MBA Recommender Questions by School, 2026-27

MBA Recommender Questions by School, 2026-27

There is a common form, and there is no common form. GMAC publishes a Common Letter of Recommendation and lists forty-two programs as participating. Of the twenty-two programs checked for this page on September 5, 2026, fifteen publish their recommender questions where you can read them without an application login, three say they use GMAC's form without printing the questions, and four publish that a recommendation is required but not what it asks. Of the fifteen that publish, three print GMAC's four questions essentially as written, eight print a trimmed or re-worded version, and four ask a set of their own. The questions your recommender sees at Kellogg are not the questions they see at Tuck, and the constructive-feedback answer is set at 500 words by four of the programs that publish a number and at 250 by two others.

This page is the crosswalk: program by program, what form it uses, how many letters it takes, who is allowed to write them, the exact question text where a school publishes it, the word cap per question, and whether a competency grid sits alongside the prose. Every cell comes from the school's own page or its own downloadable form, read on September 5, 2026 — two of them through a public text proxy, because Columbia's and Ross's servers refuse an ordinary automated request. Where a school's questions live only inside the recommender's portal, the row says so rather than guessing.

If what you actually need is help answering the constructive-feedback question — the one that appears on fourteen of the fifteen forms in this table that publish their questions, and the one people stall on — that is a separate piece of work, covered in the constructive-feedback answer. This page is about which questions you will be asked in the first place.

What the Common Letter of Recommendation is

GMAC's own description, from its Common LOR page (quoted September 5, 2026):

The Common Letter of Recommendation (LOR) is a recommendation form developed by GMAC and a group of leading business schools with the goal of saving applicants and recommenders valuable time by providing a single, common set of questions. The questions remain embedded in each participating school's existing application system, so they require few significant changes.

The same page carries the sentence that explains most of the variation below: "Participating programs can customize the Common LOR to accommodate any unique questions required by the programs." Participation is not standardization. It is a starting template that each school is free to cut, re-word, cap or extend.

The template GMAC currently links has three sections. Section 1 collects the recommender's details. Section 2 is the Leadership Assessment Grid: "12 competencies and character traits that contribute to successful leadership," grouped into five categories — Achievement, Influence, People, Personal Qualities and Cognitive Abilities. The twelve are Initiative, Results Orientation, Communication/Professional Impression & Poise, Influence and Collaboration, Respect for Others, Team Leadership, Developing Others, Trustworthiness/Integrity, Adaptability/Resilience, Self-Awareness, Problem Solving and Strategic Orientation. Two summary scales close the grid: a peer comparison running from "Below average" up through "Excellent (top 10%)", "Outstanding (top 5%)" and "The best encountered in my career", and an overall line running from "Do not recommend this applicant" to "Enthusiastically recommend this applicant."

Section 3 is the part that gets copied, cut and re-worded. In GMAC's template it reads, verbatim:

1. "Please provide a brief description of your interaction with the applicant and, if applicable, the applicant's role in your organization. (Up to 50 words)"
2. "How does the performance of the applicant compare to that of other well-qualified individuals in similar roles? Please provide specific examples. (Up to 500 words)"
3. "Describe the most important piece of constructive feedback you have given the applicant. Please detail the circumstances and the applicant's response. (Up to 500 words)"
4. "Is there anything else we should know? (Optional)"

GMAC's participating list names forty-two programs, including Stanford GSB, Yale SOM, Haas, Ross, Darden, Fuqua, Stern, Anderson, Cornell SC Johnson, McCombs, Tepper, Georgetown McDonough, Tuck and the Indian School of Business. It does not name Harvard Business School, Wharton, Kellogg, Booth, Columbia, MIT Sloan, London Business School or INSEAD. The list is not a complete map of who uses the form: GMAC's applicant-facing guidance, dated August 25, 2026, names Wharton in its prose as one of the programs that "now use the same core questions", while the list further down the same page omits it — and Wharton's own application guide says plainly, "We use the Common Letter of Recommendation from GMAC." GMAC's own instruction covers the gap: "If your target school isn't listed, please contact the admissions office to find out if they accept it."

The 2026-27 crosswalk: 22 programs

Every page and form below was read on September 5, 2026; the program name links to the page the cell came from. "GMAC Q1–Q4" refers to the numbered questions quoted above. Full question text, where a school publishes it, is in the list under the table.

One note on how to read the "Grid" column. "None printed" means the school's public page does not describe a ratings section; it does not mean the form has none, because several schools publish only what the applicant needs and leave the form itself inside the portal. The same caution applies to "None printed" under word caps.

Questions, quoted

Where a school prints its questions publicly, here they are in the school's own words, read September 5, 2026.

Harvard Business School. "Recommendations must be completed online. Recommenders will be asked to fill out a personal qualities and skills grid and answer our two additional questions:" — (1) "Please provide specific examples of how the applicant's performance, potential, background, or personal qualities compare to those of other well-qualified individuals in similar roles. (300 words)"; (2) "Please describe the most important piece of constructive feedback you have given the applicant. Please detail the circumstances and the applicant's response. (250 words)"

Stanford GSB. "How does the applicant's performance compare to that of other well-qualified individuals in similar roles? Please provide specific examples. (Up to 500 words)" · "Describe the most important piece of constructive feedback you have given the applicant. Please detail the circumstances and the applicant's response. (Up to 500 words)" · "(Optional) Is there anything else we should know? Please be concise." The relationship question is gone; instead the whole letter has a shape: "Recommenders should double-space their letter and follow the word guidelines specified below. The letter should be two to four pages in total."

Kellogg. Three prompts, and the first exists nowhere else in this table: "Share an example of how the candidate has engaged with colleagues, clients, or stakeholders who held perspectives different from their own. How did they navigate the situation, and what does this demonstrate about their ability to lead or collaborate in complex environments? (300 words)" · "How does the candidate's performance compare to those of other well-qualified individuals in similar roles? Please provide specific examples. (300 words)" · "Describe the most important piece of constructive feedback you have given the candidate. Please detail the circumstances and the applicant's response. (250 words)"

Chicago Booth. "We ask recommenders to complete a skills assessment for each applicant and to submit a letter answering the following questions:" — "How do the applicant's performance, potential, background, or personal qualities compare with those of other well-qualified individuals in similar roles? Please provide specific examples." · "Please describe the most important piece of constructive feedback you have given the applicant. Please detail the circumstances and the applicant's response."

Columbia Business School. "We ask the recommender to consider the following guidelines when writing their recommendation (recommended limit - 1000 words):" — "How do the candidate's performance, potential, background, or personal qualities compare to those of other well-qualified individuals in similar roles? Please provide specific examples." · "Please describe the most important piece of constructive feedback you have given the applicant. Please detail the circumstances and the applicant's response." Columbia also asks for the document itself in a particular shape: "We ask that the recommender upload their recommendation on letterhead, whenever possible," and warns that a recommendation sent from a personal or anonymous email account "will be subject to your admission being rescinded if significant discrepancies are found."

MIT Sloan. Six questions, and only the last is the familiar one: "How long and in what capacity have you known the applicant?" · "How does the applicant stand out from others in a similar capacity?" · "Please give an example of the applicant's impact on a person, group, or organization." · "Please give a representative example of how the applicant interacts with other people." · "Please tell us anything else you think we should know about this applicant." · "Describe the most important piece of constructive feedback you have given the applicant. Please detail the circumstances and the applicant's response."

Tuck. GMAC's four, with the second lightly re-cut: "Please provide a brief description of your interaction with the applicant and, if applicable, the applicant's role in your organization. (50 words)" · "How does the applicant's performance compare to that of other well-qualified individuals in similar roles? Provide specific examples. (500 words)" · "Describe the most important piece of constructive feedback you have given the applicant. Please detail the circumstances and the applicant's response. (500 words)" · "Optional: Is there anything else we should know?"

Berkeley Haas. Haas's downloadable recommendation form is the GMAC form: the same five-category, twelve-competency grid, then GMAC's four questions at 50 / 500 / 500 words plus the optional fourth, with the second question in its older phrasing — "How does the performance of the applicant compare to that of other well-qualified individuals in similar roles? (E.g. what are the applicant's principal strengths?)". The form adds one line the GMAC template does not have: "By checking this box, I certify that this recommendation was written entirely by me, using my own words. The applicant was not involved in crafting any portion of this written recommendation."

Michigan Ross. "Michigan Ross uses the GMAC Common Recommendation Form, and we require only one recommendation." The three questions are GMAC's first three, with the second in the older phrasing: "Please provide a brief description of your interaction with the applicant and, if applicable, the applicant's role in your organization." · "How does the performance of the applicant compare to that of other well-qualified individuals in similar roles? (E.g., what are the applicant's principal strengths?)" · "Describe the most important piece of constructive feedback you have given the applicant. Please detail the circumstances and the applicant's response." No optional fourth question and no word caps are printed.

Darden. "your recommenders will fill out two pieces of information — a ratings grid in which they will evaluate you across a set of competencies and a series of short answer questions." The short answers are GMAC's first three, verbatim, with no optional fourth.

Duke Fuqua. All four GMAC questions, printed verbatim on the application-instructions page, with no word caps attached.

NYU Stern. "Your endorsers will be asked to rate you on several abilities and qualities, as well as provide an answer to these five questions:" — GMAC's first three (the second in the older "(E.g. what are the applicant's principal strengths?)" form), then the one that belongs to Stern alone: "IQ+EQ is a core value of NYU Stern, and we seek exceptional individuals who possess both intellectual and interpersonal strengths. Emotional intelligence (EQ) skills such as self-awareness, empathy, communication and self-management are at the core of our community of leaders. Please provide one specific and compelling example to demonstrate the applicant's emotional intelligence." Then "(Optional) Is there anything else we should know?"

UCLA Anderson. GMAC's first three, again with the older second question, and a footnote worth reading before anyone drafts anything: "Questions and topics listed above are for reference only. Actual submission of letters of recommendation is done online, through the online application system only."

Texas McCombs. GMAC's first three with caps attached — "(50 words)", then "(Recommended word count: 500 words)" twice — with the comparison question phrased "How does the performance of the applicant compare to that of other well-qualified individuals in similar roles? For example, what are the applicant's principal strengths?", and the fourth offered as an optional upload: "Is there anything else we should know about the applicant?"

London Business School. The reference instructions LBS links from its apply page state the position first — "Can I submit general letters of recommendation? No. The official London Business School MBA reference form asks very specific questions and requires the referee's assessment based on specified criteria, thus ensuring uniformity and fairness in reviewing all applications." The five questions are: "How do you know the applicant? How long have you known them for?" · "What would you say are the applicant's key strengths and talents?" · "What would you say are the applicant's key weaknesses or areas for improvement?" · "How do the applicant's performance, potential and personal qualities compare to those of other individuals in similar roles?" · "What do you think this person might be doing in ten years' time? Why?" The rating list runs: intellectual or academic ability, quantitative skills, initiative/ability to take decisions, problem solving skills, organisational skills, leadership skills, team skills, impact/charisma, self-confidence, self-motivation, oral English communication skills, written English communication skills. (This document is the one linked from the current apply page and was retrieved September 5, 2026; its file name carries the year 2021.)

What the 2026-27 forms show

A change log needs a dated before and a dated after, and most schools publish only the current version of their page. Four things are documented as of September 5, 2026, and each is checkable against the source.

The template and the live forms have drifted apart. GMAC's currently linked template phrases the comparison question as "How does the performance of the applicant compare to that of other well-qualified individuals in similar roles? Please provide specific examples." Four participating schools — Haas, Anderson, Stern and Ross — end the same question differently, with "(E.g. what are the applicant's principal strengths?)" (Ross with a comma after the abbreviation). McCombs prints a fourth wording, "For example, what are the applicant's principal strengths?", and Tuck a fifth, "How does the applicant's performance compare … Provide specific examples." If your recommender writes to GMAC's template and pastes it in, the answer will still fit; the prompt in front of them will simply not be the one they prepared for, word for word.

The convergence runs outside GMAC's list too, and one school says so. Harvard, Booth and Columbia — none of them on GMAC's participating list — all phrase the comparison question around "performance, potential, background, or personal qualities," and all three pair it with the constructive-feedback question and nothing else. Columbia states the reason on its own requirements page: "Please note that Columbia Business School and several of our peer institutions use similar, if not identical, recommendation questions. This is an effort on our part to make the process easier for your recommender." So the practical common form is wider than the roster, and it is narrower too: the shared core is two questions, not four.

Where caps exist, they are shrinking, and they are not uniform. GMAC's template allows 500 words for each of the two substantive answers. Kellogg publishes 300 and 250. Harvard publishes 300 and 250. Stanford holds 500 and 500 but adds a whole-letter ceiling of two to four pages. Columbia caps nothing per question and instead sets a "recommended limit - 1000 words" on the whole recommendation. Most programs in this table publish no cap at all, which means the ceiling lives inside the portal and nobody outside it knows the number. That is the practical argument for opening the form before writing anything: an answer built to 500 words does not survive a 250-word box intact.

Schools carry their own question, and it is the one that identifies them. Kellogg asks about engaging people who held different perspectives. Stern asks for one example of emotional intelligence. MIT Sloan asks what the applicant might be doing to a person, group or organization. LBS asks for weaknesses outright, and then for a ten-year forecast. These are the questions a recycled letter fails.

Cycle markers, quoted. MIT Sloan's how-to-apply page is headed "2027 Entry" with "Round 1 September 29, 2026". Tuck's Round 1 and Consortium 1 deadline is "September 1, 2026 5:00pm ET". Georgetown's application-components page carries "Fall 2027 Essays". ISB's requirements page says "Applications for the PGP Class of 2026–27 are closed. The Round 1 deadline for the next admissions cycle (Class of 2027–28) will be announced soon." Anything on this page can change mid-cycle; the school's page governs, not this table.

What schools say the recommendation is for

The most useful thing on this subject is not commentary. It is what admissions offices tell recommenders in their own words, and five of them are unusually direct.

Stanford GSB puts the failure mode first: "Outdated or general letters do not strengthen a candidate's application." Its instruction to the writer is a request for evidence, not adjectives — "Your letters of recommendation should provide specific examples and anecdotes that illustrate what you have done and how you have done it."

Berkeley Haas says the same thing to the recommender on the form itself: "We encourage you to be completely candid and to provide specific examples wherever possible. It is helpful to the applicant if you answer the specific questions that we ask. Generic recommendations that do not address our questions typically do not strengthen an application."

Chicago Booth names what it is buying: "We are looking for objectivity in the letter, and we want to hear from someone who can assess both your strengths and your weaknesses." Booth's advice on choosing a recommender follows from that: "Avoid choosing a recommender based on their title or status. We are more concerned with content and substance rather than reputation."

Yale SOM describes the job the document does in the file: "Recommendations are an important window into understanding your professional impact and how you lead and collaborate within an organizational setting. They're a way for us to gain additional perspective on your candidacy from people who have worked with you and who know you well."

Darden is the one that says the quiet operational thing out loud: "Recommendations are typically the slowest part of the application process, so identify your recommenders well in advance of your target deadline."

The comparison question is worth reading against GMAC's own rating scale, since the two sit on the same form. The scale asks the recommender to place the applicant against a peer group, and its top three rungs read "Excellent (top 10%)", "Outstanding (top 5%)" and "The best encountered in my career". A prose answer that names no comparison group is answering a different question from the one the box beside it just answered.

One more thing schools do with recommendations: they check them. Texas McCombs states that it "partners with Re Vera Services to conduct an employment and recommendation verification," with "a required fee paid directly to Re Vera Services at a base price of $85 USD," and reserves the right to rescind an offer over misrepresentation. Duke Fuqua asks for work email addresses rather than personal ones "during our credential verification process". GMAC's own template asks for a work email as something that "may be used as a verification of your identity if the applicant is admitted."

If you have been asked to write it yourself

Several schools address this directly, and their sentences are the operative ones. Stanford GSB: "Your recommenders must be the sole authors of your letters of recommendation. Drafting, writing, translating, editing, or submitting (even if written by your recommender) your own recommendations, or having any outside party review or edit them (even if asked to do so by a recommender), is a violation of our application terms." Tuck: "Your reference must be the sole author of your LOR." Yale SOM: "you can have no role in the drafting or submission of your recommendations," and shared wording between essays and letters "may raise concerns to us about the independence of the recommendations." Columbia: "Applicants should not participate in the drafting of letter(s) of recommendation," and, in the recommendation section itself, "We expect that you, the applicant, will not participate in the drafting of your recommendation." Haas puts it on the form as a checkbox the recommender ticks.

If you are on either side of that conversation, asked to write your own letter of recommendation covers what to do instead, and what committees notice about AI-written letters covers the adjacent question. Read your program's current authorship, AI and outside-assistance rules before using any review tool, including ours; where a school's rule bars outside review of a recommendation, no review belongs on it, and the certification inside the application governs over any summary on this page.

Where a review is permitted, the letter is a document with a reader and a set of published questions, and it can be read against them. The MBA recommender rubric is public — the comparison answer, the feedback answer, and whether the prose and the grid agree. An account comes with two free Quick Reviews a day; your first Full Review costs $5 and is typically ready in about 2–3 minutes, and a recommendation letter review reads the answers against the questions the form asks. For the craft of the feedback answer specifically, the constructive-feedback guide does that work. The applicant's own writing is a separate job: the MBA rubric shelf and the MBA essay review cover it.

Sources

Every page and form below was retrieved on September 5, 2026. Columbia's and Ross's servers refuse ordinary automated requests, so those two pages were read that day through a public text proxy; the URLs given are the schools' own.

• GMAC — Common Letter of Recommendation (LOR), the Common LOR template, and the applicant guidance How to use the Common Letter of Recommendation for your MBA application (page dated August 25, 2026)
• Harvard Business School — Application Process
• Stanford GSB — Letters of Recommendation and Information for Recommenders
• Wharton — MBA Application Guide
• Kellogg — How to Apply
• Chicago Booth — How to Apply
• Columbia Business School — MBA Application Requirements (read through a text proxy)
• MIT Sloan — How to Apply
• Tuck — Applying to Tuck
• Berkeley Haas — Recommendation Letters and the Full-Time MBA recommendation form
• Yale SOM — Application Guide and Application FAQ
• Michigan Ross — Full-Time MBA Application Requirements (read through a text proxy)
• Darden — Application Guidelines
• Duke Fuqua — Application Instructions
• NYU Stern — EQ Endorsements
• UCLA Anderson — Requirements
• Cornell Johnson — MBA Application Requirements FAQs
• Texas McCombs — Full-Time MBA Admissions
• Carnegie Mellon Tepper — Apply to the Full-Time MBA
• Georgetown McDonough — MBA Application Components
• INSEAD — MBA Admissions
• London Business School — Apply and the reference instructions PDF linked from that page
• Indian School of Business — PGP eligibility and requirements Verification note. Recommendation requirements change between cycles and sometimes mid-cycle, and seven of the programs above publish their questions only inside the application. Open the form before your recommender writes a word — the wording and the word cap you see there govern, not this table.