Survey: Law schools receive negative letters

September 13, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This post was written by IL reporter Rebecca Berfanger.

A national company that specializes in helping students get into undergraduate and graduate schools reported a majority of law school and medical school admissions offices had received negative recommendation letters. Hearing this, based on my personal experience, it made me wonder: Why would someone ask for a letter if they weren’t sure they would get a positive recommendation? And why would a professor or anyone else take the time and energy to write a negative letter instead of just saying no?

But maybe it does make some sense after all.

According to results of a Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions Survey conducted in July and August and released late last week, 87 percent of the participating 145 law schools reported receiving a negative letter of recommendation. About 15 percent of those surveyed also said a negative letter is the biggest application killer.

The same percentages were reported for medical schools, according to a press release from Kaplan

Dani Weatherford, director of recruitment for Indiana University Maurer School of Law – Bloomington, said there are maybe one or two negative letters in an application cycle. She said that hasn’t changed over the years, even among the 3,441 applications the school received for the 2010-11 school year, a record.

“A lot of counseling is given to students at law school fairs and forums, and letters of recommendation are always a hot topic. Our advice is always to talk to the person, to outline what you need the letter to say, and to ask if the person is comfortable writing it. If not, then move on to someone else who is,” she said.

She added it’s so rare that it’s “shocking” when she does see a negative letter, and she will usually read it a second or even a third time to make sure she understands what the letter is saying.

But usually, a negative letter won’t explain that the student shouldn’t go to law school because of a criminal background or because she was caught cheating, she said. Instead, a writer might say the student isn’t mature enough to handle law school and/or may need more life experience to be prepared to handle a law school program.

When I first heard about this survey, I had flashbacks of my application process for grad school in late 2003. Either I learned from somewhere or instinctively knew not to ask anyone who might write a letter that would be at all negative and therefore even possibly hurt my chances.

Luckily, there was no second guessing. In addition to the signed and sealed letters I’d send to schools, my supporters had each provided me a copy of the letter he or she had written for my personal records. (I should find out if those are floating around somewhere in my basement to read when I’m having a bad day…)

However, by that time I knew this wasn’t the case for everyone. When a former roommate suspected she received a less than glowing letter for a graduate program, she didn’t have a personal copy so she steamed it open to read it. Although we have since lost touch, I can’t forget the sad look on her face after she told me she read it. I always wondered if she was turned down due to the negative letter, because the school suspected she tampered with the letter, or if she just wasn’t yet ready for grad school.

When I was an adjunct journalism professor last fall, I was reminded of this incident when a few students had asked if I would be a reference for internships or graduate programs.

I asked a few other professors in various fields and at other schools how they handle these requests. The answers varied, but the consensus seemed to be if you like the student, and she gives you ample time and information to write it and you have the time, go for it. If not, politely decline and only give further explanation only if you, the professor, want to.

But with rising numbers of applicants due to the bad economy – two other findings of the survey – I wonder if more people who aren’t a good fit for law school will apply, even if they are unsure of the content and tone of their recommendation letters. I also wonder if the recommenders are maybe doing the applicant a favor with a brutally honest, if negative, letter of recommendation to keep them out of law school.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Lawsuits possible?
    Wouldn't it be ironic if there were eventually lawsuits for negative letters much as there has been for negative references in HR, which has led to "name, dates of employment only" type references now.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT