<p>Briefly, a law school applicant was able to review his hs recommendations and found that his GC's rec had been unexpectedly negative, describing him as a kid who worked "like a dog" for his grades and was "extremely methodical, almost mechanical in his approach to academics as well as to life." The student's teacher recs were glowing, and he had tied for first place in his class and was captain of the state championship baseball team as a senior. He'd been rejected at his #1 choice, Tufts - went to Holy Cross for undergrad.</p>
<p>The guy has complained to the Stamford Board of Ed, which responded that the GC was following school policy. (No mention of the guy filing a suit or taking any further action.)</p>
<p>What's interesting is both how much influence the GC's rec had, and how the current school GCs claim they wouldn't portray a student in a negative light unless a specific event (suspension, etc.) required it. One even negates the importance of recs in the process: " ... But Barber, the Stamford High counselor, said recommendations carry little weight with admissions counselors compared with grades, the strength of the academic schedule and standardized test scores. Recommendations rank near the bottom of the list," Barber said." I kinda wish this guy felt they were a LITTLE more important ...</p>
<p>I also kinda wish GCs would refrain from character analysis unless they really, really know the kid and are certain their own biases won't come into play.</p>
<p>About a year ago my son's HS had an admissions officer make a presentation that was the best I had ever attended. A top 20 school had the room divided into tables, each table to review 5 real (name and identity changed) applications, including the essays and HS GC and teacher recs. The table then voted to admit or deny.
It amazed me that some teachers or gc would trash a kid or be noncommital and consequently doom admission--especially when the kid is obviously very bright. It is imperative that recs be chosen wisely--they are critical. Equally critical is the essay. You had to read some very irritating essays from very bright kids. Bad essay ticks off readers and they vote to deny admission.</p>
<p>Just on another issue: they can't sue, I think. The only thing they can sue is intentional infliction of emotional distress; not even negligence infliction since the cause-effect chain is difficult to establish. The kid can't prove he was rejected from Holy Cross because the GC wrote a bad rec.</p>
<p>That may be why there's no mention of a lawsuit in the article. Since he's applying to law school, the student is probably aware he has no grounds. I just mentioned the lack of a suit because so often people do sue when things don't go their way in this process. The student mentions that he brought his complaint to the Board because he cares about his hs and doesn't want another student there to experience the same problem.</p>
<p>I can't begin to tell y'all how important it is to know how your child is portrayed in the rec's . There are hidden little political battles and prejudices everywhere, and just plain mean-spirited jealous folks in all professions so why would we think teachers and GC's are immune? Your kid may be #1 but teacher's pet may be number #2 and this is payback time. If it is at all possible, use only those letters that you have seen. Many teachers will show you the rec.</p>
<p>And by all means have a conversation before hand with the counselor and teacher about whether or not they are the "right" (unabashedly favorable) person to write you a rec. A positive poorly worded rec from a mediocre teacher is 100 times better than a brilliantly written torpedo job from your Brit Lit teacher.</p>
<p>
[quote]
GC's rec had been unexpectedly negative, describing him as a kid who worked "like a dog" for his grades and was "extremely methodical, almost mechanical in his approach to academics as well as to life."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why would this be unexpectedly negative if this is the way the GC truly saw this student? I think one of the biggest problems is that GCs are under so much pressure from parents and their administration to write "glowing recommendation" that recs have become fluff peices, which do not tell the whole story about a student that are given very little consideration. </p>
<p>The reality is that some student do work like dogs to get good grades. There's nothing wrong with hard work but lets look at the whole comment. the GC wrote:</p>
<p>"John is very bright but he 'works like a dog.' While his teachers admire his determination and work ethic, some feel that John has missed out on many wonderful experiences because working for a grade is most important. He is extremely methodical, almost mechanical, in his approach to academics as well as to life. He does not take chances and I feel that creativity, experimentation and maybe even enjoyment might have been sacrificed in some areas."</p>
<p>So yes, there is a difference in a kid who gets good grades and a kid that lives a balanced life. Maybe a lot of this could have been avoided had parents and students had sat down with the GC and asked for a no holds bar assessment, because we rarely see ourselves the way that others see us. You don't know until you ask. It is the disconnect between the way we perceive ourselves and the way that others see us that often becomes a very bitter pill to swallow.</p>
<p>I'll sound a different note.
So the guy was upset that he was portrayed "negatively.' The better question is : Was he portrayed inaccurately?
MIT has a rec form that asks teachers to basically distinguish between students with apparently the same academic profile. Did the student earn As by 1. dint of hard work; 2. by focusing on grades; 3. by dint of memorization; or 4. by dint of brilliance. So MIT does expect teachers and GCs to engage in character analysis. Not all As have the same value to colleges. I'm assuming that Tufts and Holy Cross do not have rec forms asking quite such questions, but it seems to me that the GC basically answered 1. to the underlying question (works like a dog, extremely methodical).
Colleges depend on teachers and GCs to be as truthful as they can be. Recs should not be considered mash notes. Otherwise, the recs are totally meaningless. I am also against parents and applicants being shown what is written in the recs.</p>
<p>Marite, that was my question. While the decision to write a potentially negative rec is one that should not be taken lightly, it is sometimes the only option if the GC is going to be candid and honest.</p>
<p>Parents and students are also often in denial about how their teachers and GC's view them. If your kid has been getting feedback all through school that s/he "has tremendous focus and is achievement oriented, almost to the exclusion of everything else", don't be surprised to discover come sr. year that teachers think the kid is a grade-grubber, works to the test, doesn't want to learn anything that won't contribute to a grade, etc. You may think that your kid is a natural genius, but most of the time, you've been getting signs along the way.... ignore them or not, but they're there.</p>
<p>I think that misleading comments are the ones that aren't fact- based; for a teacher or GC to portray a kid accurately doesn't sound unfair to me. If your kid is always the one to stay after class to argue about getting a half point extra credit for a wrong answer, it's not unfair for a teacher to describe a kid as being grade-oriented and not learning oriented.</p>
[quote]
Six guidance counselors from Stamford and Westhill high schools said they don't slight students in recommendations because they think their job is to present the student in the best possible light. Since most recommendations are confidential, there is no evidence to suggest that Raus' letter was typical.</p>
<p>"I would probably never talk about something that would have a negative impact on the decision," Westhill guidance counselor Joseph Andrews said.
[/quote]
Apparently not what happened in this case.</p>
<p>I'm uncomfortable with GCs, whose recommendations are just about universally required by colleges, making assessments such as the one this particular GC made. I see no problem with pointing out that the student's academic success was earned by dint of hard work. Yes, the topmost universities want outstanding students who can whip off a 4.0 with one frontal lobe tied behind their backs, and I'd expect to find lots of those students at MIT. But this kid wasn't applying to MIT. I'd be surprised if Tufts turned him down solely because he worked hard for his #1 ranking.</p>
<p>Where I have a problem is with the rest of the GC's assessment:
[quote]
some feel that John has missed out on many wonderful experiences because working for a grade is most important ... He does not take chances and I feel that creativity, experimentation and maybe even enjoyment might have been sacrificed in some areas."
[/quote]
How can this GC possibly know what this kid has "missed out on"? He was captain of a championship baseball team - surely he must have cracked a few smiles about that. The teachers who wrote his recs were able to describe him without focusing on the "creativity, experimentation, and maybe even enjoyment" apparently so lacking in this student.</p>
<p>It just seems gratuitous to me for the GC to have included this opinion. I think the rec made it difficult for a Tufts adcom to want to accept this student, and I'll bet the GC knew it would when he/she submitted this (required) recommendation.</p>
<p>It does not matter that the student was applying to Tufts rather than MIT. First, Tufts is not a "lesser school" undeserving of the carefully considered recs that MIT ask teachers and GCs to write. Second, there is an assumption that the GC does not know the student any better than the teachers. That may be the case in many, perhaps most schools, but we simply do not know. I can say that my S's GC got to know my S and his ECs better than many of his teachers. He was my S GC for all 3 years, he worked together with my S to craft a schedule and curriculum that suited my S--and that meant my S had to discuss his ECs with him. I realize that my S's case may not be typical, but a lot of assumptions and speculations are being made here. For example, is there evidence that the applicant was rejected by Tuts (as in Tufts syndrome) because of the GC's rec? Tufts does not care half as much about sports as Holy Cross.</p>
<p>By mentioning MIT, I was responding to the post above that described MIT's rec form that specifically asks the GC to distinguish how the applicant's grades were achieved (by dint of hard work, by dint of brilliance, a couple of other dints). I certainly didn't mean to diss Tufts or imply that it is deserving of less well-considered recommendations than MIT, nor did I mean to raise the issue of Tufts Syndrome. I simply realized that certain schools, such as MIT, would not only prize but perhaps even expect a degree of brilliance from their students, as is indicated by their own recommendation form. </p>
<p>Again, I have NO problem with the GC reporting that this applicant's success came about through hard work. I also have no problem with the kid being described as "methodical." I DO have a problem with the use of the phrase "almost mechanical" because it is certainly negative and I have no idea how true the observation is. Perhaps a very creative, risk-taking, experimentally-minded GC is rubbed the wrong way by this kind of student. Fine and dandy not to like the kid - but unfortunate that the GC is in a position to report opinion as fact. I also feel it was unnecessary to report that "creativity, experimentation, and maybe even enjoyment might have been sacrificed" by this student during his school career. There is certainly a more objective way to raise this issue. Again, it's interesting to me that the kid's teachers somehow missed reporting these traits that are important enough for the GC to mention. </p>
<p>I think it's an excellent point that the GC may not know the students as well as the classroom teachers in "many, perhaps most" schools. It's just another element of the admissions process over which the individual has no control.</p>
<p>When I was in grad school there was a particularly obnoxious pre-med kid who irritated all his profs and fellow students, argued endlessly in class in an effort to display his own brilliance, assumed everyone shared his lofty opinion of himself, etc.</p>
<p>When it came time for for his medical school apps one prof wrote him a one line rec:</p>
<p>"(Student's Name) is an insufferable little twit."</p>
<p>But what should an applicant have control over what teachers and GCs say about him or her? And why assume that the GC was wrong in describing the applicant the way s/he did? And why assume that the GC's primary duty is to present the student in the best light possible as opposed to the most accurate light? Send a dud to a school and future glowing recs will count for nothing at that school, even when they happen to be accurate.</p>
<p>Most recs engage in character analysis. Some kid is a LEADER (all in capitals, underscored); another is supportive of other students (examples provided). Another demonstrated true grit on the field and in class, etc..., etc...
My own school transcipt (which I had to submit in full when applying to college since comments were not separate from grades contained such gems as "careless," "daydreams in class" "capable of doing better work."
And I was one of the top students in my school. It never occured to me to challenge these comments; and until I came to this country, I did not realize that teachers were not supposed to say anything negative about Johnny or Jane for fear of bruising their egoes or undermining forever their chance at top colleges. </p>
<p>Coureur: Great story. I wish more recs were as truthful. If more people were more willing to write what they really think, those of us who have to read references would be spared having to wade through mounds of twaddle.</p>
<p>I have two problems with the reported g.c. rec. One is that the g.c. is saying s/he knows how other teachers feel (the description may or may not be accurate - there's no way to know), and I have yet to meet a public h.s. g.c. who honestly knew their caseload well enough to write with such detail.</p>
<p>There's no way to know how that report affected the admissions process, but it surely would be galling to read after the fact and I admire the former student for making it public (and not threatening to sue) so that current students can be better informed.</p>
<p>Coureur, that line might have summed that med school applicant up perfectly, no doubt, but that professor simply should not have agreed to write the rec in the first place. A recommendation is supposed to be just that, a recommendation. It is different from a letter of reference which is more what the GC or interviewer is writing up as they HAVE to write about the student. The teacher rec writer has a choice and should not agree to write for the student unless he/she thinks well of the student. A GC is in a different position. </p>
<p>I think the description that the original kid in this thread worked like a dog and was methodical is OK to have written. His description that the kid missed out in his enjoyment in life is a bit judgemental and it is not like the boy just did schoolwork as he was captain of his baseball team which he likely did enjoy (usually you don't put in hours for a sport like that unless you like it). I think the GC should be able to write some of this but may have put it a bit differently because some of it was assumptions/opinions. Saying that he does not seem to be a risk taker but really does exactly what is asked for in a methodical fashion is OK to write in my opinion but should have been backed up with evidence. The rest could have been left off or put in other ways. I do not think the GC has to be glowing but can be honest. Hopefully it is not full of unsubstantiated opinions though.</p>
<p>LeftHand....what you say about GCs not knowing the kids well, is true in many places but not all. Like Marite's son's case at his school, my girls' GC knew my kids VERY well. He had one for four years and one for five and they saw each other often, he took an interest in them, we saw him from time to time, they planned out various accomodations in their schooling over the years with him, and his recs (which I did see) revealed that he knew them well. Perhaps this is not common but it does exist in some places.</p>
<p>I agree, there is no basis for suing! The GC was honest about the kid. Hopefully he substantiated such descriptions with examples. He may have put that part about lack of enjoyment in life a bit differently as it seemed judgemental but the rest about the way the student worked or approached things was a description that should have been OK for him to write. If every rec writer can only write that Johnny was the best kid I have ever seen, then the rec reports are not useful. I write interview reports and try to be very positive but also give observations but try to back them up. I balance things out and look for the good but am honest about other things as well. A GC or interviewer HAS to write for the student and is not obligated to only write the good like a teacher rec writer who could have opted to not write for the student if they felt less positively about the student.</p>