Muniz 1

Cassie Muniz

Dr. Sarah Read

WR 532

20 March 2020

Rhetorical Strategies for Personalizing College Rejection Letters

Denied. Declined. Not admitted. There is no shortage of alternatives to the word

―rejected.‖ For college hopefuls, rejection is a sensitive matter that can evoke a variety of

emotions—disappointment, sadness, anger, confusion. After all the time, effort, and money put

into the application process, ―we regret to inform you . . .‖ are the last words that an anxious and

optimistic applicant wants to receive. Perhaps most frustratingly, the letters never address the

specific reasons for each applicant’s rejection (Davis 16). Of course, doing so would require the

impossible feat of sending a personalized letter to every rejected applicant, which could be in the

tens of thousands (appendices A, B). Logistically, institutions—particularly undergraduate—

have no choice but to disseminate a templatized document to all declined applicants (likewise for

all admitted ones). In spite of this limitation, can a document that is delivered en masse be

written in such a way that it feels direct and personalized? By forgoing logos and emphasizing

pathos and ethos from a one-on-one perspective, college rejection letters can obscure their mass-

distributed nature and convey a sense of personal attention.

To support this assertion, this paper will detail the close textual and rhetorical analysis of

four distinct rejection letters, each from a competitive American institution: Princeton

University, the University of Texas at Austin, Carleton College, and Colgate University. All the

documents are fairly recent (from 2017 to 2019) and were originally delivered to their intended

recipients via the institutions’ online applicant portals. The documents showcase the range of
 Muniz 2

rhetorical strategies and formats that can be utilized to create varying perspectives and

impressions on audiences.

It is important to note that the scope of this paper does not include the evaluation of what

makes a good or bad rejection letter, as that is a subjective matter and dependent upon individual

preferences. For example, one applicant might appreciate a verbose and sympathetic letter,

whereas another might prefer a blunt, matter-of-fact rejection that skips the usual pleasantries.

And so, rather than examine the overall effectiveness of a rejection letter, this paper serves to

explore the genre’s versatility in length, perspective, and rhetorical appeals, and how, in

combination, these stylistic choices can impart an impersonal or personal tone to varying

degrees.

Methodology

Before analyzing the sample of rejection letters, one must understand the definition of

genre. Within the field of technical communication, ―genres are . . . [used] to fulfill a specific

type of purpose within a particular, recognizable, and recurring situation‖ (Henze 339). In the

case of college rejection letters, the ―recurring situation‖ is the submission of applications to the

institution; the specific purpose of the genre is to inform declined applicants of their status. As a

genre, the primary message and basic structure of rejection letters ―are relatively fixed,‖ but, as

this paper will later explore, there is still room for creativity and versatility (344). Given the

emotionally fraught nature of rejection, colleges and universities employ rhetorical strategies to

organize, articulate, and disseminate the bad news. As a result, the genre is rhetorically diverse,

with institutions approaching the message from different perspectives, prioritizing persuasive

ploys to create a specific impression and influence their audiences’ thoughts and actions.

Now arises the question: who is the audience in this particular context? The ―primary

audience‖ for such letters comprises the addressed recipients—that is, the applicants who are
 Muniz 3

explicitly being denied admittance to the institution. Any other readers who have a stake in the

decision, such as the applicant’s family, friends, teachers, or counselors, constitute ―various

subsidiary audiences‖ (Covino and Jolliffe 12). When crafting a rejection letter, rhetors (either

the dean of admission or another employee) must consider the expectations of their auditors and

attempt to meet their needs within the constraints of the genre; they must also consider how their

institution’s image is reflected in the letter. In a 1993 study involving colleges, high school

students, and high school counselors, nearly half of the surveyed colleges remarked that students

and parents complained about letters lacking specific reasons for rejection (Davis 16).

Interestingly, fifty percent of the surveyed students and sixty percent of the surveyed counselors

believed that ―admission decisions [were] determined by computer analysis‖ (17). Despite these

negative impressions, the survey results also indicated that institutions consistently strived to

make their letters ―as painless and compassionate as possible‖ (17).

Aristotle’s pisteis are central to understanding the rhetorical nature of the genre. Defined

as ethos, pathos, and logos, the three pisteis are the tactics by which rhetors attempt to influence

their audiences’ beliefs, emotions, or actions (Covino and Jolliffe 15). To illustrate, the rhetor

can employ ethos by inscribing her authority, credibility, or good character into a text (15). In the

context of college rejections, character appeals do not just pertain to the credited rhetor (e.g., the

dean of admission), but to the admissions committee and also the institution as a whole. For

example, a ―credible‖ rejection letter could be one that proves to its auditors that their

applications were fairly and thoroughly reviewed by actual humans; in effect, this letter would

establish that the university’s decision process is reliable and not egregiously faulted (appendix

A).

Then there is pathos, which refers to the emotional appeal of a text; it ―stimulates [the

auditors’] feelings and seeks a change in their attitudes and actions‖ (Covino and Jolliffe 17).
 Muniz 4

Ideally, the rhetor’s emotional proof in a rejection letter should attempt to counteract the

negative news by uplifting or comforting the audience. Pathos can be incorporated into a

rejection document in a number of ways. Often, the dean/institution will express sympathy over

the decision (―I am sorry to inform you . . .‖) and then use motivational language to describe a

bright or promising future (appendices A, C, D). The call to action could be for the applicant to

move on and enroll at another school (appendix A) or even to apply again next year (appendix

D).

The third pistis, logos, can be defined as ―the appeal to patterns, conventions, and modes

of reasoning‖ (Covino and Jolliffe 17). In the context of rejection letters, logical appeals are

limited due to the infeasibility of colleges providing specific reasons for denial. Consequently,

this leaves colleges and universities to reference large or competitive applicant pools and small

class sizes as the basis for their decisions (appendices A, B, C). Generalized logical proofs of this

nature may serve as reasoning for the rejection but may also serve as an excuse for why the

institution is unable to divulge specific details.

By way of close textual analysis, this paper will unearth the often overlooked nuances of

the genre. Close textual analysis, or close reading, is ―a method of rhetorical criticism‖ that

involves deconstructing a text to its smallest components to find new meaning or insights

(Warnick 323). In 2010, Quinn Warnick conducted a microstudy of three layoff memos, using

close textual analysis to highlight their key differences: euphemisms for ―layoffs,‖ references to

financial data, pronoun use, and gender-based distinctions. In a related study, Lisa A. Sisco and

Na Yu analyzed the same three (American) layoff memos and compared them to three additional

(Chinese) memos. They found that the former placed more emphasis on logos and ethos, while

the latter focused on pathos (327). Within the larger genre of bad news letters, the layoff memo

can be seen as a cousin to the college rejection letter. Synthesizing the methods of Warnick,
 Muniz 5

Sisco, and Yu, this paper will conduct a close reading to compare and contrast the format,

pronoun use, and invocation of the three pisteis in four college rejection texts. In the words of

Warnick, ―close readings can serve to illuminate the dark corners of seemingly simple texts‖

(326). Through close textual analysis of the four rejections, all corners of the documents will be

brought into the light, thereby exposing how certain rhetorical strategies result in varying degrees

of personalization.

Analysis

The four documents that will be deconstructed are rejections to undergraduate programs

at competitive institutions in the United States. Princeton University is a private Ivy League

institution with a five percent acceptance rate and an enrollment of more than five thousand

undergraduates (―Princeton‖). The University of Texas at Austin (hereafter UT Austin) is public,

with a higher, but still selective, admittance rate of thirty-nine percent. One of the largest

universities in the nation, UT Austin has an enrollment of more than forty thousand

undergraduates (―University‖). The other two schools, Carleton College and Colgate University,

are both liberal arts colleges with undergraduate populations of less than three thousand; their

acceptance rates are twenty percent and twenty-five percent, respectively (―Carleton‖;

―Colgate‖).

The first document up for examination is Princeton’s 2017 rejection letter. Despite being

delivered to the online applicant portal, the document still conforms to the standard letter format,

with date, salutation, valediction, and the signature of the dean of admission. The letter promptly

rejects the candidate in the opening sentence but opts for the circuitous phrasing that the genre is

known for: ―I am sorry to inform you that we were not able to admit you . . .‖ Throughout the

rest of the letter, pronoun use switches between the institutional ―we‖ and the dean’s more

personal ―I.‖
 Muniz 6

All three rhetorical appeals are incorporated into the text. In the first paragraph, logos is

conveyed through a reference to the sheer volume of submitted applications (―more than

31,000‖), of which there were ―thousands of accomplished students‖ who ―could have filled five

or six Princeton classes.‖ In the following paragraph, ethos is the predominant appeal, as the

dean/committee makes several arguments for the credibility of Princeton’s admissions process;

they claim to have ―diligently, thoughtfully and carefully‖ reviewed all applications, while

acknowledging the ―vast differences‖ among high school curricula.

Fig. 1. Excerpt from Appendix A. Princeton University rejection letter. 30 Mar. 2017.

The third paragraph begins with the blunt statement that all ―decisions are final‖ and

cannot be appealed; however, pathos is quickly employed to counteract the presumed

disappointment of the auditors. The letter is ―not a judgment of [the applicant’s] worth,‖ and the

dean ―is confident that [the applicant will] have many fine choices‖ of schools to attend. The

concluding paragraph provides instructions on how to request a hard copy of the letter and

thanks the recipient for applying.

This letter is representative of what many have come to expect from a college rejection

letter. It is a formal document. It is straightforward and decisive but avoids coming across harsh

and discouraging through the use of emotional appeals. Returning to the central argument, the

letter leans toward impersonal. Its use of logos and ethos tends to reduce the applicant to one

among thousands—discussing the addressed applicant in the context of all others. This,

combined with the primarily first-person plural perspective, underscores the widespread
 Muniz 7

distribution of the message. The letter contains some one-on-one qualities in regard to pathos but

overall lacks a personal touch.

Despite serving the same primary purpose, UT Austin’s 2019 rejection vastly differs

from Princeton’s in terms of format, tone, and length. Most noticeably, the ―letter‖ is not

technically a letter, as it does not contain a salutation or complimentary close; it is a message

updated directly in the ―Admission‖ tab of the applicant portal. Blunt and straight to the point,

the message opens with the words ―Your application for admission has been denied‖ in a bold

font. The following sentences—of which there are only five—contain no references to the

applicant’s name and are written purely from the institutional ―we‖ perspective.

Fig. 2. Edit of Appendix B. University of Texas at Austin rejection notice. 25 Feb. 2019.

This document is an example of a completely general and impersonal rejection. Similar to

the Princeton rejection, logical reasoning is attempted through reference to ―47,000 extremely

qualified applicants.‖ Once again, this tactic bears the negative impression of reducing the

applicant to a mere statistic. The document lacks any substantial attempts at ethos or pathos, save

for fleeting references to the applicant’s potential. Whereas the Princeton letter concludes with

steps for requesting a physical letter, UT Austin’s rejection tells the applicant that he or she ―will

not receive a hard copy of this notice via postal mail.‖ Overall, the message exudes a matter-of-

fact, detached tone and makes no attempt to even address the applicant by name.

Up next is the 2018 Carleton rejection letter. Following suit, this document was originally

accessed in the college’s applicant portal, and, like the Princeton rejection, it uses the letter
 Muniz 8

format traditionally associated with the genre. Per common strategy, the letter conveys logos by

referencing a ―large number of applicants‖ and a limited entering class size. Unlike Princeton

and UT Austin, however, Carleton does not specify the total number of applicants. There are

some notable attempts at pathos, with the statements ―well-qualified candidates like yourself‖

and ―promising candidates like yourself.‖

Fig. 3. Excerpt from Appendix C. Carleton College rejection letter. 22 Mar. 2018.

The most distinct attribute of the Carleton letter is its use of ethos in the closing

paragraph. Instead of expounding the college’s ―thorough and fair‖ process, the letter admits to

the college’s possible ―shortsightedness‖ in rejecting applicants. This honest admission of a

potentially faulted selection process contrasts greatly with Princeton’s ―decisions are final‖

assertion. On the one hand, this admission could be interpreted as an appeal to the college’s good

character. On the other hand, the self-aware statement—though possibly originating from a

genuine place—could be interpreted as weakening the college’s credibility regarding its selection

process. Such an admission could foreseeably motivate a declined applicant to pursue an appeal.

Carleton’s letter imparts a slightly stronger sense of personalization than does

Princeton’s, but it still leaves something to be desired. Although the letter addresses the applicant

by name and provides encouraging descriptions of the applicant’s capabilities, it is

predominantly written from the more distant ―we‖ perspective. By favoring this point of view,

the letter loses that personal one-on-one message with which it opens. Furthermore, the letter

falls victim to the usual trappings of overly broad logical reasoning, which takes attention and

importance away from the addressed applicant.

 Muniz 9

The final document to receive a close examination is Colgate University’s 2018 rejection

letter. Much like the previous three documents, this rejection was made available via the school’s

applicant portal. Like Princeton and Carleton, it follows all the conventions of a formal letter.

Despite being delivered online, it even includes the applicant’s postal address details above the

salutation. Whereas the other documents explicitly reject the applicant in the first sentence,

Colgate’s letter does not do so until the end of the first paragraph (―I am sorry to inform you . .

.‖). That said, the preceding statements heavily forebode a rejection as well as a great struggle

with delivering bad news (―to deny admission is by far the most difficult‖). Opposite from the

firm stances of Princeton and UT Austin, Colgate openly welcomes the applicant to reapply the

following year.

Fig. 4. Excerpt from Appendix D. Colgate University rejection letter. 22 Feb. 2018.

In contrast to Princeton, UT Austin, and Carleton, Colgate makes no attempt to offer

logical reasoning for its decision. There is no mention of the applicant pool or limited class sizes;

instead, all attention is given to the recipient of the letter. Notably, the final paragraph

readdresses the applicant by name, a simple touch that elevates the personal tone of the letter

beyond that of the previous three documents. This characteristic, combined with the dean’s use

of the first person, establishes a one-on-one correspondence in which commiseration over

rejection ensues: ―I have received letters like this myself so I know how you feel.‖ Here, the

dean inscribes ethos through shared experiences and trust. This intimate approach differs greatly
 Muniz 10

from the more broad admissions process descriptions offered in the previous three letters, which

all attempt to establish good character using the ―we‖ perspective of their respective admissions

committees. Meanwhile, here the dean of Colgate establishes his personal character as

compassionate and relatable. Altogether, these rhetorical choices set Colgate’s letter apart as the

most personally attentive.

Conclusion

Close textual analysis of the four documents has revealed how format, pronoun use, and

rhetorical appeals can drastically alter the tone of a rejection letter. Among the four texts, UT

Austin’s is by far the most blunt and cold. The applicant, not even addressed by name, is

effectively reduced to a number. The message is written from the institutional ―we‖ perspective

with no complimentary close, making it feel unmistakably detached and generic. On the opposite

end of the spectrum, Colgate’s letter conveys a sense of closeness and personalization unmatched

by the other letters. The applicant is addressed not just once but twice by name. The letter

focuses its attention specifically on the applicant and consciously avoids overly broad attempts at

logos. Impressively, the letter embodies an intimate, one-on-one conversation between the dean

and the applicant. If UT Austin and Colgate exist on opposite ends of the spectrum, then

Princeton and Carleton fall somewhere in the middle of impersonal and personal, achieving only

a couple of the established characteristics.

Due to their mass-distributed and templatized nature, undergraduate rejection letters are

incapable of providing specific, individualized details to their recipients. However, by employing

certain rhetorical strategies, these letters can mask their inherent genericism and produce a

closer, more personal-sounding message. The first tactic, as simple as it may seem, is to address

the applicant by name. The body of the letter should then prominently invoke ethos and pathos

from a one-on-one perspective—―you‖ (the addressed applicant) and ―I‖ (the dean or signed
 Muniz 11

author). Unless the institution can actually divulge specific reasons for rejection, logos and

references to the applicant pool at large should be avoided. By creatively embracing the full

potential of rhetoric, colleges and universities can craft rejection letters that overcome the

perceived limitations of the genre.

 Muniz 12

Appendix A

Princeton University 2017 Rejection Letter

 Muniz 13

Appendix B

University of Texas at Austin 2019 Rejection Notice

 Muniz 14

Appendix C

Carleton College 2018 Rejection Letter

 Muniz 15

Appendix D

Colgate University 2018 Rejection Letter

 Muniz 16

Works Cited

―Carleton College.‖ U.S. News & World Report, https://www.usnews.com/best-

colleges/carleton-college-2340. Accessed 11 Mar. 2020.

―Colgate University.‖ U.S. News & World Report, https://www.usnews.com/best-

colleges/colgate-university-2701. Accessed 11 Mar. 2020.

Covino, William A., and David A. Jolliffe. Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. Allyn

and Bacon, 1995.

Davis, Herbert L., Jr. ―Strategies and Philosophies Used by Colleges and Universities to

Minimize the Trauma of Non-Acceptance (Rejection) Letters.‖ The Journal of College

Admission, no. 139, 1993, pp. 14-20.

Henze, Brent. ―What Do Technical Communicators Need to Know About Genre?‖ Solving

Problems in Technical Communication, edited by Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A.

Selber, U of Chicago P, 2013, pp. 337-61.

Jain, Arsh. ―Re: What Should One Do If Rejected by a University?‖ Quora, 29 Mar. 2018,

https://www.quora.com/What-should-one-do-if-rejected-by-a-university. Accessed 23

Feb. 2020.

Park, Young. ―Re: What Does the Rejection Letter from Oxbridge/Ivy League Look Like?‖

Quora, 4 May 2017, https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-rejection-letter-from-

Oxbridge-Ivy-league-look-like. Accessed 23 Feb. 2020.

―Princeton University.‖ U.S. News & World Report, https://www.usnews.com/best-

colleges/princeton-university-2627. Accessed 11 Mar. 2020.

Sisco, Lisa A., and Na Yu. ―The Rhetoric of Chinese Layoff Memos.‖ Business Communication

Quarterly, vol. 73, no. 3, 2010, pp. 326–30.

 Muniz 17

―University of Texas—Austin.‖ U.S. News & World Report, https://www.usnews.com/best-

colleges/university-of-texas-3658. Accessed 11 Mar. 2020.

―UT Austin Has the Weakest Rejection "Letter" Out There.‖ Reddit, 25 Feb. 2019,

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/auttyp/ut_austin_has_the_weak

est_rejection_letter_out/. Accessed 23 Feb. 2020.

Warnick, Quinn. ―A Close Textual Analysis of Corporate Layoff Memos.‖ Business

Communication Quarterly, vol. 73, no. 3, 2010, pp. 322–26.