International Students & Letters of Recommendation (LOR): What U.S. Universities Really Do

…and ethical LOR tips, formats, and templates you can actually use

TL;DR (Key Findings)

• U.S. universities know some applicants (especially abroad) are asked to draft their own LORs. Investigations have documented doctored or ghostwritten letters. (Reuters)
• Policies at selective schools explicitly prohibit applicant‑written/translated/submitted LORs; violations can bring rejection or rescission.
• Many require that letters be submitted directly by recommenders through official portals; some prefer institutional email and add extra review if personal emails are used.
• Verification happens: ad hoc checks, vendor callbacks, and random post‑admit audits.
• There's no public evidence of universities maintaining named "blacklists" of schools/teachers for LOR ghostwriting; institutions do publish authorized agent lists (a different thing).

Table of Contents

• Background: Why applicant‑authored LORs happen
• What U.S. universities require & prohibit
• Do they ignore it? Does it hurt chances?
• How universities verify letters
• Structural responses: When LORs are limited or optional
• Practical, ethical LOR guidance
• FAQs
• Policy & enforcement snapshot

Background: Why applicant‑authored LORs happen

• Market pressures & language barriers. Multiple investigations describe companies altering or drafting application materials (including LORs) for a fee.
• Capacity limits in admissions. Large offices can't chase every red flag equally—enforcement is real but uneven.

Example (Reuters, 2016): Ex‑employees alleged a major China‑based company "altered recommendation letters that teachers had written for students."

What U.S. universities require & prohibit

Direct prohibitions on applicant involvement

• Stanford Graduate Admissions: "Your recommenders must be the sole authors of your letters… Drafting, writing, translating, or submitting your own reference… is a violation."
• UChicago (MAPSS): "Recommendation letters must be written entirely by the recommender. Applicants are required to certify they did not write or submit the letter themselves."

Submission must come from the recommender

• Yale GSAS: "All letters must be submitted by your provider online. There are no exceptions."
• Columbia GSAS: "Under no circumstances should you upload a letter on behalf of a recommender… consequences may include immediate rejection or revocation of an offer."

Email domain & extra scrutiny

• Dartmouth (Guarini School): "Letters… must be completed and submitted online… personal email accounts will be subject to additional review."

System‑level integrity

• Common App affirmation (applicants certify materials are "my own work, factually true, and honestly presented").

Do they ignore it? Does it hurt chances?

No, they don't ignore it. The policies above, direct‑submit portals, email rules, and audits show active deterrence and enforcement. If detected, applicant‑authored LORs are treated as misrepresentation and can lead to denial or rescission.

Columbia GSAS: uploading a recommendation yourself can trigger "immediate rejection… or revocation of an offer."

How universities verify letters

• Right to verify authenticity (pre‑ or post‑decision). UC Berkeley Grad Division: "The Graduate Division may verify the authenticity of academic letters of recommendation with the school or recommender."

• Program‑level callbacks to recommenders. Ohio State (Graduate & Professional Admissions): programs reserve the right to contact your recommender directly to confirm authenticity.

• Third‑party verification vendors. Columbia SPS: will use an outside verification vendor (Re Vera) to verify all submitted letters before releasing decisions.

• Random post‑matriculation audits. Brown University: verifies a random sample of credentials after students commit to deter admission fraud.

Structural responses: When LORs are limited or optional

• University of California (undergraduate): LORs are not requested with the initial application; campuses may invite up to two letters only for applicants flagged for Augmented Review (Regents Policy 2110). This keeps workload manageable and reduces LOR misuse.

Practical, ethical LOR guidance

The rest of this post concerns Letter of Recommendation templates and formats but we strongly advice these to be only used ethically. Everything here aligns with the policies above (no applicant‑written letters where prohibited).

LOR format at a glance

• Length: 1–2 pages (graduate STEM often leans longer).
• Header: Recommender's name, title, department, institution/company, email, phone; use official letterhead if possible.
• Tone: Specific, comparative, evidence‑based; minimize superlatives without proof.
• Structure:
  1. Opening & relationship (how long/in what capacity you know the student)
  2. Academic/professional skills with concrete examples
  3. Character & collaboration (reliability, initiative, integrity)
  4. Comparative evaluation (top X% you've taught/managed, if comfortable)
  5. Program fit (why this applicant for this program/role)
  6. Close with re‑contact info and a clear endorsement statement
• Submission: Upload directly via the university portal; avoid sending via the applicant.

Copy‑ready LOR template (for recommenders)

Use ethically. This is for recommenders to compose their own letter. If you're an applicant, provide a brag sheet (bulleted achievements & context) rather than drafting the letter yourself.

[Your Name], [Title]
[Department/Organization]
[Institution/Company]
[Official Address]
[Email] | [Phone]
[Date]

Admissions Committee
[Program/School/University]

Dear Members of the Admissions Committee,

I am pleased to recommend [Applicant Full Name], whom I have known as [student/employee/mentee] in my [course/team/lab] [Course/Role], [Term/Year]. I interacted with [Applicant] as [your capacity], meeting [frequency] and evaluating [assignments/projects/deliverables].

**Academic/Professional Performance.** In [Course/Project], [Applicant] [specific, measurable achievement]. For example, [one concrete vignette showing analysis, creativity, leadership, persistence].

**Skills & Behaviors.** I have observed [Applicant] demonstrate [quantitative reasoning / writing / programming / lab methods / teamwork / communication], notably when [brief example]. [He/She/They] seeks feedback and iterates quickly—e.g., [brief example].

**Character & Collaboration.** Peers regularly turned to [Applicant] for [tutoring/mentoring] in [topic]. [He/She/They] elevates group outcomes without overshadowing others.

**Comparative Evaluation.** Among [N] students I've taught/supervised in [X] years, I would rank [Applicant] in the top [Y%] for [trait], and top [Z%] overall.

**Fit & Projection.** Given [Applicant]'s [skills/research interests/professional goals], I believe [he/she/they] will thrive in [Program/School], especially in [lab/track/focus]. I recommend [Applicant] **without reservation**.

Please contact me if I can provide additional information.

Sincerely,

[Signature if PDF]
[Your Name], [Title]
[Institution/Company]

Checklist: For recommenders

• Write and submit the letter yourself; don't delegate to the applicant.
• Use official letterhead and, where possible, an institutional email; some schools flag personal-email LORs for extra review.
• Be concrete and comparative (use 1–2 specific anecdotes; offer a percentile/ranking if genuine).
• Upload through the official portal; avoid email unless the school explicitly permits it.
• Expect possible verification calls/emails from the university or a third‑party vendor.

Checklist: For applicants

• Do not draft, edit, translate, or submit your own LOR where prohibited. (Many schools say this is a violation.)
• Provide recommenders a brag sheet (accomplishments, context, goals) to make writing easier—without writing the letter yourself.
• Enter recommender emails carefully in the application; systems auto‑send upload links directly to them.
• Where possible, list institutional/work emails for recommenders; some programs scrutinize personal accounts.
• If English is a barrier, ask if the school accepts letters in other languages with professional translation (never by the applicant at Stanford and similar programs).

If someone asks you to draft your own letter

Here's ethical wording you can use (adapt it; it's grounded in policy):

"Thank you for agreeing to recommend me. Several U.S. programs specify that recommenders must be the sole authors and submitters of their letters (e.g., Stanford; UChicago). I can share a brag sheet with bullet points and achievements to make drafting easier, but I cannot write or submit the letter."

FAQs

Can I write my own letter of recommendation? At many selective schools, no. Policies explicitly ban applicant writing, translating, or submitting LORs and label it a violation; some warn of rejection or rescission.

Do colleges actually check LOR authenticity? Yes. Examples include UC Berkeley reserving the right to verify, Ohio State noting programs may contact recommenders, Columbia SPS using an outside vendor, and Brown doing random post‑admit verification.

Do universities keep a list of schools/teachers who ghostwrite LORs? There's no credible public evidence of named "blacklists." Universities do publish authorized agent lists for recruitment—not LOR enforcement.

How many LORs do colleges want? Varies: often 2–3 for graduate applications; check each program's site.

What's a good LOR format? See the template above; use official letterhead, specific examples, and a clear endorsement. Some schools scrutinize LORs sent from personal email.

Is there any movement to reduce LOR reliance? Yes. The UC system doesn't ask for LORs with the initial undergraduate application; campuses may invite letters only for Augmented Review.

Policy & enforcement snapshot

Bottom line

U.S. universities don't ignore applicant‑written LORs; they've tightened systems so recommenders must author and submit letters, they verify suspicious cases (sometimes via vendors), and treat misrepresentation as grounds for denial or rescission. Public "blacklists" aren't a thing—schools lean on case‑by‑case checks and structural limits instead.

Citations

• Stanford Graduate Admissions — Recommendations
• UChicago MAPSS — Letters of Recommendation
• Yale GSAS — LOR FAQs
• Columbia GSAS — Admissions Supporting Materials
• Dartmouth (Guarini) — Admissions information
• UC Berkeley Graduate Division — Admissions requirements
• Ohio State — Recommendation letters
• Columbia SPS — Application Requirements
• Brown University — Integrity in the Application Process
• UC Regents Policy 2110 — Augmented Review
• Reuters (2016) — Special reports on altered LORs
• University of Oregon — International Agent Resources