Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
There are certainly cases like that, but those are by no means the majority. In those circumstances having an option to explain the delay should be allowed and the application should be able to continue. However, the best option is to just remove LORs entirely. They are not equitable and I don’t believe they serve as much of a differentiator in general (unless someone writes an incredibly bad one but then why would you ever have them write you one?). Anyways that veering on the theoretical and off topic. I’m just saying I understand why people believe it is unfair.I think attributing the LORs' submission times entirely to "procrastination" is also unfair. MANY variables could be at play that would delay someone's letter. For example, a professor at my school had a significant health scare last year in the late winter and could not write the letters he had promised the students working in his lab until after he recovered. If that letter were a crucial aspect of your application, it would be worth waiting a bit longer rather than finding an alternative and less impactful writer. That's just my opinion, though. This entire process is so subjective.
We will all get that email soon.