Avoid These LOR Mistakes in Your University Applications

When it comes to university admissions, irrespective of whether we are talking about undergraduate, Master’s, MBA or PhD programs, besides your academic/standardized test scores and personal essays, Letters of Recommendation (LORs) play an important role. Let’s look at some of the most common LOR mistakes and how to avoid these LOR mistakes in your university applications.

LOR Mistakes in Your University Applications

Mistake #1: Choosing the Wrong Recommender

Don’t just focus on the recommender’s title or seniority alone.Picking a recommender just because they have a senior designation or an impressive set of academic/professional credentials can backfire. If this recommender does not know you well enough (if they haven’t interacted with you, academically/professionally long enough), and cannot contextualize your capabilities, strengths, growth potential, character etc. convincingly enough, they will not be able to write a meaningful LOR.

You need to understand that it is an LOR for you, which means your achievements & strengths must be highlighted, not those of the recommender (it is not an LOR to praise the recommender). Admission committees are looking for insights into your candidature, not the recommender’s status. For example, a project supervisor, who can talk about how you innovated during a project, managed a technical challenge, resolved a glitch, or handled interpersonal conflict during that time, will be far more effective, than a department head who barely knows you except for maybe having witnessed one of your project presentations. The latter’s LOR would, most likely, land up as a vague and impersonal regurgitation of “factual details” rather than any enthusiastic appreciation of you.

One fool-proof way to decide how to choose your recommender, ask yourself, “Can this person describe me in a way that goes beyond what’s already on my Resume?” It is a must to avoid this LOR mistake in your university applications.

Mistake #2: Not Giving Enough Context or Support to the Recommender

Even if your recommender knows you really well, they can still sometimes struggle to write a strong LOR if they don’t have enough information about your goals, achievements, and what the program expects. So, if you simply ask someone to “write a recommendation” for you, they may land up writing something generic. For eg, if the recommender has been your professor in the last 2-3 semesters at college, and you’re now in your first year as an industry professional, they may know well about your academic achievements but may not know about your recent work achievements or the professional skills you’ve developed. They also may not know how you’re utilizing your undergraduate knowledge in the workplace, or how those experiences have shaped your goals, unless you tell them these things. So, without this guidance, they may not be able to connect your skills with the program’s focus, making the letter less impactful.

So, it is always a good idea for you to share a “brag sheet”, which may contain your academic/professional highlights, key projects or accomplishments, your academic/career goals. You should also let them know if there are any qualities or skills you’d like them to emphasize upon (depending upon your knowledge of what your target B-School seeks). You can also support your recommenders by sharing your statement of purpose, resume, or the specific program details, and why you’re interested in that specific program. Also, you can offer to meet them (or have a call) to answer any questions they may have. The more equipped the recommenders are with factual details, the stronger and more personalized their letter will be.

Mistake #3: LORs That Simply Repeat Your Resume

One of the most common LOR mistakes in your university applications is when the letter just rehashes what’s already present in your resume or application form. For instance, if your LOR simply says something like, “ABC student is very bright, as evident from his high CGPA” or “He stood amongst the top 5% of his class”, it doesn’t tell anything about your intellectual curiosity beyond the textbook, about your growth mind-set or about your collaborative spirit in class. Or, if your LOR says something like, “XYZ was responsible for managing a certain project” or “XYZ was responsible for handling client communications for the team”, it doesn’t tell the committee how you worked, what challenges you overcame, how you salvaged a souring client relationship, if you demonstrated anyleadership or other qualities.

Such as LOR seems flat and impersonal, without any new insights. Admissions committees already have most of the above information (your grades are there in the Transcript and your professional responsibilities are present in your Resume). What they’re looking for now, through the LOR, is an additional perspective on who you are beyond these credentials.

So, you must encourage your recommender to include specific anecdotes, observations, or moments that show how you stand out, such as your problem-solving ability, leadership, creativity, or resilience.

Mistake #4: LORs That Sound Lukewarm

In an effective LOR, the recommender should sound confident and enthusiastic about recommending you, not even a wee bit impersonal. Simply put, the reader must get the impression that the recommender “likes” you, and is quite invested in your success. If your recommender uses weak language like, “ABC applicant always completed his tasks on time”, without giving any context of what those tasks were, why they mattered, or how ABC student added value to those tasks, it may show that the recommender has a very superficial understanding of the applicant’s role. Or, if the recommender says something like, “She was always punctual during team meetings”, without highlighting how she contributed to those meetings, it may signal a lack of real engagement or conviction. The sentiments in such a letter may raise questions about the applicant-recommender relationship, and even quietly hurt your chances, even if the rest of your application is strong. Many people may not even realise that this is one of the biggest LOR mistakes in your university applications.

Instead, a truly supportive and enthusiastic LOR would read something like, “I have worked closely with ABC for over a year, and have consistently been impressed by her strategic thinking, strong work ethic, and ability to lead cross-functional teams. I observed these qualities in her during a high-stakes client project where she not only took the initiative to align inputs from marketing, product, and operations to deliver a solution under a tight deadline, but also proposed a data-driven approach that helped us prioritize features based on user behavior. She often stayed back to refine presentations, and ensured that our final pitch met both client expectations and internal quality standards. She is one of the most promising young professionals I’ve mentored, and I have no doubt that she will thrive in a rigorous academic environment like yours.” Contexualizing it thus makes the LOR much more convincing, and full of meaning, indicating to the reader that the recommender has truly witnessed the incidents that they are writing about.

So, be careful to choose someone who is enthusiastic about your growth and success, and who genuinely wants to support your goals. In other words, a strong LOR should never read like the recommender is just fulfilling a formality.

Mistake #5: Ignoring Red Flags Like Spelling Errors or Poor Formatting

Although “content” is the most important component of an LOR, the language matters too, at least to some extent. This doesn’t mean that the recommender has to write in perfect English. But the letter should at least be coherent, easy to read, and free from distracting errors. That doesn’t mean that the applicant will be penalized for the recommender’s imperfect English. Admissions committees understand that recommenders come from diverse personal/linguistic and professional backgrounds. Moreover, if your recommender is not a native English speaker, they can’t be expected to write with flawless grammar or style. A few grammar slips here and there won’t hurt your chances. What matters more is effort and clarity.

However, the letter should certainly not sound like it was rushed or careless. It should not be full of typos, basic spelling mistakes, or inconsistent structure. This may give the impression that the recommender didn’t put much thought or time into it. This, indirectly, doesn’t speak very well of your relationship with the recommender, and weakens their endorsement of you.

So, what can you do in such a scenario? In most cases, you won’t get to see the LOR because it’s confidential. But if your recommender is sharing a draft with you or has asked for input, feel free to gently suggest proofreading it for basic errors or formatting. You can also offer a short bullet-point summary or sample notes to help them structure their letter better.

Mistake #6: Taking an LOR from a Personal Connection

This is another common LOR mistake in your university applications. Admissions committees expect your letters of recommendation to come from people who can provide an objective and unbiased evaluation of your abilities. That’s why letters from family members, close friends, or personal acquaintances are a bad idea. Needless to say, such a personal connection will be seen as biased and too emotionally invested to offer a credible & objective assessment. Even if the letter is outstanding (and all of it may be true), just the fact that it comes from a personal connection can weaken its credibility.

So who counts as a credible recommender? For academic programs, professors, project guides, thesis advisors, department heads, or anyone else who has taught you / observed you during a project/research/paper writing activity are considered reliable. For professional programs (like an MBA or MiM), your manager (or someone more senior, so long as they have observed your work first-hand, and for a reasonable period of time), internship supervisor, client, or mentor at work is usually ideal. They should have seen your work closely and made first-hand assessment of your leadership, collaboration, problem-solving skills etc, and your overall readiness for the program.

Mistake #7: Overloading the Letter with Technical Detail or Jargon

A very common mistake that recommenders, especially those with a technical background / working in technical fields make, is to write a letter that gives too many technical details. Those technical details could be of projects that the applicant may have worked on under their supervision, or they could be overly complex and technically dense descriptions of the applicant’s responsibilities, evaluation metrics or contributions, making it hard for a general admissions reader to follow. While it’s great to mention the applicant’s contributions to a specific project, the focus of the LOR should always be you (the applicant), not the intricacies of the code you wrote or the exact specifications of the system you worked on. Since admissions officers come from diverse academic backgrounds (and not from a technical field of study/work), writing a technically dense letter that is full of industry jargon, acronyms or overly complex scientific explanations may lose clarity for such a reader. Worse still, such a letter fails to capture the real essence of an LOR – your strengths, skills, potential and your suitability for the program.

So, before your recommender starts writing the LOR for you, it is advisable to sensitize them to this fact. Explain to them politely that, instead of diving deep into the technicalities of a project, they should explain, in simple terms, what the project was all about (aim of the project), what your role was, what you did that made a difference, maybe you innovated something and solved a problem or maybe you even resolved an inter-personal issue within the team. They can also explain what all this reveals about your abilities and mindset.

For example, saying something like, “She developed a machine learning model that improved prediction accuracy by 25%, allowing the team to make faster business decisions”, is much more effective than saying, “She implemented a supervised learning pipeline using a Random Forest Regressor, optimized via grid search and cross-validation, which resulted in a 25% increase in R² score on the validation set, thereby expediting downstream analytics workflows.” The latter version is far from what a non-domain expert reader will ever be able to understand.

Preparing strong LORs will certainly take time and effort, but it’s an investment that truly pays off. Avoid these LOR mistakes in your university applications and you are good to go.

All the best! Below are a few “frequently asked questions”, through which we try to address any further doubts you may have.

FAQs