Who has actually seen the work?
Brown's master's FAQ emphasizes choosing people who know the applicant well enough to provide a detailed assessment. In practice, that might mean comparing a well-known person with limited contact against someone who directly supervised substantial work.
The relevant evidence depends on the application. A research-focused program may need information about research preparation; a professionally oriented program may also value evidence from related work, subject to its stated requirements. There is no universal substitute for reading the program's instructions.
A small packet of useful context
A recommender may find the program name, deadline, current CV, and a reminder of shared work useful. A brief explanation of why the program fits the application can help them select relevant examples.
This is context for their independent judgment, not a request to make claims they cannot support. If they did not observe a skill, their letter should not imply that they did.
Track two statuses
Submitting an application and having every recommendation received are different events. A fictional applicant might finish the form while one letter remains pending. The status portal and current instructions can clarify what remains incomplete.
Brown's Graduate School FAQ discusses recommendation timing, but program-specific instructions may add detail. An applicant should not infer a universal grace period from an anecdote or another program's practice.
A respectful request
“Would you be comfortable writing a detailed recommendation based on our work on this project?” gives someone room to judge whether they have enough evidence and time. A decline may reflect those limits rather than a broad assessment of the applicant.
This independent guide was checked October 25, 2026. Current Brown and program instructions govern the actual application, including who may recommend and when materials need to arrive.
