Mild criticism in LoRs

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
D

deleted212936

I guess schools want recommenders to comment on both your strengths and weaknesses.
So is it OK for professors to include some mild criticism on LoRs ? Or is it better to include only glowing comments?

Members don't see this ad.
 
I guess schools want recommenders to comment on both your strengths and weaknesses.
So is it OK for professors to include some mild criticism on LoRs ? Or is it better to include only glowing comments?



The conventional wisdom is that committees expect LOR writers to be overflowing with superfluous praise (since, afterall, the student they're endorsing IS the greatest person on Earth), so letters that fall short of that often are looked at curiously.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I guess schools want recommenders to comment on both your strengths and weaknesses.
So is it OK for professors to include some mild criticism on LoRs ? Or is it better to include only glowing comments?

Well, I think every individual who reads a recommendation letter can interpret it differently depending on what the criticism is. Personally, I won't hold it against them if there was some mild criticism (late for class a couple of times, minor mistakes, or such, as long as the letter says that the applicant has progressed) - but that's just me.

I know that everyone's human and unless the applicant has a GPA of 4.0 and an MCAT of 45, I would be slightly suspicious if a letter has nothing to say in terms of constructive criticisms or says that the applicant is "perfect".

To me, a letter that sounds too good to be true, or is too vague to describe why the applicant is "perfect" either means that the professor doesn't know the applicant well enough and is writing a generic "he's so great, you should accept him" type recommendation letter. Obviously, have a glowing recommendation letter from a professor that knows you well and that can explain why you're a "perfect" applicant is better than one that has mild criticisms, but overall - I don't think there's any problems if there is some mild criticisms so long as you've progressed or worked on improving those aspects.
 
LORs should be glowing.

Nothing mediocre, and certainly nothing negative.

Even "damning with faint praise" is a problem.

If the writer can't promise you a "strong recommendation" then you should find another writer...
 
what kind of criticism?
 
Well, I think every individual who reads a recommendation letter can interpret it differently depending on what the criticism is. Personally, I won't hold it against them if there was some mild criticism (late for class a couple of times, minor mistakes, or such, as long as the letter says that the applicant has progressed) - but that's just me.

I know that everyone's human and unless the applicant has a GPA of 4.0 and an MCAT of 45, I would be slightly suspicious if a letter has nothing to say in terms of constructive criticisms or says that the applicant is "perfect".

To me, a letter that sounds too good to be true, or is too vague to describe why the applicant is "perfect" either means that the professor doesn't know the applicant well enough and is writing a generic "he's so great, you should accept him" type recommendation letter. Obviously, have a glowing recommendation letter from a professor that knows you well and that can explain why you're a "perfect" applicant is better than one that has mild criticisms, but overall - I don't think there's any problems if there is some mild criticisms so long as you've progressed or worked on improving those aspects.

Wrong. :thumbdown: A recc is not the time for your writer to analyze your life and your pros and cons. They should be selling how great you are to the adcoms and that's it.

Even something like "Johnny has really matured since I've met him" is a backhanded compliment because it suggests that you were immature before. Instead, they should write something such as "Johnny is the most mature student I have ever had. etc etc." Only positives. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot and get a mediocre letter go ahead.
 
If all the rec letters in the world say that their candidates "are the greatest in the world. You should accept him ASAP." Then what's the point of these letters? I mean, they are all going to sound the same, and the purpose of the letters is to distinguish one candidate from another.

Shouldn't the letters also offer some points about improvements that the candidate can make so that the letter actually becomes meaningful?
That's just my 2 cents.

But to the OP, yeah, you do want the letter to be glowing, although I don't strictly agree with this.
 
If all the rec letters in the world say that their candidates "are the greatest in the world. You should accept him ASAP." Then what's the point of these letters? I mean, they are all going to sound the same, and the purpose of the letters is to distinguish one candidate from another.

Shouldn't the letters also offer some points about improvements that the candidate can make so that the letter actually becomes meaningful?
That's just my 2 cents.

But to the OP, yeah, you do want the letter to be glowing, although I don't strictly agree with this.

It is the depth of detail and specificity that sets one "glowing" LOR from another "glowing" LOR.

first requirement: glowing, walks on water, health care in America will suffer if this person does not become a doctor; PEOPLE WILL DIE.

second requirement: specifics that illustrate WHY the person walks on water and shows that the writer knows the person very well.

nice to have, but not required: "I have been teaching for 30 years and this person ranks in the top 5 students I have ever taught."

Your application will suffer if there are (1) LOR has negatives and/or (2) LOR is modest or generic.
 
Yeah, but isn't this all irrelevant since you are supposed to sign a waiver saying you haven't read the LOR? What's to stop your recommender from writing a crappy LOR anyway even after you specifically asked if they would be willing and able to write a strong, positive LOR? It's all a big crap shoot.
 
Criticisms can only hurt you. What separates a good letter from a great letter is the personal quality of it, the inclusion of anecdotes and examples of good qualities. If the letter just says "This guy is great, would make a great doctor, etc." it will certainly be glossed over by the adcoms. If it includes a personal story of how the applicant showed dedication, helped others, or impressed the letter writer in some fashion, then it will be awesome. This stuff doesn't need to be medically related even. I had an extremely strong letter from an athletic coach who recounted a couple of times when I showed leadership and dedication to the team.
 
Wrong. :thumbdown: A recc is not the time for your writer to analyze your life and your pros and cons. They should be selling how great you are to the adcoms and that's it.

Even something like "Johnny has really matured since I've met him" is a backhanded compliment because it suggests that you were immature before. Instead, they should write something such as "Johnny is the most mature student I have ever had. etc etc." Only positives. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot and get a mediocre letter go ahead.


Mild criticism can be a good thing, but it is all relevant. There is not a single person who is flawless and having a mild criticism can add even more substance to the positive things said in the letter. It is also very important as to what you mean by mild criticism. For example, if it is something like "he was late to class a few times" then that is actually bad. Why? Because if your instructor is willing to put in such a senseless interjection that has nothing to do with anything, it says that he really doesn't think highly of you as a person. On the other hand, if the criticism is "sometimes he can be too idealistic and relentless," then this is fine. While it is a criticism, in some circles that may get you a lot of points because many good leaders have that "deficiency." Another example "too detail oriented." Again, this can be bad if you're working in a car wash and spending too much time on each car, but in terms of life-and-death patient decisions you can never be too detail oriented. You get the point.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
First brush, anything negative is bad news. What's the mild criticism?
 
Mild criticism can be a good thing, but it is all relevant. There is not a single person who is flawless and having a mild criticism can add even more substance to the positive things said in the letter. It is also very important as to what you mean by mild criticism. For example, if it is something like "he was late to class a few times" then that is actually bad. Why? Because if your instructor is willing to put in such a senseless interjection that has nothing to do with anything, it says that he really doesn't think highly of you as a person. On the other hand, if the criticism is "sometimes he can be too idealistic and relentless," then this is fine. While it is a criticism, in some circles that may get you a lot of points because many good leaders have that "deficiency." Another example "too detail oriented." Again, this can be bad if you're working in a car wash and spending too much time on each car, but in terms of life-and-death patient decisions you can never be too detail oriented. You get the point.

Wrong. :thumbdown: I'd rather have my recc writers say "he pays exceptional attention to detail, but always keeps the big picture in mind" over that weaksauce you wrote.

But by all means, go get a mediocre letter pointing out your faults. Being too detailed oriented can mean you are SLOW and INDECISIVE because you are hung up on the details which can be terrible for your patient. Also it can mean you are missing the big picture, so yes there actually is a downside to being too detailed oriented in medicine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
triple post...wtf is wrong w/sdn
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong. :thumbdown: I'd rather have my recc writers say "he pays exceptional attention to detail, but always keeps the big picture in mind" over that weaksauce you wrote.

But by all means, go get a mediocre letter pointing out your faults. Being too detailed oriented can mean you are SLOW and INDECISIVE because you are hung up on the details which can be terrible for your patient. Also it can mean you are missing the big picture, so yes there actually is a downside to being too detailed oriented in medicine.

I know you would. So would everyone else. Now think about how many LORs adcoms read with almost exactly the same information. This is not about you; this is about how you compare to others. If you want to have the same letter that everyone else has, that's fine. The ideal LOR would be something to the effect that you were the best student your professor ever had. But most premeds don't get a LOR, they get a template. This is why you would be privileged to have a professor care enough for you to discuss your personality, even if it includes mild criticisms that are not really criticisms and are more than made up by the rest of the LOR.
 
Actually, this is relatively common for letter writers. EVERYONE has weaknesses, and it adds to the credibility of the writer if he or she includes some nod to it. Good LORs will address weaknesses, and speak to how the individual transcends them.

So I agree with BlueElmo above on this, it's more common than you might think.
 
Yeah I'm going to stick with the glowing recc.

My weakness will be something like "most of the time, Red Leader is too perfect in every way shape or form it might make others feel inferior. However, his modesty and tactfulness more than makes up for this weakness."

True weaknesses that imply a strength is weak IMO because implications are exactly that...they're implied, not stated.
 
I have yet to see anyone post an example of a "good" weakness which could be included in your recommendation. Your theory is that including weaknesses shows the adcom that the letter isn't BS or is somehow more genuine. This is false. The adcom will be able to tell if a letter is BS or not based on the content, not the inclusion or exclusion of weaknesses. Is it a very general letter which recommends you and repeats a lot of the content on your resume? Is it a letter which demonstrates a personal relationship with the person and includes specific examples of good qualities?
 
Actually, this is relatively common for letter writers. EVERYONE has weaknesses, and it adds to the credibility of the writer if he or she includes some nod to it. Good LORs will address weaknesses, and speak to how the individual transcends them.

So I agree with BlueElmo above on this, it's more common than you might think.
I think LizzyM commented on this once and said that unfortunately, most letters don't contain any criticisms at all.

Consequently, when one shows up with an ostensibly helpful/genuine criticism, it's detrimental to the applicant.

I also have to admit that in all the letters of recommendation that I read in fellowship applications, not a single one had a criticism of the applicant. It may be due to a difference in culture between academia and medicine so you might want to make it clear to professors that what they think is helpful may in fact be very harmful.
 
I think LizzyM commented on this once and said that unfortunately, most letters don't contain any criticisms at all.

Consequently, when one shows up with an ostensibly helpful/genuine criticism, it's detrimental to the applicant.

I also have to admit that in all the letters of recommendation that I read in fellowship applications, not a single one had a criticism of the applicant. It may be due to a difference in culture between academia and medicine so you might want to make it clear to professors that what they think is helpful may in fact be very harmful.



Yup. We've gotten it straight from the source. The VAST majority of LORs are glowing endorsements of God-like premeds. Anything short of that stands out.

I don't mean to single out Chaz specifically, but his post is a good example of how one person will just think up something in their head, say "yeah, that sounds like it should seem reasonable", then spouts it off as time-tested absolute truth.

I guess I've just sort of learned to let that go on this site for the most part. But it happens more often than you think.
 
Yup. We've gotten it straight from the source. The VAST majority of LORs are glowing endorsements of God-like premeds. Anything short of that stands out.

I don't mean to single out Chaz specifically, but his post is a good example of how one person will just think up something in their head, say "yeah, that sounds like it should seem reasonable", then spouts it off as time-tested absolute truth.

I guess I've just sort of learned to let that go on this site for the most part. But it happens more often than you think.
I miss the adcom subforum. I'm still not sure why they got rid of it, but can you imagine SDN without LizzyM and the other adcoms that still drop by? It'd degenerate into Lord of the Flies.
 
On the other hand, if the criticism is "sometimes he can be too idealistic and relentless," then this is fine.

No offense, but that sounds terrible.

Why stop there?

"Sometimes he just cares TOO much. He wants to help people more than one man can do. He regrets that in attempting to save all the dying babies in Africa, he sometimes is unable to turn in his homework in a timely manner."
 
Top