Been seeing lots of tweets from academics lately about reference letters. Not a new debate, but I have (nuanced) thoughts. A thread. 1/n

First, for faculty job applications, yes, we need to stop asking for letters as part of the package. Request them if you do a 'long list'. Making hundreds of people invest time when 200 people apply for a single job is ridiculous. 2/n

This is especially the case because I've never heard of a letter making a difference in a hire. Your CV gets you short-listed, and your performance in the interview/process gets you the job. 3/n

BUT: as someone who has done admissions for years for multiple grad programs now, reference letters for programs can be very useful. This experience actually goes against what I used to think. For students on the bubble of an offer, letters often make the difference, either way.

There's a segment of applicants who are shoo-ins, a segment who obviously just don't meet the minimum requirements. But there are many applicants - in some years, up to 25% of the pool, for whom reading their letters matters. 5/n

Letters allow faculty to contextualize a mediocre transcript. They can add insight into other things we might not see in the student's record. Occasionally, they add important warnings, too. Every year there are letters that make a difference in program admissions. 6/n

So our approach to reference letters should depend on context. No one wants to waste their time. And as someone who writes plenty of them, letters can be very time-consuming. But they can be important to the student asking you for that time. Take care in writing them. 7/7