Re: Letters of Recommendation

Subject: Re: Letters of Recommendation
From: Robert Plamondon <robert -at- PLAMONDON -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 07:02:02 -0700

My answers:

1. Never look for subtleties in the writing of people you don't know. Doing
so assumes
that the person writing the letter has a completely valid assessment of
the appicant,
meaning that both the text and the subtext contain useful information,
and that the
person writing the letter did so with such transparent clarity that all
the impressions
you pick up are correct impressions. I think that both assumptions are
ridiculous.
In particular, analyzing a stranger's letter for coded silences is going
to yield
random results. Most people do not provide meticulous coverage of all
aspects of
a person's job-related existence in a letter of recommendation.

By the way, I question your presumption that the applicant requested
frequent time
off. You could just as easily conclude that both writers were impressed
by the way
that nothing interfered with Jane's punctuality except for things she
scheduled in
advance (the first letter was explicit on this point; the second was
ambiguous).
While the rest of us suffer from oversleeping, car breakdown, heavy
traffic, and
other sources of delay, Jane seems miraculously immune.

2. There's no correlation between the quality of writing and the sincerity
of the writer.
The correlation between the quality of writing and the quality of
judgment of the writer
is questionable. Some people whose judgment I value very highly can't
write their way
out of a paper bag. Writing quality is a metric that's useful only when
evaluating other
writers, and even then it should be applied very narrowly. My own habit
of using a
writer's resume as a writing sample is fraught with peril.

3. Non-writers are non-writers. Unless their work is given to you in a
professional
context -- that is, they want you to publish it -- evaluating it as if it
were a
piece of professional writing instead of reading it for content is a
whimsical
practice that will give random results.

A letter of recommendation is a weak tool, but a useful one. Many people
can't get anyone
to write one for them, because no one likes them well enough to go to the
trouble. This
serves as a screen. (It's a flawed screen, though -- a person you'd love to
work with may
have had bad luck and been employed only in places where she wasn't
appreciated.) Many people
who do write them aren't very enthusiastic about the employee, and it shows.
On the other
hand, many people can't sound enthusiastic in their writing no matter what,
so this doesn't
get much weight.

The main thing with a letter of recommendation is to pick up the phone and
call the person
who wrote it. Have the usual list of questions. People sometimes write
glowing letters of
recommendation but crack as soon as someone checks up with perfectly
straightforward, civil
inquiries. Other times, the person who wrote a bland letter is really
wildly enthusiastic
but can't convey this in print. Call.

But remind yourself, both before and after, that you're the one whose
impression counts.
Even strongly held, convincingly presented opinions of people who know the
applicant well are often dead wrong. Many of the really stellar workers I
know were at
one time trapped in dead-end positions under abusive bosses. Those bosses'
opinions
represented nothing but a waste of oxygen, but such people are often
convincing speakers
(or they would have been fired long ago).

-- Robert
--
Robert Plamondon * High-Tech Technical Writing
36475 Norton Creek Road * Blodgett OR 97326
541-453-5841 * Fax: 541-453-4139
mailto:robert -at- plamondon -dot- com * http://www.pioneer.net/~robertp


From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=



Previous by Author: Re: WORD, A Word Processor. Was: The Tools Tech Writers Use
Next by Author: Re: Signal Timing Diagrams
Previous by Thread: Update to previous message re: Menu procedures
Next by Thread: Re: Letters of Recommendation


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads