National Model. For example, self-confidence (mindset) and creativity, self-discipline, adaptability (behaviors) provide context not available in traditional measures. Also, when describing students, school counselors and teachers should use concrete examples and not just adjectives. Previous research hints to the benefits of letter length; longer letters may be more effective because they provide specific examples. Simply describing a student as ‘intelligent’ is not as effective as providing a more three-dimensional account (e.g., Jane not only has an unmatched ability to recall specific facts, but she makes connections between ideas and events in a way I have rarely witnessed in a student of her age.)
Further with language, when providing examples that describe a student in terms of his/her work ethic and natural ability, pause for a moment and ask yourself how much you know about the student in terms of each of these characteristics. While ASCA mindsets and behaviors can be powerful descriptors, teachers do not always have evidence to attribute classroom success to one or the other – for example, they might not know how many hours a student studies at night vs. how naturally talented they are in math. Be aware that we tend to explain success differently for different groups of people, and make sure your examples, and the balance between the examples you provide, do not reflect these biases (e.g. if you want to communicate a student’s natural affinity for physics, do not spend most of your time describing how hard he works). Additional sources (e.g., Jones, 1990) for guidance on writing letters of recommendations expand on these and guide larger policy and procedures.
Patrick Akos, Ph.D., is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D., is senior assistant director of admissions for research, also at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
doi: 10.5330/1096-2409-20.1.102
Patrick Akos, Ph.D., and Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.
© 2024 SCALE