Choosing the right recommenders—whether they be professors,
employers, or other types—is critically important.

Approaching potential recommenders must be done carefully.
—Give them a chance to say no.
—Explain why you want a law degree, and why you have
chosen the schools you have.
—Explain how important their recommendations will be.
—Brief them fully regarding what they should write.
—Emphasize telling relevant, rich stories.

Make their job as easy as possible.

Consider whether you will benefit from supplemental recommendations.

For those of you who view the recommendations as little more than a bothersome formality—akin to the deans’ letter—this chapter should quickly convince you otherwise. Applicants complain that recommendations are a waste of time because “all applicants can find someone to say something good about them.” These applicants are right to believe that most people can find a supporter, but they are wrong about the importance of the recommendations.

WHY ARE RECOMMENDATIONS REQUIRED?

To understand how crucial a recommendation can be, let us compare two applicants, John and Laura. They both went to well-known schools of Ivy League caliber and have high LSAT scores. Both are twenty-five and have been working for three years. Both presented solid essays; both are in the running for admission. As is often the case in law school admissions, officers might be faced with two such students but only one slot. In such a situation, when all else is equal, a recommendation can be the distinguishing factor in an acceptance. Compare and contrast these two letters of recommendation:

Recommendation for John:

I had the pleasure of teaching John two different classes: his freshman writing seminar (required of all students at the college) and a course on Southern African American authors that he took during his junior year. I occasionally had coffee with John during his years as an undergraduate here and have kept in touch with him since he has left. I thus feel well qualified to address his candidacy to your law school.

One look at John’s grades (and his LSAT score) and you will see why he graduated in the top 10% of his class. He is bright, thoughtful, and articulate; he often stimulated discussion in the classroom; he has a wonderful command of language. He never received below a B+ on a paper in my class (I am considered the toughest grader in the English department). I feel confident in John’s ability to succeed academically at a

Recommendation for Laura:

Laura undoubtedly belongs in your next class of promising future lawyers.

A student like Laura comes around only once or twice in a professor’s entire career. I have been teaching at the college level for 21 years and have seen such a student only once before I met Laura. (That former student, by the way, is now on the Philosophy faculty at UC Berkeley, a star in his field, and also sits on several boards of directors of major corporations. If my view of Laura is anywhere near correct, you can assume that she is also headed toward great successes in life.) I taught two classes to Laura before becoming her senior thesis advisor, for which I spent the better part of an academic year working closely with her. We keep in close touch today, even seeing each other occasionally. I feel well qualified to write this recommendation on her behalf. law school such as yours. Knowing how active and curious he is, I’m sure he will contribute to your various journals and even make law review.

John is also quite a soccer player. Although I don’t follow soccer very closely (fencing is my thing), I went to a few games when John was on the team here, and was always impressed with his athletic prowess and his team cooperation skills. I know that he was highly regarded by his teammates and coaches while here; in fact, he even won the “Spirit Award” during his senior year.

Truly, I can’t say enough good things about John. He would be a wonderful addition to your school.

Laura excelled well beyond other students in both classes I taught her. In the first, “The History of the Industrial Revolution in America,” she wrote with such extraordinary insight on a number of topics in the mid-term exam that I approached her about the possibility of her doing research for me on an upcoming book. (This kind of thing is all too rare. Never before had I sought out a particular student to perform research for me.) Accordingly, Laura did a superb job collecting and analyzing materials for me on western railroad development and its effect on Native peoples. She unearthed several unstudied documents showing that seven members of a particular tribe in Wyoming were actually promoters of the railroad companies and their plans for expansion. Always curious and up for a challenge, Laura chose Indian collaboration with white settlers on rail development as the topic of her thesis. I applauded her choice; it was novel and would require much original research, not something that every college senior is ready or able to tackle.

As soon as she began her preliminary studies, Laura ran up against two enormous obstacles, which I believed even she would not be able to surmount. First, the Library of Congress had not declassified certain documents that Laura needed to access in order to complete her study successfully. Second, a well-known Native American professor in our department heard of Laura’s research and tried to persuade her against pursuing it, believing that her findings might jeopardize the strong perception that the particular tribe under study was particularly recalcitrant, often able to halt or even reverse the white man’s progress. This particular professor, as part of the History Department’s thesis committee, would be one of the faculty members responsible for reviewing and approving Laura’s thesis at the end of her senior year. Although I obviously disagreed with my colleague’s position—I was in fact outraged that a faculty member would try to stop honest and valuable research from taking place because of his own contemporary agenda—I also believed that, realistically speaking, going against his wishes was ill-advised. Looking at these two ominous obstacles, I actually suggested to Laura that we find another topic. But she decided, against all odds, to persist with her original topic.

Laura managed to overcome both problems thrown in her way, although neither was easy to do. First, she petitioned the Library of Congress to declassify the specific documents she needed. She wrote a persuasive letter explaining the historical value of her research and the new light it could shed upon many different aspects of America’s past. The maturity she demonstrated in writing her plea and then campaigning about the campus to get prominent research faculty (as well as students and administration members) to sign the petition on her behalf was remarkable. I have never seen someone go after a goal with such ardor. She eventually accumulated over 1,000 signatures before she set off for Washington, DC, to present the petition in person and argue her case, if necessary. The student newspaper wrote a feature article, and several updates, on Laura and her cause. The entire campus was impressed by her efforts. The Library consented and she was allowed access to the documents she wanted to study.

In the second case, Laura played her cards well and, again, showed great maturity in dealing with my colleague. She wrote him a letter laying out the reasons she believed her topic to be worthy of study. She also explained that she was personally a defender of Native rights and culture, in no way wanting or intending to do harm to the tribe’s legacy. By highlighting her own contributions to Native study, she showed my colleague that she indeed had no evil agenda to pursue. She convinced him that the research was merely in pursuit of the truth, and convinced him that it was unlikely it would harm the reputation of contemporary Natives. My colleague, though of course still wary, appreciated Laura’s attention to his concerns. Although a tough questioner in all thesis presentations, he judged her fairly. In the end, he was very impressed and pleased with her work. He even showed up at the graduation party her parents gave for her, indicating that the two had indeed become friends after the disagreement. Laura’s interpersonal skills are clearly well developed. She holds her own, yet is appreciative of others’ opinions and stakes, always giving attention where it is due. She is certainly stubborn, but she is also sensitive.

Laura’s thesis was the best I have ever supervised. Although she entered a completely new area of study, meaning that there will long be unanswered questions and more room for research, she covered a lot of territory. She made convincing conjectures about the motives of the seven natives who supported the expansion of the western line, the exact nature of their collaboration with the white man, how their collaboration with the enemy affected their relations with fellow tribe members, and how it affected the future of the tribe. Her thesis required both an enormous amount of original research and a keen ability to analyze sparsely recorded data to come up with an accurate picture of history. Her writing, too, is better than that of most of our junior faculty. Moreover, and particularly important to her future in a law career, her passions about Native rights and culture today did not cloud her judgment or her ability to look accurately at the historical record. She was an impartial historian, willing to face up to evidence that she would have preferred to have been different.

Laura is not just an intellectual powerhouse (though that she is). She is also simply one of the finest young people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. Her fire and enthusiasm in academics is matched by a similar zest for life in her other endeavors. She is thoughtful and warm, ready to share her emotions or lend an ear when it is needed. She became a very close friend of my family’s during her senior year, and my kids (who still see Laura now and then) miss her baked treats and her skill as the best kick-the-can player they’ve ever known. She became so endeared to my wife and me that we used to leave our children with Laura when we went away. I miss being able to go on vacation knowing that my children are with someone responsible, mature, fun, and smart.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any more information about this wonderful candidate.

Which one—John or Laura—would you select? Laura wins out easily, appearing to be the stronger candidate if we compare the two letters of recommendation. She may not even, in fact, be the stronger candidate, but this finely executed recommendation tips the balance well in her favor. Although John got his recommender to say good things about him, Laura got a lot more mileage out of her recommendation. She chose the right person—someone who could share classroom as well as personal experiences about her, and offer compelling and interesting anecdotes. Furthermore, Laura influenced the professor to include the right information to support her own positioning effort. The letter offers insight that goes well beyond regurgitating already known facts and assumptions.

The rest of this chapter is devoted to analyzing how to get your best supporters to do the same for you.

WHAT ADMISSIONS DEANS SAY ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations give us the opportunity to see what ostensibly fair-minded people think of you. There are a few levels of importance to this. First, there’s the substance of what someone said. That’s very important—and the more substantive your recommender’s comments, the better. Second, it shows something about your judgment. Who did you choose to write recommendations for you? Finally, there’s a process for getting someone to write a good recommendation letter for you. You have to schedule time with them and give them some information, especially if you want it to be consistent with the rest of your application. Showing that you can navigate this process successfully demonstrates another set of skills and capabilities. Josh Rubenstein, Harvard

A negative recommendation can certainly break an application, so applicants need to choose their recommenders carefully. Anne Richard, George Washington Letters from professors can add a lot to the picture of your academic performance. They know the kinds of things that law schools and law faculties will be interested in. They can show what kind of student you are, what your strengths (and weaknesses) are. For instance, they can describe in detail your writing ability and analytical skills. They can also discuss your class demeanor—your conduct and civility in class are incredibly important when it comes to assessing the contribution you are likely to make in law school. Professional recommendations, on the other hand, can show your impact on the organization and those around you. They can also show in what way, and to what extent, you are a team player. Todd Morton, Vanderbilt

WHAT ADMISSIONS COMMITTEES LEARN FROM RECOMMENDATIONS

YOUR CLAIMS ARE TRUE

Recommendations are examined first for the extent to which they confirm and support your claims and your positioning. If your essay states that you are an indefatigable scholar, tirelessly researching both sides of an issue, the admissions officers reading your file will look closely to see if your philosophy professor backs this up.

YOU HAVE MANY QUALIFICATIONS

Recommenders are asked to rate you in many areas, from written expression to initiative, from analytical thinking to maturity. Recommendations are an opportunity to provide more information about you, preferably illustrative rather than merely factual. Ideally, they function as a mirror image of the personal statement—a different (but equally positive) view of the same person.

THERE IS MORE TO LEARN ABOUT YOU THAN WHAT IS COVERED IN THE ESSAYS

Because you are limited in what you can include in your personal statement, it is difficult to present everything that might make you a desirable candidate. Therefore, it is important that your recommendations fill in the gap. By collaborating with your recommenders, you can use their letters to elaborate on areas of your candidacy that you were not able to cover in your portion of the application.

YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS HAVE IMPRESSED OTHERS

A recommender’s positive comments show the admissions office that you have made an impression on others and ensure that your own self-descriptions are valid.

YOU ARE NOT HOPELESSLY INTROVERTED

Law schools prefer optimistic, extroverted candidates. A good recommendation can show that you are at ease in various social settings and are able to develop healthy relationships with others.

YOU CAN GET WHAT YOU WANT—SUBTLY

You must decide who should write on your behalf, determine what you want said about you, and get your recommenders to say what it is that you want said. Furthermore, you must make sure the letters are sent in on time. Typically, these are people over whom you have no authority, so you will have to use influence rather than command. The recommendation process, therefore, is a test of your ability to persuade.

THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT INFLUENCE YOUR ACADEMIC OR EXTRACURRICULAR PERFORMANCE

Recommendations are a good place for shedding light on certain anomalies or special circumstances that might negatively influence your record. A professor can note that you are the only person in his tenure at the college successfully to handle taking a difficult language from scratch while also playing varsity sports and majoring in mechanical engineering. Thus, your modest GPA should be viewed in this abnormal context.

YOU CAN ACCURATELY EVALUATE OTHERS AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF YOU

If you end up choosing someone who writes a mediocre recommendation, you will be doubted on many counts—including your judgment. It may even be assumed that you simply could not find two people who would say something good about you. This assumption is likely to kill your chances of admission.

One of the telltale signs that an applicant is not strong enough, or has too little experience, is that the recommenders and the applicant himself all tell the same stories. This suggests that the applicant has had only limited success.

WHO SHOULD WRITE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS?

Selecting appropriate recommenders involves sifting multiple factors. In general, you will be expected to submit recommendations from people who know you and are well placed to address the key issues concerning your candidacy. You will want them to state that you have the appropriate intellectual ability, self-discipline, and character to succeed at School X. The obvious choice—which any school’s admission information will quickly tell you—is a professor who knows you well. (There are exceptions to this rule, which will be discussed in the next section.)

If there is not a wealth of obvious candidates, then your choice is relatively easy. However, it is to your advantage to be able to pick and choose. For those of you who are reading this ahead of the game, and have not yet forged relationships with two or three appropriate professors, for instance, start now. Consult Appendix VII, “Getting a Great Professorial Recommendation,” for more information.

AN ADMISSIONS DEAN DISCUSSES CULTIVATING RECOMMENDERS

Particularly early in college it’s good to think about whose courses you want to take—and then about your conduct in those courses. As a general rule, the best recommendations come from professors who have taught you in several courses and worked with you over a sufficient period of time to be able to offer real insights into you and your performance. Todd Morton, Vanderbilt

If you are choosing among numerous possibilities, follow these rules:

1. Choose people who know you well. Do not choose the Nobel Prize–winning chair of the English department if all he is going to say is that you sat in the front row and seemed to be paying attention. Instead, choose people who can make the recommendation credible and powerful by illustrating the points they make with anecdotes that show you at your best. Need we say it? The people who will be able to do this are those who know you well.

2. Choose people who genuinely like you. Why? People who like you will take the time to write a good recommendation. This is impressive in its own right. A recommendation that looks as though it took only five minutes to write suggests that that is exactly how much time the recommender felt you deserved. In contrast, a recommendation that looks carefully done and well thought out suggests that the recommender is committed to helping you. One other reason for choosing someone who likes you: She or he will try to put a positive spin on things, choosing examples that show you in a good light and describing them as positively as possible. Someone who does not much care may well write the first thing that comes to mind.

3. Choose people who can write well. Do not assume that all professors are created equal, particularly when it comes to articulating themselves. Pay attention, for example, to the written comments your professors leave on your papers. How eloquent—and pertinent—are their critiques? The last thing you want is a recommender who, being unable to express himself well, is consequently unable to convey his strong, positive view of you.

4. Choose people from a range of fields and backgrounds. If you are sending schools more than one recommendation letter, be sure to choose people who will be able to provide different—complementary—profiles of you. Selecting two English professors who specialized in Chaucerian literature, for example, will very likely make for two dangerously similar letters. Law schools will wonder about the depth and breadth of your skills and interests, and if you are capable of interacting with more than one type of person.

If you have been out of school for some time, consider submitting a combination of professorial and employer recommendations.

5. Choose people of different genders. This is particularly true if you look like someone who may not do well under the supervision of people of a certain gender (if you are a male army lieutenant, for example, consider having the female captain write a letter of recommendation). This rule is not hard and fast, however; only select on the basis of gender if it is otherwise a close call.

6. Choose people who can address one or more of the key subjects: your brains, your character, your professional success, or your leadership skills.

Obviously, not just any professor or employer will do. Choose someone who has seen your abilities in more than one format. A thesis advisor, for example, fits the bill perfectly—someone who knows your writing intimately, and has heard you defend it verbally; someone who has watched you pull together a brilliant project; someone who knows your ability to digest a large amount of material. If it has been a long time since you have been in school, or your thesis advisor disliked you or passed away, you may have to find a substitute. Anyone who has seen you work on Brains. The ideal person can address the following:

➤ Academic achievement

➤ Analytical ability

➤ Quantitative skills

➤ Originality

➤ Healthy skepticism

➤ Imagination and creativity

➤ Communication skills (written and oral)

➤ Capacity for independent work

➤ Research skills

➤ Effectiveness in class discussions, debates, meetings, and so on

➤ Problem-solving skills

➤ Thoroughness

➤ Ability to synthesize material

difficult intellectual challenges is a possible recommender. This might be someone who taught several courses you have recently taken to improve your knowledge in a field related to your career, someone who has taught seminars to your department, or even a manager under whom you have done intellectually challenging work.

One or both of the people you have chosen to recommend you on issues of professional success and brains should be able to address the character issue, too. In other words, you do not need a spiritual or moral leader to address issues of character. The person you select, however, must have seen you in a large number of different circumstances to be able to address these broad issues; his or her knowledge of you may have to be deeper than that required to address your intellectual abilities, for example.

Character. The ideal person can address the following:

➤ Dependability

➤ Motivation and sense of initiative

➤ Honesty and integrity

➤ Sense of humor

➤ Self-discipline

➤ Energy

➤ Perseverance and work ethic

➤ Independence

➤ Potential for growth

➤ Concern for justice

➤ Interpersonal relations

Professional success. The ideal person can address the following:

➤ Overall work habits

➤ Self-confidence and poise

➤ Creativity

➤ Thoughtfulness

➤ Ability to acknowledge valuable inputs

➤ Ability to work with others

➤ Ability to motivate others

➤ Ability to make wise decisions

➤ Ability to retain self-control under stressful conditions

➤ Communication skills

➤ Negotiation skills

➤ Conflict-resolution skills

➤ Organizational and planning abilities

➤ Ability to manage a budget

➤ Leadership qualities

➤ Ability to analyze difficult problems

➤ Overall potential for a career in law

The person most likely to be able to assess your professional success—and therefore potential—is your current employer, preferably one who has seen you in operation over a period of time. You may not be able to use your current employer, however. If not, your next best choice might be a prior employer, someone to whom your boss reports (and who has seen your work on a number of occasions), a client, or even a competitor or rival (such as one of your peers). If you do not choose your current boss, or someone else who is an obvious choice, it will be helpful for you to explain why you have chosen not to have the obvious choice write on your behalf.

The leadership attributes might be evident in your professional success, as highlighted above, or in another setting. Thus, you might choose to have an employer, head of a charitable organization for which you volunteer, or faculty advisor to a club you ran at college emphasize your leadership qualities.

IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO USE EMPLOYERS AS RECOMMENDERS?

Yes. Although admissions directors often state that they prefer to receive letters of recommendation written by professors, law schools are slowly shifting toward a professionally oriented model. More than half of the top schools state very explicitly in their admissions information that they accept, and find value in, recommendations from employers. Columbia, for instance, requires that those working full-time submit a letter from their employer (or commanding officer). Given that law is much more of a business than ever before—in conjunction with the fact that the age of the average law student is rising—an applicant’s professional success is highly relevant. Firms desire mature people with real-world experience and savvy; consequently, law schools are seeking older applicants who possess these qualities and experiences. What all of this amounts to is an increase in the value of employer recommendations.

Leadership skills. These may be evident from your professional success, as highlighted above, or in a school or extracurricular setting:

➤ Achievement in elected or appointed positions

➤ Ability to motivate others

➤ Decision-making ability

➤ Team-building ability

➤ Responsibility to subordinates

➤ Priority-setting ability

➤ Goal-setting ability

➤ Ability to adapt to and lead change

➤ Commitment to a vision

➤ Ability to develop subordinates (and others)

➤ Embodiment (and encouragement) of values

➤ Ability to develop a sense of value and purpose in work

➤ Integrity

➤ Internal drive

➤ Maturity

MAKING THE MOST OF AN EMPLOYER RECOMMENDATION

Employer recommendations are particularly valuable when:

➤ They address what law schools value most: analytical skills, teamwork and leadership abilities, and written and oral communication skills. (For a discussion of what makes your job performance noteworthy, consult “Describe Your Current Job” in Chapter 10.)

➤ They are written by someone whose credentials or position make it likely the recommendation will be taken seriously by the professors on admission committees.

➤ They are written by someone with direct, personal interaction with the applicant, rather than from the head of the company or department who barely knew him or her.

➤ The work experience on which they are based exceeds one year in length.

Depending on the results you have achieved in your line of work, a recommendation written by an employer may very well be superb—and, in some cases, necessary. There are two reasons for this. First, your most recent accomplishments can lessen the sting from undergraduate mistakes. Second, you want to highlight a job that provided excellent preparation for a legal career. If you feel your employer has a keen understanding of your intellectual abilities and capacity for law school work, then his or her recommendation may make all the difference in your application.

There are other notable reasons why a letter by an employer may be necessary. The older you are, the less likely a professor will remember you enough—if at all—to write a detailed, sensitive critique of your intellect, analytical skills, and potential as a lawyer. Additionally, the greater the breach between college and law school, the more likely it is that you will have matured into a very different person, with honed skills and altered goals. In fact, if you have worked for five or more years outside of college, and have no letter from an employer regarding that part of your life, it is likely to look suspicious.

OTHER CRITERIA IN CHOOSING A RECOMMENDER

1. Choose someone able to support your positioning. If you claim to be a hard-core philanthropist and public interest advocate, at least one of your recommenders should be able to discuss your serious commitment to the public good. Failure to choose an employer, colleague, or client who has seen this type of work over a reasonable period of time would raise a major red flag.

2. Choose someone able to address any potential weak spot in your application. If you are an engineer worried that the admissions committee will presume you to be humorless, as we discussed earlier in the book, this is your chance to prove what an engaging and funny fellow you really are.

3. Beware the naysayers! Certain personal characteristics suggest that a person will be effective in their support. Someone who is exuberant about life in general will be a good choice as she is likely to describe an average performer as marvelous, whereas a dour complainer might describe the performer as terrible. Similarly, an articulate person is likely to write a more impressive recommendation than a poorly spoken one.

4. Seek out the voice of experience. Be wary about choosing someone who is not obviously more senior, since it will look strange to have someone junior to you writing on your behalf.

5. Timeliness counts. Choose someone who is reliable and therefore likely to complete your recommendations on time.

6. Where did the recommenders go to school? People who themselves graduated from a top college and, preferably, a top graduate or professional school as well can speak convincingly about your relative abilities.

THE DEAN’S LETTER

A throwback to the time when college deans were expected to know a good deal about the students assigned to them, the “dean’s letter” is still required by some law schools. They do not expect to learn much from it, given that deans seldom know much of value about their students; instead, schools generally use it to make sure applicants have not misbehaved at college. Although some schools require a dean’s letter as part of their application, others require it only of accepted applicants—that is, after the candidate has been admitted. (Even at these law schools, however, candidates who have faced disciplinary action during college are generally required to submit a dean’s letter as part of their initial application.)

ADMISSIONS DEANS COMMENT ON DEANS’ LETTERS

Often a registrar fills this out. We want to make sure that there has been no trouble during college. It’s also meant to be a check on what applicants say about their record. It’s rarely a detailed letter based upon close knowledge of the applicant. Faye Deal, Stanford

Few deans have personal relationships with their students now, so they seldom provide in-depth evaluations to us. Therefore, the dean’s letter functions only as a disciplinary clearance—an assurance that an applicant hasn’t been in trouble at college. Susan Palmer, Virginia

We don’t require a dean’s letter unless there has been an academic or disciplinary problem. In such a case, we need to understand what happened. We also require a statement from the applicant about it in addition to the dean’s letter. William Hoye, Duke

We don’t require a dean’s letter. Todd Morton, Vanderbilt

ADMISSIONS DEANS GIVE ADVICE ON WHOM YOU SHOULD CHOOSE AS A RECOMMENDER

GENERAL COMMENTS

Recommendations from employers are useful after a couple of years of work, not after six months. Joyce Curll, Harvard

We require two letters. We prefer one to be from an academic; if someone is coming straight from college, then both can be from professors. If someone has been out of school five-plus years, it’s OK to submit only (or primarily) work-related ones. Most applicants, by the way, submit three recommendations. Faye Deal, Stanford

The best recommender is likely to be a professor or someone who has attended a strong law school. I do like to see serious letters from businesspeople, of course, which is to say letters that are detailed in regard to the candidate’s analytical and business prowess. Elizabeth Rosselot, Boston College

We prefer recommendations from professors of upper-level, rather than introductory, courses. The best recommendations come from professors you’ve worked with closely and extensively, such as a thesis advisor or someone for whom you did a substantial research project. They can evaluate your work and also make more personal comments about you. The least helpful kind of recommendation is from a famous person who is friends with your parents (e.g., the senator who writes that “[Applicant] comes from a well-respected family . . .”). Megan Barnett, Yale Find a professor you connect with: someone who can not only talk about you in an academic context but can also put a human face on the application for us. This may mean choosing a TA instead of a famous professor, because the TA has read your papers, graded your exams, seen you in a small section, and had all those informal conversations with you. Chloe T. Reid, USC

If someone says, “I’ll get to it in a few weeks,” it’s a red flag showing he or she doesn’t want to write for you. Anne Richard, George Washington

I like to get letters from BC law students. This is more powerful than having a student just drop by to praise someone, given that it takes more time and effort to write a letter—and these students have precious little time. Elizabeth Rosselot, Boston College

We get a lot of letters from politicians. It’s more helpful if a person you worked for directly on the politician’s staff can comment. Similarly, in a large course a graduate assistant who knows your work well from a recitation section is sometimes a better choice than the course professor might be Kenneth Kleinrock, NYU

MUST YOU USE A PROFESSOR?

If you are coming directly from college, we greatly prefer to see two letters from professors. If you have been out of college for two years or more, we still want to see at least one letter from a professor. If you have been out of college for several years, though, a professorial recommendation is less relevant to your candidacy. Derek Meeker, Penn

Former professors, especially those within an applicant’s degree field, provide greater insight into an applicant’s academic strength, analytical ability, and ability to perform well in a competitive graduate-level program. On the other hand, if an applicant has taken a lot of large classes, and has limited ability to develop a strong relationship with his/her professor, it is appropriate to have a graduate assistant or TA provide a recommendation. Monica Ingram, Texas

It is important to use a professor. We need to judge how well you will do in a new, rigorously academic environment, which your prior professors are uniquely placed to help us do. Ann Killian Perry, Chicago

ADVICE FOR OLDER APPLICANTS

If someone has been out of college for only a few years it is usually still possible to get an academic recommendation, although it’s not absolutely critical. For someone who has been out longer, I would expect a letter from a current employer—or former supervisor if you can’t reveal that you’re thinking of leaving. Kenneth Kleinrock, NYU

Letters from professors are preferred; the second best are from employers or colleagues. The balance shifts the older someone is. Edward Tom, Boalt Hall (Berkeley)

It is not at all necessary that a thirty-year-old applicant submit a recommendation from an undergraduate professor. Don Rebstock, Northwestern

If you use recommendations from the workplace, ask that they give concrete examples that will help us predict your academic performance in law school. For example, your participation in meetings might suggest how you would engage in classroom discussion. Megan A. Barnett, Yale

RECOMMENDERS TO BE AVOIDED

Applicants need to choose recommenders carefully. For example, I see a lot of letters saying that the applicant should apply to a school a tier below Stanford, or that Stanford would be a real stretch for him. There are also quite a few saying that they don’t recommend the applicant. When you decide on the recommender, make sure to ask him/her if they are willing to write a supportive letter. If the response you get back is less than enthusiastic, politely remove yourself from the situation and find someone else. Faye Deal, Stanford

It’s a rare circumstance when a high school teacher’s recommendation will help you. Your relatives have to like you, so their comments are also seldom of much value. Kenneth Kleinrock, NYU

We’re pretty good at reading between the lines—when recommenders have felt compelled to write on someone’s behalf without being able to really support them. William Hoye, Duke

Regrettably, a common mistake made by applicants is to solicit recommendations from individuals, often in high places in the worlds of business, politics, and academe, who are unable to comment meaningfully about the applicant because their relationship with the applicant has been limited in time and by little direct contact, much less real interaction with the candidate. Often, in fact, the “celebrity” recommender knows the applicant’s family better than the applicant himself or herself. Jim Milligan, Columbia

One of the classic mistakes is to choose a famous professor despite having only taken his or her large lecture course. Todd Morton, Vanderbilt

HOW MANY RECOMMENDERS?

Most of the top law programs in the country require two letters of recommendation. (See chart below.) Michigan, NYU, and UCLA require one; George Washington, Hastings, and Texas do not require any. Numerous programs state both the required and the maximum number. Chicago, for example, requires two but will accept as many as four. Thus, almost every program encourages recommendations, extra or otherwise. If you are applying to Hastings, by all means submit one or two letters. It would be a missed opportunity if you did not do so—unless you really have no one to say something positive about you.

Of course, it can be dangerous to go overboard: Your judgment will be called into question. If the extra recommendation you are considering reiterates points that have been made elsewhere, do not submit it. On the other hand, if your recommender can add a truly different and important perspective on your candidacy, by all means submit it.

RECOMMENDATION REQUIREMENTS

ADMISSIONS DEANS CONSIDER HOW MANY RECOMMENDATIONS YOU SHOULD SUBMIT

We require two but accept up to four recommendations. Make sure that each extra recommendation offers an additional, different insight about you. Ann Killian Perry, Chicago

You need to make sure that any recommendations you submit are strong ones. Request a copy of each so that you can be sure of their strength because even people who mean well can end up not helping your candidacy. Monica Ingram, Texas

We require two recommendations and you can submit up to four if you think the extra ones add value. Some people do have four recommenders who can add value, but two recommendations are absolutely sufficient. Once you go beyond two letters, they really should be different. For example, if you have two academic letters, you may want to supplement with an employer recommendation. If you’re asking four professors from the same field to write for you, that may call your judgment into question. Josh Rubenstein, Harvard

A twenty-two-year-old applicant would be wise to keep to two recommendations. Someone who has been working for three or four years might want to give us three if, for example, he or she has two faculty recommendations on file and also submits one from an employer. Elizabeth Rosselot, Boston College

We require one letter; people often give us two or three. But, there is a point at which you may be demonstrating poor judgment in submitting too many. Kenneth Kleinrock, NYU

APPROACHING A POTENTIAL RECOMMENDER

Ideally, you should start the process about three months before the recommendation deadline. Begin your overture to a potential supporter by scheduling a thirty- to forty-five-minute conference with her. (You will get a better response by having this meeting in person rather than by telephone.) Run it as a proper business meeting, with a typed agenda and outline of each matter you want to share. Explain briefly where you wish to go in your career and what it will take to get there. Explain how you plan to fully take advantage of a law degree. Then tell her what is required in the application process, being careful to explain how important the applications are, including the recommendations. Tell her that you have been considering having her write on your behalf.

Now comes one of the critical parts of the recommendation process. Make sure each recommender is going to write a very favorable recommendation for you. The way to be sure of this is by giving the person a chance to beg off if she is unable to write on your behalf. If she is uncomfortable about writing for you, because she knows that honesty would require her to be less than highly favorable, she will take this opportunity to suggest that someone else might be more appropriate. If she gives this kind of answer, do not press her. Thank her for her time and move on.

If, on the other hand, she is encouraging, give her a further briefing. Tell her how much work will be involved, noting that you will make the process as painless as possible for her, thereby limiting her involvement to something under three hours. (If time is a major issue for her, suggest that you write a first draft that she can then quickly “adapt.” See the discussion below in this regard.) Tell her which schools you are considering, and the reasons for each. Explain how you are trying to position yourself in general, and note any differences as to positioning for particular schools if necessary. Show her what questions she will need to answer about you, and how these relate to your desired positioning. Suggest stories she can tell about you, and how these will fit in with the questions. Provide her with plenty of detail.

MAKING YOUR RECOMMENDER’S JOB EASY

Try to do as much of the work as you can, since your recommender is undoubtedly busy. Give her plenty of time to write the recommendation, preferably a month or more. Be sure to offer:

➤ Your résumé

➤ Your transcript (if she is a professor)

➤ Samples of the work you did for her and any evaluations you received

➤ A list of your recent (and past) activities, including why you undertook them, especially in light of your interest in and suitability for law school

➤ Copies of your personal statement and other essays

➤ School-specific forms or LSAC Evaluation, as relevant

➤ An outline of what you wish her to discuss and/or bullet-point summaries of points you wish her to make, or examples you wish her to use (taking into account any specific questions asked by your target schools or those on the LSAC Evaluation, if you are using it)

Be sure she understands what is important and how to write convincingly—that is, using appropriate stories and examples.

Suggest that the recommender write a general letter addressing each question asked by the schools to which you are applying. Your outline material should provide her with the basis for writing this letter; leave this material with her. You will have thus saved her a great deal of work. The letter can be made user-friendly by placing the topic addressed in each paragraph in bold print, so that readers can quickly pick out the points that are of greatest interest to them. Note that it would be beneficial for your recommender to explicitly compare you with others who have gone to this or another comparable school. Have her quantify her claims whenever possible. For example, instead of “intelligent,” have her write “one of the three most intelligent people I’ve ever taught.”

If your recommender is extremely busy, yet another possibility exists for you. She may suggest that you do a first draft of the recommendation, which she will presumably alter to her taste later on—or she may ask that you write it, and she will simply sign it. This technique, however, can be risky. To assume the perspective and tone of someone in your recommender’s position—whether that be academic or professional—requires experience and perspicacity. Chances are, you will end up sounding timid, stilted, and totally one-dimensional.

Generally, writing your own recommendations is safe only if you have a thorough understanding of what your recommender’s expectations were, and why you fulfilled them. You are more likely to possess this knowledge if you have been out in the “real world” for a year or two. It is easier to step into the shoes of an employer than a professor; the former’s expectations, standards, and judgments are more self-apparent. Penetrating the world of academia is a difficult task, particularly while you are still in it.

Whether your recommender writes your recommendation or has you do it, this well-thought-out approach to the matter will prove helpful in a number of ways. First, this approach minimizes the chance that you will end up with a lukewarm recommender. Second, your approach will have been highly organized and professional. If you had followed the nervous, pleading approach, why should she tell Harvard that you are an effective communicator, destined for litigating greatness? Third, you know in advance what stories she will tell. This means you will retain control of the admissions process insofar as you have a number of stories you want told about yourself, without undue repetition. Fourth, following this process means you will have a well-written recommendation. If your recommender writes it, she will almost certainly use your outline, just as she will treat the matter seriously because you have done so. If you write the recommendation, you can certainly manage to put together a good statement. Fifth, your professional approach means your recommender is likely to improve her opinion of you, meaning she will be a better resource for your future career than she otherwise would have been.

TIPS ON HANDLING DIFFICULT ISSUES

➤ If you find yourself in the position of writing all your own recommendations, formatting them differently and making them sound as if each recommender was the actual author will help camouflage their authorship. For example, you can format one as a letter and another in the question-and-answer format. Similarly, you can use different typefaces and font sizes.

➤ If you went to a second-rate or unknown university, or had mediocre grades even at a top school, you should have recommenders take every opportunity to discuss your analytical skills and intellectual leanings.

➤ If you are unable to get a recommendation from someone the admissions committee would expect to write on your behalf, be sure to explain why either in the optional essay question or in a separate note.

➤ Schools are required to allow applicants to see the recommendations written on their behalf unless the applicants waive that right. You should waive that right: Schools will interpret this as a move on your part to encourage honest expression. In fact, you should work together with your recommender on the recommendation, so you will be privy to it as it is being created, meaning that you have little to gain in any event by having the right to get the school to furnish a copy.

ADMISSIONS DEANS DISCUSS HOW YOU SHOULD HANDLE YOUR RECOMMENDERS

Have a professional interaction with your recommender. If the goal is to have a recommendation that’s consistent with the rest of the application, sharing your application with him or her can be very helpful. Also, providing a reminder of who you are can help! Make it as easy as possible by providing the details of what you’ve done for him or her, and by providing them with a résumé and transcript. Josh Rubenstein, Harvard

Give the recommender a lot of lead time; otherwise they can’t do a thoughtful job and resort to boilerplate. Just because it’s your deadline doesn’t mean it’s their deadline. Kenneth Kleinrock, NYU

You need to sit down and talk with them to make sure they’d like to write for you. Then provide them with a transcript and a résumé, and possibly a personal statement. Make sure they won’t contradict anything you are submitting. Anne Richard, George Washington

We place more faith in recommendations when applicants have waived their rights to see them (and nearly all do waive their rights). William Hoye, Duke

You have the duty to help a recommender remember why you are so impressive. Give your recommender whatever help you can, including information regarding the context in which you performed. You might photocopy the top page of a paper (containing the professor’s comments) and provide a copy of your résumé and your transcript. Kenneth Kleinrock, NYU

INCREASING THE VALUE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS

A good recommendation should show you are an outstanding individual, one who is an appropriate candidate for a top law school by virtue of having the appropriate intellectual potential. It should also support your individual positioning strategy.

The following are true of an effective recommendation:

• It is well written. It is grammatically correct and reflects the thinking of a well-educated person.

• It reflects substantial thought and effort. In other words, the person cares enough about you to spend the time to be as helpful as possible.

• It shows you to be a distinctive candidate. The use of examples will aid this considerably.

• The writer knows you well enough to provide several highly specific examples to illustrate her points. These should not be the same examples you use in your essays or that other recommenders note. As with your essays, the use of illustrative stories and examples will make the recommendation credible and memorable. This will also show that the recommender knows you well, thereby showing that you did not have to “shop” for one.

• The recommender does not mention things best handled elsewhere in your application, such as your LSAT score.

• The writer discusses your growth and development over time. Your drive to improve yourself, in particular, is worth comment because your interest in learning and improving is part of what will make you a desirable student.

• The recommender explicitly compares you with others who have gone to this or another comparable school. Have her quantify her claims whenever possible. For example, instead of “intelligent,” have her write “one of the three most intelligent people ever to work for me” (or, even better, “one of the three most intelligent of over a hundred grads of Ivy League schools to work for me”).

• The person shows how you meet the requirements, as she sees them, of a top lawyer.

The general impression should be that a person of a very high caliber wrote a well-thought-out, enthusiastic recommendation for you.

ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL RECOMMENDATIONS

In an ideal world, all recommenders would take the time and energy to write recommendations specific to each of an applicant’s many target schools. Of course, in an ideal world, each day would contain thirty-six hours and each week eight days. Thus, reality dictates that many recommenders simply write one comprehensive letter, or fill out an LSAC Evaluation, to be sent to all of an applicant’s target schools.

However, there may be special cases in which a particular school should receive a slightly modified or amplified version of a recommendation letter. For example, if your positioning efforts are different for one of your target schools, you will want to ask your recommenders to keep this in mind (if it is appropriate, given their knowledge about you) for that school. Or if your recommender herself attended one of your target schools, she will want to make note of that in the recommendation. By the same token, some schools, such as Stanford, vastly prefer latters written specifically for them.

LSAC EVALUATIONS

In most academic settings, schools offer recommenders a form that contains both a grid and a set of questions. The grid involves rating a person on various dimensions (e.g., analytical ability, quantitative ability, and so on). The questions, meant to probe important subjects in greater depth, might be highly specific or very general. Some law schools have followed this approach, but in recent years most have simply relied on whatever general letter recommenders sent in to the LSDAS.

The LSAC, spotting an opportunity to improve upon an all too casual process, has developed a standard form that may supplant traditional recommendation letters. Recommenders (“evaluators”) are asked to rate candidates in six different categories, as shown below. Each of the categories includes four to six factors. For example, task management includes “prioritizes well,” “has realistic objectives,” “fulfills commitments,” and “manages work and time efficiently.” (See the LSAC website for full details.)

Intellectual
Skill
Personal
Qualities

Integrity and
Honesty
Communication
Task
Management
Working with
Others

Each of the six categories also provides room for the recommender to add approximately 125 words (750 characters) of additional comment. At the end of the form, the recommender has room to add approximately 500 words (3,000 characters) on any subject.

AN ADMISSIONS DEAN DISCUSSES ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL RECOMMENDATIONS

It is absolutely acceptable for a recommender simply to check the grid and attach a general letter. Andy Cornblatt, Georgetown

HOW LONG SHOULD THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER BE?

The recommendation forms may provide limited space for a given response, but your recommender may want to write more. Should you or your recommender treat such space limitations as the ultimate authority? No. Recommenders are given some latitude in choosing how best to write a recommendation. This is one reason why it is perfectly appropriate to use the one-size-fits-all recommendation, which does not even try to fit into the provided format.

Typically, single-spaced letters of recommendation are at least one page in length, more often two or, possibly, three.

ADMISSIONS DEANS DESCRIBE WHAT A GOOD RECOMMENDATION DOES

Frankly, I like a detailed recommendation. A flat recommendation, such as the following, is of no value. “John Smith received the highest grade in my class. He appears to be very bright. I know of no problems in his record. I think that he would make a very good lawyer.” In this case, it’s a wasted opportunity. This student clearly asked the wrong person for a recommendation. Faye Deal, Stanford People mistakenly think recommendations are about adjectives: He’s great, smart, etc. The information contained often matters more than the description. With mixed indicators, show why the positive one is the better indicator. For example, if someone has a strong LSAT and mediocre grades, show why grades were lower because of the applicant’s excellent extracurricular efforts—and therefore that the LSAT is the better indicator. Andy Cornblatt, Georgetown

Relatively few recommendations are good, detailed letters that cause me to see candidates differently. Elizabeth Rosselot, Boston College

Most recommendations aren’t very helpful because they are so general. They should be backed up with examples and specifics, yet only 10 to 15 percent are. Don Rebstock, Northwestern

A good letter may include weaknesses, and especially how they were overcome. Faye Deal, Stanford

Through recommendations we hope to learn how well the applicant learns and works collaboratively. This proven ability to learn from and teach one’s peers, to appreciate as well as challenge others’ points of view, to know how and when to lead a discussion, or to allow (indeed, encourage) others to lead are traits our committee values highly in a candidate because they are indispensable to enriching learning while in law school, and to working effectively thereafter. Jim Milligan, Columbia

Your recommenders should include specific examples illustrating their general statements. It is also helpful if the recommender can place the applicant in a larger context: “She is one of the top ten students I’ve seen in twenty years of teaching” or “He is comparable to the Student X, who was accepted last year.” Megan A. Barnett, Yale

Recommenders can show what is not obvious from someone’s credentials or résumé. For example, a professor can help a candidate by showing in what respects she thinks his numbers understate his potential. To argue that he will be a wonderful lawyer, despite a soft LSAT or GPA, though, requires demonstrating that he performed well in a way that such numbers don’t capture. Perhaps he was a real asset in class. In that case, how did he get the most out of other students in the class—by encouraging their comments, helping them develop their ideas, and so on? Perhaps he tackled a paper topic that spurred useful discussions and inspired others to tackle better topics than they might otherwise have done. Or maybe he helped edit the professor’s book manuscript and offered thoughtful comments in doing so. Sarah C. Zearfoss, Michigan

A good professor’s recommendation comes from someone who has taught you in a situation in which he or she could make an individual judgment about the quality of your work. Get a professor willing to talk about you as a classmate: how you treat your classmates; how you respond to challenge and criticism, which are the key to law school. I’m very interested in how a person reacts when his ideas are challenged, whether he gets defensive or overly aggressive. To be a good classmate you have to be able to mix it up, in a positive way. Rick Geiger, Cornell Recommendations are extraordinarily important in the application process. What a recommender says about an applicant can truly make or break on application. Recommendations can corroborate what we see elsewhere in the file, assist in explaining a weakness or problem, or shed additional light on something that is just touched upon elsewhere in the application. Renée Post, Penn

The most effective recommendations attest to your academic strengths, reasoning skills, and ability to complete successfully a rigorous program. (For those who have been working for a number of years, a supervisor who can evaluate the nature and quality of your work is a good recommender, too.) The least effective recommendations are those that just attest to your good character and do not offer any insights into your academic strengths or other abilities. Monica Ingram, Texas

The letter of recommendation that is most helpful to our committee and to an applicant’s candidacy is one where the author can speak meaningfully about the applicant, because the author has been in a position, over a significant period of time, to personally observe the applicant’s intellect, character, and personality in action, and perhaps in different settings (e.g., work, play, athletics, individual or group tasks), and perhaps in the same setting but under various conditions (e.g., stress, pressure of deadlines, dealing with difficult peers or clients, or with situations requiring subtlety, tact, diplomacy, discretion). Jim Milligan, Columbia

I wish more people would compare candidates with others who have attended the law school. If the comparison is to a recent enough student, it’s really helpful because we’ll remember that student. This also says something about the recommender, that he/she knows his/her students well. It’s also helpful if a professor ranks a student versus all students taught—for example, “this is one of the top ten students I’ve taught in twenty-three years.” Faye Deal, Stanford

It’s great if recommenders can compare an applicant with others attending top schools. Elizabeth Rosselot, Boston College

THE MECHANICS OF SUBMITTING RECOMMENDATIONS

There are a variety of ways to submit recommendations. The recommenders can send them directly to the law schools or they can send them in sealed envelopes to you, for you to forward them to the schools. Professors can submit to your college’s recommendation service, where they are kept on file until you request that they be sent to schools. Or recommenders can submit them to the LSDAS (Law School Data Assembly Service, discussed in Chapter 5), which will copy and submit them to schools you specify. Although some schools will accept recommendations submitted via any of these methods, most prefer (or require) that you use the LSDAS service.

Not everyone can or should use the LSDAS service, though. International applicants, for reasons discussed in Appendix IV, may or may not be able to use it. In addition, applicants applying early action or early decision may need to have their recommenders submit their recommendations directly to the law schools to meet the October or early November deadlines.

MAKING SURE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SUBMITTED ON TIME

The law schools (or the LSDAS, if you use its recommendation service) can keep you informed as to whether a given recommendation has arrived. If it has not arrived and time is getting short, contact your recommender and ask very politely how her effort is progressing and whether you can be helpful by giving her more information. This will tend to prod her into action without being annoying.

THE FOLLOW-UP

Be sure to send your recommender a thank-you note for her efforts and state that you will keep her informed as to your progress. This is simply good manners. If you need extra encouragement to do so, remember that you may need her services again if schools turn you down this time.

If you manage your recommender well, the chances are that she will submit your recommendations not long after. What should you do, however, if you call your schools and learn that a recommendation is missing? You can certainly call your recommender to encourage her to submit it soon. On the other hand, you can take a subtler approach and send her a follow-up note explaining that you have completed the application process and are currently awaiting schools’ decisions. If she has not yet submitted the recommendation, this should spur her into action. If this does not work, contact her again and see if you can help the process along in some way, such as by writing a draft of what she might say.

Keep her informed as to each school’s decision. Also be sure to tell her at the end of the process what you have decided to do, such as attend School X and turn down School Y, and why. At this point it would be highly appropriate to send her a small thank-you gift. Very few people do this. It is not a terribly expensive gesture, but you can be sure that you will gain greatly in her estimation for having done it.

Do your best to stay in touch with her as you go through law school, even if this means nothing more than dropping a short postcard or email to her with a few comments about your progress. Staying in contact shows further sincerity in your appreciation of her efforts, and also assures that you maintain contact with a supporter and possible lifetime career advisor.

Remember that your recommender is in a position to help your career for years to come and has already shown a distinct willingness to do so. You should do your best to reward her helpfulness. One sound reason for going to a top law program is to take advantage of the networking possibilities it offers. It would be silly to throw away a very good contact prior to arriving at law school by failing to treat your recommender appropriately.

SPECIAL NOTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

If you have a potential recommender who is not able to write well in English, you can help matters greatly by writing up some stories or even the full draft of a recommendation for her. To the extent that you write well in English, your recommender will be all the more likely to use what you have written rather than struggling with the language on her own. Be sure, also, to provide the recommender with an appropriate editor who is a fluent, native speaker of English. This can be a colleague with whom you are both acquainted, or anyone else about whose editing and grammar skills you feel confident.

EMPLOYER RECOMMENDATION EXAMPLE

The beginning of this chapter features a valuable, well-written academic recommendation by a professor for Laura. The following is yet another example of a successful recommendation, this time from an employer. (It is longer than would normally be appropriate, but the recommender has a lot of highly relevant information to share about a very strong candidate.)

Recommendation for Steve:

I hired Steve as an analyst to the media division of SB Bank (for which I am Managing Director) four years ago and I have worked with him daily since that time. Steve has taken initiative in his own career and has matured into an accomplished self-educator, finance analyst, “intra-preneur,” and project manager. In fact, he has become the one person I rely on most to help me manage my division of our company.

I hired Steve because of his academic success, particularly in economics, and his intense desire to come to Wall Street in order to decide whether he wanted to follow a path in corporate law or corporate finance. He was honest with me from the beginning about the fact that he was not certain whether his talents and interests would push him farther into business or eventually to corporate law. I appreciated his honesty. I did not see a problem with this kind of ambiguity from a youngster, since a stint as an analyst at our bank is compatible with both goals. As Steve’s inclination toward law has grown, he has taken several measures to ensure that he remains as tuned in to legal matters as possible. He has befriended our in-house counsel, having lunch with her often and even moonlighting for her as a research assistant on several occasions. He tries, when his time allows, to attend all of our drafting sessions with lawyers, even though it is not routine for those at the analyst level to be at such meetings. As a result, he has gained a fine command of much of the legal code (and thinking) involved in M & A, IPO, private equity, and LBO transactions.

As with most of my assistants, I gave Steve a trial by fire when he first arrived four years ago. I put him in charge of running my prospective client operations without giving him any training. I do this as a way to test a new hire’s raw intellectual firepower and ability to think on his feet and deal with the unexpected. I was more than pleased with Steve’s performance. He immediately figured out that the key to any busy corporate employee’s job is prioritization. He developed his own system for handling our pitch calls by the target companies’ sizes, time zones, financing needs, and levels of previous contact with us. The immediate result of his effort was an incredible 30 percent increase in new deal work; we began to acquire one new deal per month, each bringing in anywhere from $40,000 to several million dollars in fees. Steve’s system was so effective that I asked him to make it a formality, incorporating it into our best practices efforts and teaching everyone in the office what it was all about. This system—which we nicknamed “SS” for “Steve’s System”—still helps us to get appointed as the lead bank in deals. Our income generation has continued to set new records, due in no small measure to his brilliant plan.

Steve is not just excellent at managerial tasks: He is also a superb financial analyst. His M & A work, for example, is characterized by a thoroughness that exceeds that demonstrated by our MBA hires. He understands and applies the relevant financial theory, whether that be simple Capital Asset Pricing Model use of comparables or sophisticated valuation of real options. Similarly, he has a useful understanding of the accounting and tax treatment of business combinations. Finding a young analyst with this range of understanding is a treat, but Steve actually goes far beyond this in his work. He routinely excels in understanding the likely operational difficulties that will be experienced by a combined entity. For instance, one bank acquisition was initially pitched on the basis of proposed cost savings that would be made possible by combining systems and reducing retail branches. Steve’s highly detailed analysis, based upon an in-depth understanding of the actual costs of combining the specific systems the two banks had in place and the locations of their branches, showed that the likely cost savings would be only 50–60 percent of the total and would take an extra eighteen months to be realized. (His analysis was, of course, all the more impressive for being outside his usual field.) This changed our advice to our client and dramatically altered the actual purchase price.

Steve’s value has extended beyond our local office, too. Since realizing Steve’s public speaking capabilities, I have taken him on the road with me when I deliver seminars to investment banking employees in other branches of SB (we have branches in San Francisco, London, Singapore, Shanghai, and Buenos Aires). I have shared the floor with him on numerous occasions; his contributions have always been well prepared and his answers to spontaneous questions insightful. He was once pressed by an important high-level executive attending one of our sessions to admit that the reason our biotech division is so financially successful is that we aim to become the secondary (rather than the lead) bank on most of our transactions. This type of practice concerns many executives of SB Bank because, although it may help the bank’s finances in the short term, it jeopardizes our reputation in the banking world, making it a bad long-term strategy. SB has been warning all of our divisions to stay away from developing this kind of reputation, and has thus encouraged our division to take on more lead banking positions; we have often been scrutinized on this account. Steve handled the man’s questioning exceptionally well, explaining our particular difficulties in securing the lead position on biotech deals (which represent a relatively new field for us) and the ways in which biotech banking is different from banking in other industries. Even at only twenty-five years of age, Steve has remarkable composure.

Steve is one of our firm’s best assets. As I think you can see from the stories I have recounted here, he has intellectual smarts, sales ability, project-management ability, interpersonal skills, oral and written communication skills, creativity, and initiative. He is also a good guy, very well liked by everyone. Much of this is because he is humble about his talents and often tries to include others in his successes, so that they may benefit and grow and share the glory with him. In my experience, when a new, hotshot youngster joins a firm and starts making waves with all of his accomplishments, others tend to form a backlash against the person, perhaps in jealousy but also perhaps due to the newcomer’s own inability to deal well with success. This is certainly not the case with Steve.

I wholeheartedly recommend Steve for your program. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or want to discuss his candidacy further.

Appendix VII

GETTING A GREAT PROFESSORIAL RECOMMENDATION

Law school admission committees, composed in large part of professors, tend to give substantial credibility to recommendation letters from other professors. They read these letters to understand not just academic performance to date, but also the key factors that tend to underpin long-term academic, career, and personal development. These include the motivation, engagement, enthusiasm, maturity, sense of judgment, sociability, and overall personality of applicants. Not only do these traits influence applicants’ own development, but they also suggest how candidates will interact with professors and other students and, thus, how great an asset (or liability) they will be in the classroom and beyond.

Many students mistakenly assume that a professorial recommendation will be based largely on the grades they received in a professor’s course. As the above suggests, however, a good professorial recommendation will go far beyond the grades you got on a paper or exam—or even the nature and quality of that work. But professors tend to incorporate far more than their view of how well a paper was researched. For one thing, they notice how you behaved in (and out of) class. For another, they take note of how much you did or did not contribute to your classmates’ learning. Inevitably, these factors affect their view of your personal qualities and academic potential. Unsurprisingly, they are unlikely to write strongly on behalf of a student they don’t like or respect. This appendix is consequently devoted to the less immediately obvious—but critically important—factors that influence the nature of a professor’s recommendation.

BEHAVIOR THAT PROFESSORS NOTICE

The following is a brief guide to what professors are likely to notice, in addition to the quality of your writing or lab results. (And don’t think you are free to misbehave in a TA-led section. Professors asked to provide recommendations routinely ask their teaching assistants for input.)

Annoying in-class behavior

• Sitting in or near the back row (where, it is assumed, the goof-offs cluster)

• Chatting with others during class (especially when the professor is speaking)

• Surfing rather than paying attention—whether this means texting friends, searching Facebook, or being otherwise engaged by your computer or phone

• Consuming food

• Dressing in a manner that is particularly sloppy, slovenly, or suggests you are less than ready for law school

• Asking “Will this be on the exam?”

• Attempting to monopolize class discussions rather than giving others a fair chance to speak

Annoying out-of-class behavior

• Complaining about paper topics or questioning the fairness of exams

• Turning in papers late or asking for extensions

• Burdening the professor with your personal problems

• Requiring extra help to understand basic materials

• Attending most office hours (rather than just a few), instead of putting in extra effort to resolve questions

• Arguing that you deserve a higher grade on your paper or exam

• Caring more about grades than mastering the subject

Winning in-class behavior

• Showing interest in the class: attending every class, being on time (and not leaving early), sitting near the front of the class, and being attentive (and definitely not yawning or rolling your eyes or otherwise indicating to other students that you are less than enthralled)

• Answering professors’ questions and, periodically, asking thoughtful questions

• Congratulating the professor and other students for insightful lectures or comments, without overdoing it and brownnosing

• Acting respectful of your professor, but not overawed or sycophantic

• In seminars, playing devil’s advocate or otherwise working to propel the discussion

• Helping other students—by sharing notes when they miss class, for instance

• Being well-mannered, not interrupting or belittling others, and not being upset when others disagree with you (instead, clearly welcoming the give-and-take of a good discussion)

Winning out-of-class behavior

• Acting happy rather than depressed or upset

• Taking the professor’s suggestions to heart (and thereby showing interest in the subject and respect for her views), whether by doing extra reading, shifting the emphasis or focus of a paper, and so on

• Taking another class with the same professor

BENEFITING OTHERS

Writing a fine paper or lab report, scoring well on an exam, and the like are all essential to getting the best possible recommendation. But you can go far beyond such individual efforts to benefit your classmates—and ultimately gain a great recommendation. For instance, in small classes or seminars, consider how you can best add value to the whole class’s experience. For example, perhaps you are in a Comparative Latin American Politics seminar in which all the other students are left or center-left in their political beliefs. In that case, espousing center-right ideas (whatever your own beliefs actually are) might promote excellent discussions. Not only will the class benefit from the rich discussions, but you will, too. You’ll be at the center of the intellectual action, which should develop your argumentation skills, plus you’ll be forced to prepare well for each session.

How else can you add value? If there are timid students in the seminar, you can encourage them to jump into discussions and, if their views are attacked, you can help defend them. You can model appropriate seminar behavior in other ways, too. You can volunteer to give the first student presentation and do a bang-up job. This could involve not just excellent research and a persuasive presentation. In addition, you could encourage questions and comments by your peers and the professor rather than act threatened by them. For instance, you could note which books or articles best present the points they raise. Similarly, you might agree with them up to a point, but then show where you part company with them. By doing all of this in an agreeable way, you will have set the tone for the rest of the presentations.

Your professor will almost surely notice and commend such behavior, and be willing to write you a superb recommendation that captures the nature of your contribution.