It’s complicated. Most people in academia are overworked, and will jump at any opportunity to easily justify a decision with some kind of well-accepted, easily-

It’s complicated. Most people in academia are overworked, and will jump at any opportunity to easily justify a decision with some kind of well-accepted, easily-identifiable “weakness”. This might save them a couple of hours of work they would have to spend trying to identify other, better (but harder) arguments. There are simply too many papers to read and review, too many students to supervise, too many applications to judge, and too many things to write. The system rewards conformism and predictability, not real reflective hard work. When you review an application like this you are not really thinking “what is fair for this student/position?” Instead you are thinking “what will my peers think of me when they read my review?” And “How can I get the most with the least effort?” It’s sad but it’s the truth.