Nominating someone for an honorary doctorate is a significant act. It requires more than admiration for the candidate — it requires a structured, persuasive case that demonstrates why the individual merits the institution’s highest recognition. Most universities provide nomination forms, but the quality of the supporting letter is often what determines whether a nomination advances through committee review. This guide explains how to write an effective honorary doctorate nomination letter, what committees look for in 2026, and provides a practical template you can adapt for your own submission.
Understanding the Nomination Process Before You Write
Before drafting a nomination letter, you need to understand how honorary doctorate nominations are actually evaluated. The process varies by institution, but several patterns are consistent across universities worldwide.
Who Can Nominate
At most institutions, nominations are accepted from a defined group: faculty, staff, alumni, students, and sometimes members of the public. MacEwan University states that “anyone may nominate a candidate,” while the College for Creative Studies specifies that “anyone may nominate an individual” but “self-nominations will not be considered” [citation:6][citation:16]. The University of Aberdeen requires nominations to be accompanied by a brief letter indicating by whom the nomination is proposed [citation:1].
What Happens After You Submit
Nominations typically go to an honorary degree committee, which reviews submissions and may conduct additional research or seek external references. Purdue University’s process involves review by the appropriate faculty, the dean, and the University Promotions Committee before recommendation to the president and final approval by the Board of Trustees [citation:2]. At MacEwan University, the Honorary Doctorate Selection Committee reviews nominations quarterly and recommends candidates to the Board of Governors [citation:6].
Confidentiality Is Paramount
Almost every institution emphasizes that the nominee must not be informed of the nomination. The University of Bath states: “The proposer of an honorary degree should not, therefore, contact the nominee in advance of submitting a case” [citation:8]. Newcastle University advises that “your nominee should not be approached at this stage” [citation:5]. Violating this confidentiality can harm the candidate and the nomination.
What Committees Look For in a Nomination Letter
Honorary degree committees evaluate nominations against institutional criteria. While specific wording varies, the core elements are consistent.
Distinguished Achievement and Impact
The primary criterion is whether the candidate has made significant contributions to their field, community, or society. Purdue University lists “academic accomplishments and sustained achievements of distinction” and “impact and contributions to community/nation/humanity” as key criteria, noting that “generally, a successful candidate will meet two or more of these criteria” [citation:2].
Alignment with Institutional Values
Committees assess whether honoring the candidate reflects well on the institution. The University of Bath requires that “awards should reflect the values of the University” and that candidates demonstrate “excellence in thought-leadership and the resulting impact” [citation:8]. Saint Mary’s University asks nominators to explain how the candidate’s “personal and professional qualities” are “consistent with the mission and goals” of the institution [citation:3].
Evidence, Not Adjectives
A nomination letter that relies on praise without evidence is weak. Committees want specific achievements, measurable impact, and verifiable facts. Newcastle University’s guidance asks for “key achievements and major contributions to the field at a regional, national and/or international level” and advises against including links to online articles — instead, “pick out relevant extracts to include in a summary CV” [citation:5].
Connection to the Institution (When Relevant)
Many universities consider whether the candidate has a meaningful connection to the institution or its region. The University of Missouri Science and Technology states that “the nominee should have a connection with the university” or “may have achieved recognized national or international prominence in their field” [citation:14]. However, a connection is not always required — some institutions honor individuals solely on the basis of external distinction.
What Makes a Nomination Letter Persuasive
- Specificity: Concrete examples of achievement, not vague praise
- Evidence: Facts, figures, awards, publications, measurable outcomes
- Alignment: Clear connection between the candidate’s work and the institution’s values
- Conciseness: Most institutions specify word limits (250–1,000 words depending on the section)
- Integrity: Honest assessment, including acknowledgment of any potential concerns
The Structure of an Effective Nomination Letter
A strong nomination letter follows a logical structure that guides the committee through your case. While the exact format depends on the institution’s form, the following structure works for most situations.
Section 1: Identification and Summary
Begin with the candidate’s name, current position, and a one-paragraph summary of why they are being nominated. This is your “elevator pitch” — it should capture the essence of the case in 2–3 sentences.
Section 2: The Case for Recognition
This is the core of the letter. Present the candidate’s achievements in a structured way, using the institution’s criteria as your organizing framework. If the institution lists specific criteria (e.g., “eminence in a field,” “outstanding public service,” “connection to the university”), address each one explicitly [citation:3].
Section 3: Evidence and Documentation
Support every claim with evidence. This may include awards, publications, media coverage, testimonials, or measurable outcomes. Purdue’s guidance notes that successful candidates often demonstrate “significant discoveries and research,” “transformational leadership,” and “demonstrated commitment to benefiting society” [citation:2].
Section 4: Alignment with Institutional Mission
Explain why honoring this candidate is appropriate for this institution at this time. The University of Bath asks nominators to summarize “one key change that the nominee has made and how/why their achievement is important and relevant” to the university [citation:8].
Section 5: Conclusion and Recommendation
End with a clear recommendation and a statement of your confidence in the candidate’s merits. Keep it brief — the substance has already been presented.
Nomination Letter Template
The following template can be adapted to most institutional formats. Replace the bracketed text with your specific information and tailor the content to the institution’s criteria.
Template: Honorary Doctorate Nomination Letter
[Date]
To: [Name of Committee or Office]
Re: Nomination of [Candidate Full Name] for an Honorary Doctorate
Dear Members of the [Committee Name],
I am writing to nominate [Candidate Full Name] for an honorary doctorate from [Institution Name]. [Candidate] is [current position/title] and has made extraordinary contributions to [field/community/society] that merit the institution’s highest recognition.
Summary of the Case
[2–3 sentences capturing the essence of the candidate’s achievements and why they are worthy of an honorary doctorate. Example: “Professor [Name] has spent four decades advancing [field], pioneering research that has fundamentally changed how [specific problem] is understood and addressed. Her work has been recognized with [award] and has directly benefited [specific community or population].”]
Distinguished Achievement and Impact
[Describe the candidate’s key achievements with specific evidence. Address the institution’s criteria. Include measurable outcomes, awards, publications, leadership roles, or other verifiable indicators of distinction. Example: “Her landmark 2018 study on [topic] led to [policy change or practical outcome]. She has published over [number] peer-reviewed articles and received the [Award Name] in [Year] for [specific contribution].”]
Alignment with [Institution Name]’s Mission and Values
[Explain why honoring this candidate reflects the institution’s values and mission. Connect the candidate’s work to the institution’s priorities. Example: “The candidate’s lifelong commitment to [value] mirrors [Institution]’s dedication to [institutional value]. Her work exemplifies the kind of excellence and service that we seek to instill in our graduates.”]
Connection to the Institution (if applicable)
[If the candidate has a connection to the institution — as an alumnus, collaborator, advisor, or supporter — describe it here. If not, explain why the institution should honor someone without a prior connection. Example: “While [Candidate] did not attend [Institution], her work has directly influenced our [program/department], and she has served as a mentor to several of our faculty members.”]
Personal Qualities and Integrity
[Committees consider whether the candidate is a suitable ambassador for the institution. Describe their reputation, character, and standing in the community. Example: “Beyond her professional achievements, [Candidate] is known for her integrity, generosity, and commitment to mentoring the next generation. She has served on [boards/committees] and has been recognized by [community organization] for her service.”]
Conclusion
For these reasons, I respectfully recommend that [Institution Name] confer an honorary doctorate upon [Candidate Full Name]. I am confident that this recognition would be a fitting tribute to her extraordinary contributions and would reflect well on the institution’s commitment to [values].
I have attached [list supporting documents: CV, letters of support, etc.] and am available to provide any additional information the committee may require.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Name]
[Your Title/Position]
[Your Institution/Organization]
[Contact Information]
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Mistake 1: Telling the Candidate
This is the most serious error. Every institutional guideline reviewed emphasizes confidentiality. The College for Creative Studies states that “the nominee should not be made aware of the nomination and letters of support should not be solicited to support the nomination” [citation:16].
Mistake 2: Relying on Praise Without Evidence
Adjectives like “brilliant,” “world-renowned,” and “transformative” are meaningless without facts. Committees need specific achievements, not generic acclaim.
Mistake 3: Ignoring the Institution’s Criteria
Each institution publishes its criteria. A nomination that does not address those criteria — or that addresses a different set of priorities — is unlikely to succeed. The University of Missouri S&T, for example, states that “substantive service to the University” alone is “not sufficient justification” [citation:14].
Mistake 4: Exceeding Word Limits
Committees review many nominations. A letter that exceeds stated limits may be truncated or disregarded. Follow the instructions precisely.
Mistake 5: Nominating Ineligible Candidates
Most institutions exclude certain categories: current politicians, current employees, board members, and sometimes prior honorary degree recipients [citation:6][citation:14]. Check eligibility before investing time in a nomination.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I nominate myself for an honorary doctorate?
No. Most institutions explicitly prohibit self-nomination. The College for Creative Studies states that “self-nominations will not be considered” [citation:16]. Nominations must come from others.
Does the candidate need to know they are being nominated?
No — and in most cases, they must not know. Confidentiality is a strict requirement at institutions worldwide. Disclosure can harm the nomination and cause embarrassment if it is unsuccessful [citation:5][citation:8][citation:16].
How long should a nomination letter be?
Length requirements vary. Newcastle University suggests 700–1,000 words [citation:5]. MacEwan University requires a statement of 1,000 words or less [citation:6]. Saint Mary’s University limits each criterion explanation to 250 words [citation:3]. Always follow the institution’s specific instructions.
What documents are typically required with a nomination letter?
Common requirements include a curriculum vitae or biographical summary, letters of support from referees, and the completed nomination form. The University of Bath lists a biographical summary or résumé, and MacEwan University requires at least two letters of reference [citation:8][citation:6].
Can I nominate someone who has no connection to the university?
Yes, at many institutions. While some universities prefer candidates with a connection, others honor individuals based solely on external distinction. The University of Missouri S&T states that the nominee “may have achieved recognized national or international prominence in their field” even without a connection [citation:14].
How long does the nomination process take?
Timelines vary. MacEwan University reviews nominations quarterly [citation:6]. Purdue University’s process involves multiple levels of review before final approval by the Board of Trustees [citation:2]. Nominations may remain active for multiple years if not immediately successful.
What if my nomination is unsuccessful?
Many institutions retain nominations for future consideration. The University of Missouri S&T notes that unsuccessful nominations may be carried forward [citation:14]. MacEwan University states that “nominations may remain active for up to three years” [citation:17].
Can I include links to articles or websites in my nomination letter?
Newcastle University specifically advises against including links to online articles or websites such as Wikipedia. Instead, they recommend “pick out relevant extracts to include in a summary CV” [citation:5]. Committees prefer self-contained documentation.
Final Thoughts (2026)
Writing an honorary doctorate nomination letter is an act of advocacy. You are asking an institution to confer its highest recognition on someone you believe deserves it. The letter must be persuasive, evidence-based, and aligned with the institution’s values and criteria.
Key takeaways:
- Understand the institution’s criteria before writing — each university has specific requirements and priorities
- Lead with evidence — specific achievements, measurable impact, verifiable facts
- Maintain strict confidentiality — never inform the candidate of the nomination
- Follow the format and length requirements — exceeding limits or ignoring instructions weakens your case
- Connect the candidate to the institution’s mission — explain why this honor is appropriate for this institution at this time
In 2026, honorary degree committees are more rigorous than ever in their review processes. A well-crafted nomination letter — one that presents a compelling, evidence-based case — is essential for success. The template in this guide provides a starting point; tailor it to the specific institution and candidate, and submit with confidence.
— The honorary-doctor.com team, 2026