Why does UofT not take reference letters

[Guy5688]

Does anyone know why this is?

[GoatDuck]

Because UofT doesn’t think they’re relevant. They’re probably right, given that most reference letters say only good things and don’t give a reliable indication of whether you’re suited for law school. 

[CleanHands]

Because reference letters are dumb as shit.

Edited April 22 by CleanHands

[Yogurt Baron]

At best, reference letters are completely fungible. "Hi, I'm some professor, this student took my class, they did fine." At worst, they exacerbate existing social inequalities - the person with the best relationship with the biggest-name professor is not necessarily the best student, just the best-connected student. References are a relic of the "oh, you're friends with Chet's son? I know Chet from the country club, and he certainly is a sound fellow" era of social and professional advancement.

It always baffles me when someone thinks a reference letter from the former category is going to be the silver bullet that's going to get them admitted - like an admissions committee is going to say, "Wait a minute, stop the presses, I just read the best application! We've got to revoke the admission of the candidate with the 4.0/180 and give that seat to this person with the 2.0/136/reference letter from some professor who says this student took their class and did fine!" Most people who think they have abnormally good references just have abnormally big egos.

[Chef Justice]

It's even funnier when one of the first things a law schools career development office tells its students is to take out the "references available on request" portion at the bottom of their resume. Even they know an employer isn't going to care. Imagine an employer is just like "WOW, this person was always on time for their internship! We HAVE to hire them." Yeah, no, references are next to irrelevant in assessing job performance or academic capability.

Edited April 23 by Chef Justice

[Conge]

I have the (likely) minority opinion that references can be helpful when selecting candidates for a position (in my case, hiring support staff or other lawyers). They can alert you to a red flag you might otherwise miss, or confirm your hope that this person has been successful in past roles and is easy to work with.

However, that is best done in a 10min phone call. 

Reference letters are just more work than they are worth, both for the author and the person reading them, especially when there are probably 1000s of applicants and admission is largely based on metrics like GPA and LSAT. They provide, at best, a marginal amount of insight. 

When you have a handful of applicants, and you'll check the reference of maybe 1 - 2 people, I think it's worth it. 

[Yogurt Baron]

5 hours ago, Conge said:

I have the (likely) minority opinion that references can be helpful when selecting candidates for a position (in my case, hiring support staff or other lawyers). They can alert you to a red flag you might otherwise miss, or confirm your hope that this person has been successful in past roles and is easy to work with.

However, that is best done in a 10min phone call. 

Reference letters are just more work than they are worth, both for the author and the person reading them, especially when there are probably 1000s of applicants and admission is largely based on metrics like GPA and LSAT. They provide, at best, a marginal amount of insight. 

When you have a handful of applicants, and you'll check the reference of maybe 1 - 2 people, I think it's worth it. 

I don't know that you're in the minority - reference-checking for a job is entirely different from reference letters for academic admission, for the reasons you cite. "Making sure the person's last boss doesn't say they're an axe murderer" is not the same as "I already have a transcript saying this person's a good student, now let me read a boilerplate letter about how they're a good student."