Excellent question.
1. The writer and their reputation, particularly if I know them well. Based on what my colleagues in the trauma world say in their letter, I can tell whether they like the applicant or not, just from reading so many of their letters and comparing what they say about one applicant versus another. Most use a template, and very rarely deviate from it. When they do, it is usually a significant “tell,” either for the better or the worse.
2. Length of the letter—size does matter. A short letter means the writer doesn’t know applicant well, or care that much.
3. Content words like “the best,” “good,” etc. I pay attention to adjectives. “The best student I’ve worked with in the past ten years” is very different from “He was a great student who worked hard.”
4. Specifics. Generic phrases kill a letter. If a writer tells me an applicant-related story or event that somehow highlights the applicant as an individual, it goes a long way.
5. Speculations about the person’s (positive) future in the field. In my own fellowship rec letter, my mentor stated, in a very Vader-like way and as only he could, “i have no doubt she will be a master after her training is complete.” (In case anyone cares, I am a huge Star Wars fan, and I told him that like any true Sith, I would have to kill him before I could get an apprentice of my own!) If someone writes about a bright future and tells me why they think this applicant is destined for one, it definitely piques my interest.
6. Ultimately though, if I’m having trouble deciphering a letter writer’s intentions... like if they write a great letter but I am not sure what they truly think, I just call them and ask, the same way my mentor does, “would you stake your reputation and career on this person, that they will make a good orthopod?” It’s hard to say “yes” to that unless you really feel this way.
Sent from my iPhone using
SDN mobile
))
