If you have had to write or request an academic reference letter, which is probably all of you, then you know that there is a whole, mysterious hidden curriculum behind them. On this episode, Ethel and Nisha talk about what it's like to write reference letters, how letter readers react to different kinds of letters, and what makes a letter good, bad, or ugly.

Thanks for listening! Get more information, support the show, and read all the transcripts at academicaunties.com. Get in touch with Academic Aunties on BlueSky, Instagram, or by e-mail at podcast@academicaunties.com.

Now, to be clear, I am happy to write letters of reference for colleagues and students and see doing so as an opportunity to help applicants shine. And I am side eyeing colleagues who see writing letters of reference as somehow being beneath them. This is me. is literally part of our jobs. And there is also a special place in hell for colleagues who agreed to write letters for students and colleagues, but then ghost them or worse, write these letters and CVs as an opportunity to slag applicants off.

But these letters of reference requests have made me think. What is actually the purpose of these letters? How can we understand letter requests amid the structures of the neoliberal academy? Are there instances when letters can end up harming applicants?

To talk about these questions and more, I asked Academic Aunties producer, and one of my favorite people, Dr. Nisha Nath, to join me. Here's our conversation.

Hi Nisha, how's it going?

Nisha Nath: Pretty good. Happy New Year to you. How are you doing?

Ethel Tungohan: I'm okay. I am chilling, drinking my second cup of coffee for today, and totally eager to jump in and talk about letters.

Nisha Nath: Because I'm suspecting that you over the past few weeks have been spending a lot of time with letters.

Ethel Tungohan: Yeah, for sure. So let me tell you, I, uh, did not check. My email at all over the holidays, um, and I am super proud of that, but then when I opened my inbox, uh, Thursday, uh, that I was back, which was this Monday, so Monday, January 6th, I think, I was flooded. By letter of reference requests, like, and it was fine, right?

Cause I, you know, that's part of the job. I always love writing letters too, because I think it's a chance for me to show off about people's skills and their qualifications, but it was just overwhelming a little bit. Um, how about you? Have you been getting these letter requests too?

Nisha Nath: have, I have been getting the letter requests, but like part of, part of, I mean, I think you and I are different, right, in terms of the volume of letters that we are attending to. Um, and I am certainly not writing as many letters as you or receive as many requests, but I am curious, like, if you had to put a number to it, how many letters do you think you write in a given year?

Ethel Tungohan: I mean, by individual student or by letters, right. Or by individual colleague, cause there's so many. Um. Oh, my gosh, because, okay, well, first, let's talk about the kinds of letter requests we get, right? Um, because we all get letter of reference requests from students applying for graduate school or law school or, you know, med school.

Um, we also get letter requests from colleagues who were going up for tenure and promotion, right? Um, if you're a collaborator, uh, or a co writer, you have to write them a letter. If you are an external appraiser, you have to write them a letter. Um, We also get letter requests, um, from people who were applying for professional jobs.

Are you getting those too, actually?

Nisha Nath: absolutely. Lots of non kind of, yeah, uh, alt ac or non academic or professional, um, which are also interesting to write. They can be challenging too, especially if you were, like, steeped in academia because you have to think outside of, like, how you normally would frame a person or candidate.

Um, yeah.

Ethel Tungohan: For sure. And I think the bulk of this conversation will be on academic letters, but I think as an amusing aside, so my partner works in government and I was asked to write a letter for, you know, a former student. And then I thought the letter was fantastic, right? And then my partner read it and he was like, why is this two pages, single space?

Like this is like literally not what we want to read and I was like, oh, don't you want like,

Nisha Nath: that's interesting.

Ethel Tungohan: don't you want detail? And he's like, no, I mean, yes, we do, but you don't want like an overly long, you don't want like a dissertation on the candidate strengths, right? Like you want it short, punchy, can they do the job, be targeted, which is different, I think, from academic letters, right?

Nisha Nath: yes, that makes sense. For a moment you gave me a panic attack because I do write, I do write lengthy letters, whether it's for academic or, you know, outside of academia, but it is different in terms of how I frame it or the kind of bullet points or the headings or all those kinds of things. So, um, I feel better once you finish that thought because I got scared there for a second.

Yeah.

Ethel Tungohan: and I think, put differently, one thing Wayne said as well is that when the letter is assessed, at least in his, in his kind of job, it's pretty much assumed that the candidate already has the job, right? Whereas, I think in academia, the letter is part of a larger set of, uh, documents that the committee evaluates, depending again on, on the institution and all that, right? Yeah. So to your question, probably just by a sheer number of letters that I've had to write, um, cause some of my own students request letters for jobs in academic and non academic settings and for further graduate studies. Probably in the last year, I've written like a hundred, Plus letters. Wait, is that a

Nisha Nath: That is a lot.

Ethel Tungohan: Oh, okay. Well,

Nisha Nath: I mean, I don't know. Like, compared to me, that's a lot. That's a lot, and that's, that's, I mean, that's important work, and if I think about the amount of time I will take on an individual letter, that's a huge amount of labor. Um, yeah.

Ethel Tungohan: Yeah, and it's not part of Our own kind of the hours were allocated to work our jobs, right? Um, but I should see that with a caveat, right? Because I have students in the job market. So I'm just talking about the number of letters and sometimes students apply for however many jobs, right? And I try not to like, just write a form letter.

I try to actually like, look at the school, look at people I know in the school. So it's not, you know, You know, just like copy and paste, right? But yeah, it is a lot of work. Um, and I guess my question for you, Nisha, as someone who's kind of been fielding these requests and using these letters to evaluate people, like, what are some of the things that stand out to you as being components of a good letter versus a bad letter, um, when you're evaluating these files?

Nisha Nath: I mean, so, so there, there's this first question that maybe we'll return to around who is writing the letter, right? Um, or we can talk about it now, but that, I think that's a complicated question, right? Because I think, so some I letter readers might be more compelled or find themselves more compelled by a letter writer who has a particular kind of status or is at a particular kind of institution.

I will be honest to me as a letter receiver, that is not what I find compelling. Um, what I find most helpful in these letters is first where it seems like the letter writer has an investment in this candidate, right? And you can see that I mean, you can see that in the sheer amount that people do or do not write.

I find it compelling when I can tell that the letter writer is writing for a particular institution or for a particular, um, uh, you know, scholarship application, like, that it's tailored to some degree. Um, and then I also, um, I mean, I think, uh, for me, one of the big, I guess it comes to what the function of a letter is, is for me, I find it most compelling when the letter makes the candidate legible.

Because, of course, we are not, like, we're not We're not equipped to completely understand the work of all of these different candidates, but letter writers that can do that translation work, those have been letters that have been profoundly impactful, um, for me. How about you? What, what do you see as qualities of a good letter?

Ethel Tungohan: I think what you said in the beginning is important to highlight before I also

Nisha Nath: Sure. Yeah.

Ethel Tungohan: right? And I think if the goal of the podcast is to, uh, you know, demystify some of these processes, I think, you know, it would do our listeners a disservice if we didn't make clear that people read letters differently, right?

And I think I've been in job search committees where, um, I've had colleagues who would literally just look at the letterhead. And they'd be like, Oh, Ivy League. Perfect. And then they'd read it, even though the letter has like a paragraph that would be seen, um, because of their investment in academia's prestige economy as being more valid versus a letter from someone from quote unquote, a less prestigious university, but provides more detail.

And I think that's bullshit, right? So part of, you know, I feel like part of our feminist killjoy role in these positions is to be like, why are you prioritizing these like blue chip elite letters when these letters say nothing? Yeah. Right? Um, so I think that's an important caveat. And also, one thing that I've noticed as well, because academia, as we've tried to establish, is a clusterfuck, right?

Like, people, sorry, is, uh, you know, it's like based on networks where you're legible based on, you know, your, your relationship to the academic hierarchy. Um, Some people would look at different things like, oh, is this a letter from a named chair? I didn't even know what that was. I was like, what is a named chair?

But it's like seen as something more prestigious than, than someone who just has like a regular like signature, right? So. So yeah, like, bearing in mind that like, you know, people read letters differently, there are those of us who are trying to change the way people read these letters, and we're trying to dismantle the prestige economy, right?

Um, for me, elements of a good letter resonate with what you've said as well. I think that, um, first, okay, in terms of kind of tips to for listeners, um, gosh, I don't want to sound cynical, but before you ask, People to write you letters, make sure that you can trust them to write you a

Nisha Nath: Mm hmm. Mm hmm.

Ethel Tungohan: because sometimes people issue a blanket.

Yes, but then don't provide the detail that readers like us would like to read the contextualization that would be important for us to understand, uh, the candidates, uh, work and scholarship in relation to whatever, right? Um, and so you also have to make sure that the letter writer. doesn't have another agenda.

Do you know what I mean? Whereby like, um, they're writing you a letter, but they're also writing someone else a letter, someone who's perhaps closer to them. So they use their letter to talk about the qualifications of that other person and kind of, I know,

Nisha Nath: me more about the, I've not been in the, I'll, I'll be honest. I have not been in the situation where I've had to write for multiple candidates for the same position. So tell me about this dynamic.

I think X will be a better fit for this position. know and then but you know but then he then kind of said with that caveat in mind here are the good qualities of this student that the student he was writing for for that letter right but what he did was he tried to signal because he's like big he's full he's like an esteemed professor he tried to signal to the job search committee who knew him right?

Um, Who would respect him? Who respected him? 'cause he's a big name. It signaled to him who his preferred candidate was to make sure that his preferred candidate gets shortlisted even after he said, uh, to his other students who very likely did not know what this man did. Um, you know, it signaled to them who he thought needed to be in the shortlist.

He said yes to his students, right. And he said good things. But in all of their letters, there was that caveat. Um,

Nisha Nath: So, when, have you been in this situation, can I ask? Like, have you had to write for multiple,

Ethel Tungohan: I have,

Nisha Nath: disclose that you're writing for multiple

Ethel Tungohan: No, no. I think for me, I mean. Well, do I disclose to the committee or do I

Nisha Nath: to the student. Yeah.

Ethel Tungohan: hmm. I have disclosed to this, this, this hasn't happened that often, right? But I have disclosed to the student, I'm also writing a letter for so and so, um, but, you know, rest assured that I will be completely fair and I will make sure that I, I, I say good things, um, about both of you, right?

Like, you know, there's not going to be preferential treatment there. I will say that, um, my. PhD supervisor who I love, um, and who was a mentor to me. And, you know, we could disagree with this. We can talk about this more if you'd like, or listeners can like weigh in and, and email me and tell me what they think about it.

But his stance is if his supervisees are applying for the same job, he's not writing anyone else a letter.

Nisha Nath: Okay.

Ethel Tungohan: He thought that was ethical. That was the ethical way forward.

Nisha Nath: This is interesting. Yeah. I mean,

Ethel Tungohan: about that?

Nisha Nath: yeah, again, like there's a luxury that I have in not having been in that situation. So I can just kind of think of it in like, I don't know, almost hypotheticals. Okay. Oh, I don't know. I see like, I see the appeal of that for him in terms of like, like an ethical clarity, right?

There's a line that is drawn so that you're not in a challenging situation, but, but we also know that people come to their supervisors, um, you know, within a particular context and, you know, students don't always have access to good letter writers. So there's like a whole kind of economy to, to who, uh, Who needs a letter when and from whom?

And that can potentially cut off, um, you know, relationships and work that students have done for a particular prof or with a particular prof that they can no longer speak to. So I, to me, I think that in the decontextualized world, right, like I can understand that ethical clarity, but in the reality of what it means to be a grad student and have to work with multiple people, I think that probably would not be the path that I would choose.

Ethel Tungohan: And I think what's really kind of mind blowing too is that letter writers have such power, committee members and supervisors have such power that they can also determine if they would be okay with a student, with their student applying for a job, right? Because I've also heard of situations where the supervisor or committee members, the student approaches them and says, look, there's this job that's come up.

I want to apply for it. They're like, no. You're not ready. So I'm not going to write you a

Nisha Nath: Oh, okay. Hmm.

Ethel Tungohan: that's also, that's also an interesting dynamic for them for the supervisor. I'm assuming it's an ethical stance, right? Like, it's like, you're not ready. Let's just like hold your horses. Um, my approach is different and that I would say I'm not going to determine whether someone's ready or not.

Right? My role is to write a letter that speaks to their strengths. It's ultimately their decision. So. I don't know, have you heard, have you had similar kind of constraints like you've heard of in your time in the in this world?

Nisha Nath: I mean, I think, I think that's an interesting thing, right, in terms of like, you're not ready, hence I can't do this. And, you know, if you, uh, like, I, I see, I see one scenario in which someone is saying, you know what? Let's. We need to make you the strongest possible candidate before we, we put you out there, right?

And let me support you in that. Um, so I see one scenario where that happens with certain kinds of supervisors who can be like so helpful and so wonderful. Um, but yeah, that is a lot of arbitrary power and that can be, that can be wielded over a grad student, um, for a variety of reasons that, You know, that's not really the choice of a supervisor.

So, I mean, I think I'd be inclined to your approach, but also, yeah, as you probably would, too, be simultaneously saying, we need to get this part of your file strengthened, or let's think about doing this, or I want you to narrate this in this kind of way, because I think that will enhance your, your file.

So Yeah, yeah, these are, this is very interesting about like these discretionary moments in which supervisors, letter writers can wield so much, so much

Ethel Tungohan: wield so much power absolutely

Nisha Nath: Tell me what you've seen, though, with letters, because I feel like you You have seen some wild stuff in terms of letters that you have received. So like, obviously not specifics, but tell me like what, what you've seen in terms of great letters and then like horribly shitty letters.

Ethel Tungohan: so I think for great letters like you, I like letters that actually show that the letter writer knows the candidate, that there's detail there, that there's a lot of information about the candidates, um, work, that you can tell that this is not just like a rote, oh, this candidate received X mark in my class out of a class of X students, right?

That there's actually a relationship there. Um, and for me as well. Um, and again, it depends, right? Is it for a scholarship? Is it for grad school? Is it for, um, tenure and promotion? Right? Um, but I think what holds true universally is the more information there is about the candidate and the more, um, the more Uh, the letter writer can, can speak specifically to specific strengths, right?

Um, that I think is more convincing and that's, that's a good letter for me. Because then I can understand, you know, the candidate in relation to the scholarship or to the program. Um, bad letters. Well, I thought my anecdote was pretty bad. That's probably one of the worst. But another thing. That I'm just like, Jesus Christ, white profs, don't do this, right?

Like, I mean, we've all received kind of funding guidelines, like tri council guidelines on like not using gendered language, right? Like, being aware of the adjectives we tend to use for men versus women and some of the trigger words that show that you're actually being racist, right? Like, you know, describing certain candidates of color.

So seeing that they're well spoken. Is that really like, Okay. Is that really a good thing? Right? Um, so kind of interrogate your assumptions there as well. Um, I think, oh gosh, I mean, I feel like some of the letter writers I've encountered haven't read these guidelines. And so some of the worst ones are like, why are you commenting on the candidate's knowledge of English?

Nisha Nath: Yeah. Yeah.

Ethel Tungohan: Have you seen those?

Nisha Nath: I, I have not seen that in particular. Um, but because again, like I think you've seen more egregious things than I have.

Ethel Tungohan: So I've saw, I saw that. And I was like, okay, first of all, like the student, like, Is not, I'm just like, do you not have knowledge of countries beyond North America? Like, this is like, they're coming from a context where English is like, actually one of the national languages, right? Like, and also, you know what I, like, what are you talking about?

Like, you know what I mean? It's, this is a former colony of Britain, like, shut up, right? Like, so insulting. And also, it almost seemed as though I don't know, like, the compliments that they were giving weren't really compliments, right, like, talking about the candidate's cheerful demeanor, like, and the thing is, is that this candidate was a superstar, right, like, really fantastic scholarship, right, like, pathbreaking research, really amazing, so you didn't need to kind of talk about cheerfulness, right, like, even, I don't know, but I think for them, it was a compliment, but, um, , I dunno, for as a letter, as a letter reader, I'm like, I, is that, is that the compliment that you think it

Nisha Nath: No. No. I mean I think what's interesting too, you know as you're talking about this I've been thinking about like the letters that I've received and also I mean part of this is that you're not It's never just one letter, right? So you're reading these letters alongside each other, which is also, um, important because it shows, I mean, this can be a good thing for a candidate because I, I think the most egregious things that I have seen is when you have, literally, I've seen like, you know, a letter for a scholarship applicant, um, that is, Three short paragraphs, like in short, like two sentences each in the paragraphs compared to the other letter on their file, which is like three pages, right?

Um, but it's, it's, yeah, like, that's also something that is happening and I don't know. That A, that we receive training on how to write letters, but I also know that we don't receive training on how to receive and read these letters critically, um, and carefully, uh, in these roles that we, you know, find ourselves in where letters do matter.

I don't know. Do you have thoughts on that?

Ethel Tungohan: I have. A few thoughts, and I think you raised really important points. So first, I think if you're convening, say, a scholarship committee or an admissions committee, um, or a tenure and promotions committee, I think we can't assume that everyone's reading the letters the same way, right? So there has to be a conversation about the function the letters serve when evaluating the file.

Right? Like, it can't just be decontextualized, right? So everyone has to come to an agreement. Um, and secondly, with respect to training, I think it's also important to put into practice this, this notion that when you're being requested to write, when a student's requesting that you write a letter and you've never written a letter, you should, you should ask your peers to give you examples of letters of reference so you can model how to do that, right?

Because, I mean, some people don't know, and I had to learn by actually, Looking at other people's letters. Cause I don't, I mean, you know, letters serve different purposes and I didn't want to screw it

up. Right. Like, how did you learn how to write letters? Nisha?

Nisha Nath: It's such a good question. I, I mean, I think, I'll be honest, like, I think there's a, like, part of my positionality, um, has informed maybe how, not over the top, as in, like, effusive and, like, Uh, like, not, like, not helpfully detailed my letters are, but I think my positionality has certainly informed how rigorously I have always approached letter writing because I know the stakes matter, right?

And so I think a lot of it just came through my own experience of, like, how would I narrate myself? Um, and then how do I want to ensure that I'm going to narrate? this person. So there's that piece, right? And I think that that is probably real for a lot of us. Um, and then absolutely through reading other people's letters, right?

So being in a committee situation and then suddenly seeing what actual letters look like and it becomes like plain as day. what is good and what is not. Um, and then also through candid conversations with people in terms of like, how do you write a letter? Like how do you write a letter? Like what, how long are your letters?

How much time do you spend on your letters? Like I don't, I didn't know that at first. So those are questions that listeners might have too. So I'm curious for you, Ethel, like how long are your letters? How much time do you spend on letters?

Ethel Tungohan: So I, well, again, it depends, right? Um, but I think I write long letters, and I write detailed letters. And I think what you said, really resonated strongly, because I have read letters written about me that are good, but not really like, that's not going to get me the job, right? Um, and I've read letters about me that, um, Are still good, but short and I'm like, okay, but that's not fulfilling the function of what they're they're asking, right?

And so always when I write these letters, I'm thinking of how I if I were in that position would like to be read, right? Um, whether it's a scholarship application or a tenure in promotion, whatever, right? And I also, to be honest. Most of the people who ask me to write letters, um, are, uh, you know, racialized students, indigenous students, right?

And I can't take for granted the fact that, you know, that they might not receive the same glowing letters from other letter writers who might get them. write good things, but who aren't aware of the adjectives they use, right? And how those could be loaded, you know what I mean? And so there's always that like, layer of responsibility to make sure that the student or the candidate is represented ethically, right?

Um, and also because they do like, and you do as well, like non mainstream social science methods. Um, it's not just about the candidates attributes, but also saying, no, this research, it's not just like hippy dippy, right? Like there's actually a rigor behind it,

Nisha Nath: 100%. Yes, because that was the other thing that I wanted to chat with you about because one of the things that I kind of came to a little bit later in my letter writing is that, you know, of course, we're trying to make these candidates legible. Um, but we're also working in a context where there are these systemic biases against how candidates are read.

And so, you know, in some letters that I've written, I, I will be quite overt about how I narrate systemic biases. Um, and, and in others, I will, Be quite careful in, especially around like methodology for example, right? Um, in terms of thinking about what are the disciplinary forms of gatekeeping that are out there and how can I ensure that the committee understands that this candidate is rigorous, this candidate has like really important research.

Right. So I think, you know, one of my questions to you is do you think strategically about these letters as political sites where you're making these kind of interventions.

Ethel Tungohan: A hundred percent. And I find that sometimes I, okay, this is a little bit overkill, but I draw references in letters to literature, you know what

Nisha Nath: I do too. I do too. Yes.

Ethel Tungohan: It's not just like this candidate's excellent, but it's actually like, actually, um, if you have a look at, um, you know, Peregrine, Schwartz Shea, and Devorah Yano's interpretive methods, uh, this is actually a field. Like, you know what I mean?

Like, you just, like, you,

Nisha Nath: Yes.

Ethel Tungohan: because you can't take for granted that committees will understand this, right?

Um, And so it's a hell of a lot of work. Um, I know we have to wrap up, but one question, two questions, uh, that I had for you is first, um, what advice do you have for administrators who haven't thought of letters, specifically when it comes to the way they ask us to write letters, right? Because sometimes we get I'm like, what, like, what does that, like, what does that mean? Right. But also sense of humor.

Nisha Nath: Yeah. It's unbelievable. No.

Ethel Tungohan: like, I mean, how, like why? So, I mean, what advice would you give for administrators requesting these letters? Like, what are the things they need to know?

Nisha Nath: I mean, Okay, I find that a hard question, but I can say as a, as a prof, when I've received kind of like weird forms or things like that, I will do what I can to hack those forms, right? So like, so whether it means that I, I'm like, I'm sorry, I have, I'm having a problem with this form. I have to translate it into this like Word document where I can take like.

You know, the categories and put them on a different piece of paper and narrate them in the way that that I feel like I can speak to it. I have done that. And it's and it's been great. Right. It's worked fine. Um, and so I think it's I think it's like, in part, there's just a responsibility of of the letter writer to also be thinking creatively about how to, um, you know, Yeah, like hack these forms and be able to name the things that they know are important about a candidate.

But of course, yeah, there should be like, I don't know. Do you have advice like for administrators in terms of how to, how to frame these letters? Yeah.

Ethel Tungohan: I think hacking the form is interesting and useful advice. I think that, um, for professors, I mean, I'm not, I don't, I'm not bold enough to do this, but I've, I've heard of colleagues who were like, this criteria is bullshit, like, not bullshit, but they like, were like, they evaluate the candidate based on criteria, but actually, We then put on their own criteria in the actual letters, right, which I think is important.

Um, I think for administrators, um, it's also about intentionality, right? Like, you can't just write down resilience and sense of humor and assume that all of us understand what that means. In relation to the job or the program at hand, like we don't understand. So, so at minimum, you should provide examples, right?

Like, what do you mean by resilience? And also how loaded is that term, right? So, so you can't just assume that we're all at the same page. Um,

Nisha Nath: will say just on that, and I know we have to go, but, um, I think there's also something bigger and systemic that's happening, too, when we see that huge disjuncture between, um, these criteria that appear on these rubrics or forums and then how we want to narrate candidates, and I do think that that is in part also about, like, the neoliberal university, it's about the role of HR departments,

Ethel Tungohan: oh, yeah.

Nisha Nath: It's all of that that is also happening that is trying to massage us into something other than, you know, grad students or scholars or researchers into to these other kind of you know, people, clients, people in relationship to the university.

So I do think that there is something big happening when we see that kind of language appearing. And I do think that is why it is important to, to like, hack or name, um, when those categories are not okay. Like, they just also create harm in many respects.

Ethel Tungohan: Yeah, for sure. And I think the stomach piece is so important because I also find that this need for Rubrics ie like are they the top 10 percent top 20 percent a lot of this is driven by neoliberal Agendas as well before we log off Do you have a preference for how people request letters if students approach you or if a colleague's approach you?

What tips do you have for for people approaching letter writers?

Nisha Nath: I think I would say, so A, part of what I do, um, is that, like, just as my own responsibility in class, for example, I also, like, I open up the conversation around letters, right? Because not everybody knows that they can come to me for a letter, right? So setting up those parameters for, like, this is part of my job.

I am accountable to you. I write letters for people under X conditions, all of that. Like, I think there is some setup work that we can do in our classes too. Um, and then for me, it's just, um, candidates who are able, if possible, to like send all of their, like as many of their requests with the deadlines, the hyper, like the URLs to, to the position, their file.

Um, as much of it in one document as possible. Even a spreadsheet. I love a good spreadsheet. Right? Um, I like that because I also feel like then I can be accountable to that too. Right? How about you?

Ethel Tungohan: all of that plus I think And this is true for not just letter writers, but people requesting that they give comments on chapters and things like that, like taking into account time, right? Like, it's hard for me to turn around a letter if the deadline's in two days, right? Like, and so actually at minimum, I would like three weeks.

I mean, obviously that gets fudged depending on, because some of these job ads come out and it's like due like two weeks later, right? But giving. Um, your letter writers as much time as possible so they can build that into their schedules. I think that for me is the main

Nisha Nath: I love that. Yep. That's very true.

Ethel Tungohan: Awesome. Well, this was a quickie.

Nisha Nath: Oh, Ethel.

Ethel Tungohan: Ooh, uh, thanks Nisha. Okay,

Nisha Nath: Okay, bye.

Ethel Tungohan: As I wade through the letters I have to write for my students for this cycle of graduate school admissions, I will be thinking about the conversation that Nisha and I had.

Are there ways to write letters so they are more legible to admissions committees? How can we hack reference forms and actually use their letters to focus on the candidate's strengths beyond predetermined criteria that some programs set? I'm still, in truth, shaking my head that I was asked to rank a student on the basis of their sense of humor.

Administrators listening, please be more intentional when making such requests as part of your assessment. And that's Academic Aunties. Please spread the word about our podcast. We're on all social media. And as an independent podcast, we appreciate your support.

We have tons of Academic Aunties swag that you can purchase. Check out our website AcademicAunties.com to see how you can support our work. You can also consider becoming a Patreon supporter, where contributions go right into the production costs of the podcast. I want to especially thank our newest patron, Anna, for her generous contributions. We really and truly appreciate it. This episode of Academic Aunties was produced by me, Dr. Nisha Nath, and Wayne Chu. Tune in next time when we talk to more Academic Aunties. Until then, take care, be kind to yourself, and don't be an asshole.