Are Motivation Letters Still Motivating Anyone?
For decades, motivation letters have been a cornerstone of scholarship and admissions processes. Applicants pour their hearts into them (sometimes), trying to impress selection committees with eloquence, clarity of goals, and a sprinkle of personality.
But in 2025, we’re forced to ask a tough question:
Are we still evaluating motivation or just writing skills, editing help, and prompt engineering?
The Problem That Everyone Silently Admits
A beautifully written motivation letter doesn’t necessarily reflect a student’s actual drive, values, or potential. It often reflects:
In fact, today’s admissions teams and scholarship committees are quietly wrestling with a new kind of bias: tech privilege. When one applicant from a well-connected urban background submits a flawless, AI-refined letter, and another from a rural or underserved region submits a raw, unpolished one… guess who looks “more motivated”? It’s not always fair and we know it.
Universities Are in the Same Boat
Motivation letters are also widely used in Master's and PhD admissions, where reviewers try to gauge research alignment, commitment, and long-term goals.
But again: how much of that letter reflects the applicant, and how much reflects a friend’s help, a polished template, or AI-generated fluff? Reviewers read between the lines. But reading between the lines still assumes the lines were written by the applicant.
A Better Way: Let Them Speak for Themselves
What if, instead of interpreting motivation from a curated document, we gave candidates a chance to literally speak? A short, structured video interview lets applicants explain:
And they do it in their own voice, with their own expressions, and their own thought process in real time. This isn’t about penalizing those who write well but about balancing the scales for those who don’t have the same tools, time, or help.
We’re Not Saying: “Ban Motivation Letters.”
We’re saying: don’t let them speak louder than the person behind them. Adding an optional video interview (especially one that’s AI-assisted, fair, and available 24/7 like INSELECT) gives decision-makers an extra layer of insight. A more human layer. One that can’t be outsourced to ChatGPT.
One Final Thought
In a world of growing automation, perhaps our selection processes need a little less ghostwritin and a little more humanity.
Are we still evaluating motivation or just writing skills, editing help, and prompt engineering?
The Problem That Everyone Silently Admits
A beautifully written motivation letter doesn’t necessarily reflect a student’s actual drive, values, or potential. It often reflects:
- Whether they had someone edit it.
- Whether they had access to writing coaches.
- Whether they had ChatGPT or other AI tools — and knew how to use them.
In fact, today’s admissions teams and scholarship committees are quietly wrestling with a new kind of bias: tech privilege. When one applicant from a well-connected urban background submits a flawless, AI-refined letter, and another from a rural or underserved region submits a raw, unpolished one… guess who looks “more motivated”? It’s not always fair and we know it.
Universities Are in the Same Boat
Motivation letters are also widely used in Master's and PhD admissions, where reviewers try to gauge research alignment, commitment, and long-term goals.
But again: how much of that letter reflects the applicant, and how much reflects a friend’s help, a polished template, or AI-generated fluff? Reviewers read between the lines. But reading between the lines still assumes the lines were written by the applicant.
A Better Way: Let Them Speak for Themselves
What if, instead of interpreting motivation from a curated document, we gave candidates a chance to literally speak? A short, structured video interview lets applicants explain:
- Why they’re applying.
- What they hope to achieve.
- How the opportunity aligns with their story.
And they do it in their own voice, with their own expressions, and their own thought process in real time. This isn’t about penalizing those who write well but about balancing the scales for those who don’t have the same tools, time, or help.
We’re Not Saying: “Ban Motivation Letters.”
We’re saying: don’t let them speak louder than the person behind them. Adding an optional video interview (especially one that’s AI-assisted, fair, and available 24/7 like INSELECT) gives decision-makers an extra layer of insight. A more human layer. One that can’t be outsourced to ChatGPT.
One Final Thought
In a world of growing automation, perhaps our selection processes need a little less ghostwritin and a little more humanity.