Letter of recommendation review for the person writing it

How You Know the Candidate

Whether the letter establishes the writer's basis for judgment - the role, duration, and setting in which the writer observed the candidate - and whether every judged quality stays inside that vantage.

Incidents, Not Adjectives

Whether each claimed quality is proven by a described incident in which the candidate's own action is visible.

Comparisons That Hold Up

Whether comparative claims name their reference class and window.

The Case for Graduate Potential

Whether the letter's evidence speaks to what graduate study selects for - independent inquiry, analytical ability, research and writing skill, persistence - rather than reciting the record.

The Strength of Your Endorsement

The letter's commitment: an explicit endorsement whose strength is stated in words a committee can quote, free of hedges the letter never explains.

How You Know This Student

Whether the letter establishes the classroom vantage - what the writer taught the student, when and for how long, and in what setting - and whether every judged quality stays inside it.

Anecdotes, Not Adjectives

Whether each quality the letter claims is proven by a described moment in which the student's own action is visible.

A Letter Only This Student Could Get

Whether the letter does the job the form assigns it: "a short evaluation (1000 words or less) that will help colleges differentiate this student from others" (Common App Teacher Evaluation form).

Growth You Watched Happen

Whether the letter shows the student changing across the time the writer taught them, and whether it is honest about what is still developing.

What the Student Adds to the Room

Whether the letter shows the student's effect on the people around them - classmates, discussions, group work, the class itself.

How You Know the Candidate

Whether the letter establishes the writer's basis for judgment - the role, duration, and setting in which the writer observed the candidate - and whether every judged quality stays inside that vantage.

Incidents, Not Adjectives

Whether each claimed quality is proven by a described incident in which the candidate's own action is visible.

A Yardstick That Travels

Whether the letter's comparisons, grades, and rankings would mean something to a reader who does not know the home institution's system.

Your Voice, Not the Candidate's

Whether the letter reads as the writer's own account of the candidate rather than the candidate's motivation letter restated in the third person.

A Committed Yes to This Program

The letter's commitment: an explicit endorsement whose strength is stated in words a committee can quote, aimed at the specific program or scholarship in front of it, free of hedges the letter never explains.

Every Paragraph Serves a Criterion

Whether each substantive paragraph does work an adjudicator can file under a named legal standard.

Accomplished Impact, Not Promise

Whether the letter's case rests on work the candidate has already done.

Facts an Officer Could Check

The density of verifiable specifics.

The Recommender's Standing and Basis of Knowledge

Whether the letter establishes who the recommender is, how they came to know the candidate's work, and where they stand relative to the candidate.

Written for a Non-Expert Reader

Whether a generalist adjudicator with minutes per exhibit could follow the letter.

Both Criteria on the Page

Whether the letter does identifiable work for both of NSF's merit-review criteria.

Research Potential Shown in Incidents

Whether research potential is proven by described incidents of inquiry in which the candidate's own action is visible.

How You Know the Candidate

Whether the letter establishes the writer's basis for judgment - the role, duration, and setting in which the writer observed the candidate - whether every judged quality stays inside that vantage…

Peer Comparisons That Hold Up

Whether comparative claims name their reference class and window.

The Forward Case and Your Endorsement

The letter's forward commitment: whether it argues the candidate's potential - the thing the fellowship funds - and closes with an endorsement whose strength a panelist can quote.

Who You Are to the Candidate

Whether the letter states the writer's vantage and keeps every judgment inside it.

Incidents Instead of Adjectives

Whether each quality the letter claims is backed by a described incident in which the candidate's own action is visible.

Comparisons That Can Be Checked

Whether the letter's comparative claims carry their own yardstick.

Assessment, Not Advocacy

Whether the letter delivers a measured judgment a committee can use rather than a plea.

The Endorsement and Its Strength

Whether the letter closes with an explicit endorsement whose strength can be checked, and whether stock or hedged phrasing elsewhere undercuts it.