Letters of Rec

Lets be honest, this is the most over-blown part of the law school applications. I hate letters of recommendation, not because I do not think I will be able to find enough people to furnish good letters (I feel like I will) but because I don't see how they help. Assuming people applying to law school are able to find three people that will recommend them positively (and if they can't, their application probebally has bigger issues) the letter of recommendation aspect essentially comes down to who has done the best job of cultivating relationships that lead to good letters of recommendation. This isn't any reflection on the quality of the applicant, but rather it is a reflection on the quality of the recommender. Candidates are helped or hurt because they know people that can or cannot write well. Lets look at all of the factors that go into selecting a letter of recommendation and observe the lack of MEANINGFUL variation from candidate to candidate. The following are a list of things that can set letters of recommendation apart followed by my comments.

1. Clear personal knowledge: This one is obvious, a good letter makes it clear that the writer knows a lot about the applicant. This should be a no brainer, unfortunately while this can always be met, it often sacrifices some of the areas I will talk about below that are far less important and are more like window dressing.

2. Quality of writing: This is stupid. Just because the person that knows me best in an academic sense doesn't write well shouldn't hurt an applicant, sadly, this is probebally the part of the LOR that has the most affect. Apparently, our fitness to succeed in law school is a direct function of how well our Sophomore Con Law teacher writes.

3. Detail: This is the same as clear personal knowledge, however I would like to add that often-times sustained success makes detail hard, how much can you really say about: "this student is quite simply one of the best students I have ever worked with."

4. Experience in writing LOR's: It just makes sense that somebody that has written several letters over time has a better idea of how to approach the task. This means that applicants are also judged on how much experience their writers have recommending students.

5. An important title: This is the stupidest of all. Law schools claim this doesn't matter, but I would be willing to be the president of a university writing your letter (assuming things such as quality and detail are equal) means more than an adjunct faculty member. So now, on top of everything else, you are rewarded for having friends in high places.

What I am saying is simple: Scrap letters of recommendation. If a candidate feels they have "exceptional intellectual curiosity" make them find another way to prove it. We can all find three people to say good things about us, why are we leaving "how qualified" somebody is to how good the people they know and have impressed are at writing letters?

Stupid.