A new peer-reviewed study published in Research in Higher Education (July 2025) by Andrew S. Belasco, Katherine W. S. Lee, Su Yeong Song, and Michael N. Bastedo offers the most comprehensive analysis to date of how counselor recommendation letters contribute to inequality in U.S. college admissions. Analyzing more than 615,000 counselor letters submitted through the Common Application between 2018 and 2020, the authors applied natural language processing (NLP) techniques to uncover disturbing disparities in both letter length and thematic content based on students’ race, income level, school type, and test performance.
The study’s central finding is that counselor letters are far from neutral documents. Students from private schools and high-income families consistently received longer, more detailed letters, filled with praise across academic, extracurricular, and personal domains. These letters often emphasized qualities that align with the expectations of elite college admissions readers, such as leadership, initiative, and intellectual promise. In contrast, students from low-income backgrounds, especially those who received application fee waivers, frequently received letters that emphasized personal character or resilience over academic achievement. While these letters were sometimes longer in length, they were less likely to describe students' performance in key areas like academics or extracurricular activities. First-generation college students were particularly disadvantaged, receiving the shortest letters across all measured categories—even among top scorers.
The racial disparities revealed in the study were also striking. Black and Latinx students received significantly shorter letters than their white and Asian American peers, even when controlling for school and counselor characteristics. Their letters were less likely to highlight academic strengths, artistic or athletic talents, and extracurricular leadership. These inequities were still evident among students scoring in the 95th percentile or higher on standardized tests. Asian American students, while receiving longer letters on academic ability, were frequently described in narrower terms, with fewer references to personal qualities or well-roundedness. These findings point to entrenched patterns of racial bias, even when counselors intend to advocate for their students.
The authors of the study—Belasco, Lee, Song, and Bastedo—argue that these disparities are not solely the result of individual counselor prejudice. Instead, they are structural, tied to the unequal distribution of resources and caseloads across public and private schools. Private school counselors typically serve far fewer students and often have deeper relationships with them, enabling more comprehensive and personalized letters. Public school counselors, particularly in underfunded districts, may be responsible for hundreds of students and lack the time or information to write in-depth recommendations.
These inequities matter because counselor letters continue to play a major role in holistic admissions, especially at highly selective colleges and universities. Although some admissions officers make efforts to read letters within the context of a student's environment, there is little consistency across institutions. When letters are interpreted without such context, the gaps in length and substance can serve to amplify the advantages already enjoyed by privileged students.
In response to these findings, the authors recommend a series of policy changes. They advocate for better training for admissions readers to evaluate counselor letters with an understanding of school context and structural inequality. They also suggest that schools and districts develop more standardized approaches to writing letters to minimize variation. Furthermore, the study raises serious questions about whether counselor recommendations should be required at all—particularly in public university systems. Institutions such as the University of California and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have already made counselor letters optional or eliminated them entirely, citing equity concerns.
The research adds to a growing body of literature that challenges the fairness of so-called holistic review processes. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning race-conscious admissions policies, colleges and universities are under increased scrutiny to ensure that alternative measures, such as essays and recommendation letters, do not serve as covert pathways to replicate systemic bias. This study indicates that without intentional reform, recommendation letters may continue to function as gatekeeping devices that privilege whiteness, wealth, and access to elite educational institutions.
As U.S. higher education grapples with questions of access and equity, this study from Belasco, Lee, Song, and Bastedo provides a data-driven reminder that well-meaning admissions tools can still reproduce injustice. Colleges that are serious about fair admissions practices must confront not only who writes these letters—but what they contain, what they omit, and how they are interpreted.
Sources
Belasco, A. S., Lee, K. W. S., Song, S., & Bastedo, M. N. (2025). School Counselors, Structural Inequality, and Recommendation Letters in College Admissions. Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-025-09847-5
Stevens, M. L. (2009). Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Harvard University Press.
Jack, A. A. (2019). The Privileged Poor: How Elite Colleges Are Failing Disadvantaged Students. Harvard University Press.
Bastedo, M. N., Bowman, N. A., Glasener, K. M., & Kelly, J. L. (2018). What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Holistic Review? Journal of Higher Education.
Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Cheah, B. (2011). The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC). (2019). State of College Admission.
No comments:
Post a Comment