<p>In another thread, a parent asked about schools for a quirky daughter. Someone contributed this thought:</p>
<p><<<one of="" my="" d's="" middle="" school="" teachers="" described="" her="" as="" 'quirky'="" in="" a="" letter="" to="" boarding="" and="" they="" rejected="" because="" can="" have="" some="" bad="" connotations="" the="" scholastic="" world.="" it="" be="" code="" for="" 'disruptive',="" 'troubled'="" or="" even="" undiagnosed="" ld.="">>> </one></p>
<p>This stopped me in my tracks. I'm a teacher and I can't imagine using/reading "quirky" as a euphemism for behavioral, emotional, or (undiagnosed) learning problems. </p>
<p>I've read other posts on CC that claim various descriptors are "code." As a recommendation letter writer, it disturbs me that I may be inadvertently creating negative impressions about students.</p>
<p>Is is true that an applicant with an otherwise attractive application might be disqualified
because one adjective, which is seen as complimentary by the writer, is viewed as suspicious subtext (read: pejorative) by the reader?</p>
<p>Do any of you have experience - as either the letters-reader or the jilted applicant - of this kind of misunderstanding happening? If so, please share the questionable language.</p>
<p>In other words, gimme' the code! (Remember, I'm looking for evidence, not speculation.)</p>
<p>~Astonished (as usual...)</p>