No. According to an April 2023 account, University of Victoria academic Matt Huculak asked ChatGPT to produce an “excellent” recommendation-letter example, then wrote his own letter using that output as a template and a foil. Huculak said the student later received a University of Cambridge scholarship, but the reports do not show that ChatGPT wrote the submitted letter or that the letter caused the award.
What Huculak actually did
Futurism’s report on an account published by The Atlantic identifies Huculak as head of advanced research services at the University of Victoria. He reportedly prompted ChatGPT for an exemplary reference letter. Rather than submit the generated text, he used it to help shape a letter he wrote himself.
Huculak said the exercise helped him avoid the formulaic language common in academic recommendations. He described his finished letter as “the most ‘human’ and heartfelt letter I’ve written in a long time.”
What is known about the Cambridge outcome
Huculak said the student subsequently received a scholarship from the University of Cambridge. India Today quoted him calling the letter “among some of the best letters I’ve read” and describing it as concise, concrete and attentive to the candidate’s ability to collaborate. Those are Huculak’s assessments, not comments from Cambridge selectors.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →#1 Best Overall
| Claim | What the reporting supports |
|---|---|
| ChatGPT generated a letter | It generated an example at Huculak’s request. |
| ChatGPT wrote the submitted recommendation | Not supported. Huculak said he wrote his own letter. |
| The student won a Cambridge scholarship | Reported by Huculak after the letter was written. |
| The letter caused the award | Not established; the reports provide no causal evidence. |
Why the distinction matters
A generated model can supply a conventional structure, but Huculak’s stated purpose was to recognize and then move beyond that convention. His account presents ChatGPT as a drafting aid, not as the recommender. The credibility of the recommendation therefore rests on the examples, judgment and authorship Huculak brought to the final letter.
His comment that “most professors have a cache of letters separated into different categories” was part of his explanation for wanting to escape standardized recommendations. It does not establish how widespread that practice is, nor does it describe Cambridge’s selection process.
What the reports do not establish
- The student’s name or field of study.
- Which Cambridge scholarship was awarded or its value.
- The scholarship’s eligibility rules or selection criteria.
- Whether Cambridge reviewers saw, valued or even knew about ChatGPT’s role in the drafting process.
- Any statement from a Cambridge committee member linking the recommendation to the decision.
Penn Today’s April 24, 2023 news index listed the contemporary story and linked to Business Insider, but added little detail. The available coverage is secondary reporting from April 2023, not a study of recommendation letters or scholarship outcomes.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.The accurate takeaway
This is a story about a professor using an AI-generated example to rethink his own recommendation-letter style. Huculak reported that the student later won a Cambridge scholarship, but the evidence does not support the stronger headline claim that ChatGPT wrote a letter that secured the award. Any conclusion about causation would go beyond what the published accounts show.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #3
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
