Describe the question, methods, your own contribution, limitations, output and learning. Adapt the detail to each application section and identify mentoring honestly.
What Succeed checks
We review public sources, provider information and recognised education-sector guidance, then focus on what helps students make practical decisions.
How official sources are used
We use official sources where available, especially for deadlines, eligibility, costs, availability and application details.
What Last verified means
Last verified is the latest date Succeed checked the key public information used in this guide. Details can still change after that date.
Why details can change
Opportunity details can change between review cycles. Always check the official source before applying or making a final decision.
Succeed's guidance is editorially independent. Providers do not approve or control the advice in our guides. If a provider relationship affects a page, we state it clearly.
A research description explains what you investigated, how you investigated it and what you personally did. Succeed recommends drafting a full account of the question, methods, contribution, limitations, output and learning before shortening it for an application. Identify whether the work involved experiments, existing data, texts or a literature review, and explain the support you received.
Illustrative example: “With teacher guidance, I compared published studies on sleep and memory, built an evidence table and wrote a literature review.” A longer reflection might explain that the studies used different measures, limiting direct comparison, and that you learned to assess conflicting findings. These examples show how to describe a review without claiming that you conducted the underlying experiments.
Common App's Activities section needs a brief account of your activity and position, while UCAS asks you to explain your preparation and subject interest. In the UK, “super-curricular” activities means subject exploration beyond classroom study. Adapt the same accurate account to the relevant prompt, using additional space to explain decisions and learning rather than repeating the activity description.
Write the specific question you investigated and explain the project setting, such as a class, lab or mentored program.
Common mistake: Avoid listing only a broad subject.
Name the experiments, data analysis, text analysis or literature review you actually performed in language a general reader can understand.
Common mistake: Avoid unexplained technical terms.
Identify your tasks and decisions, then distinguish them from work performed by teammates, mentors or the wider research group.
Common mistake: Avoid claiming the team's entire project.
Explain whether your mentor supplied the question, designed procedures, taught methods or reviewed your analysis and writing.
Common mistake: Avoid overstating independence.
Report what your analysis supports and name a relevant limit, such as sample size, missing data or restricted scope.
Common mistake: Avoid claiming causation from an association.
Name the report, poster, code or paper you produced and distinguish work in preparation, submitted work and published work accurately.
Common mistake: Avoid calling a submission a publication.
Choose a concrete decision, difficulty or revision that changed your understanding, connecting it to your intended subject where relevant.
Common mistake: Avoid unsupported claims about gaining skills.
Fit the application prompt and character limit, then ask someone familiar with the project to check the accuracy of your claims.
Common mistake: Avoid repeating details across sections.
Before uploading research, confirm with your supervisor that you may share confidential or embargoed work. Caltech requires an embargo to be explained in the research supervisor's recommendation letter.
| Dimensions | Common App Activities | UCAS personal statement | University research supplement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main focus | Your role, actions and accomplishments | Subject interest, preparation and relevant learning | Project details and specific contributions |
| Structure | Up to ten activities; fewer are acceptable | Three questions, reviewed together | Institution-specific forms and submission routes |
| Writing space | 50 role, 100 organization, 150 details characters | 4,000 characters including spaces; minimum 350 per answer | Institution-specific limits |
| Mentoring and teamwork | Identify your actual role concisely | Explain your contribution and resulting learning | Separate personal work from collaborators' work |
| Further detail | Additional Information can elaborate on an activity | Relevant examples without repetition across answers | Accepted papers, abstracts or posters vary |
If you want further research experience, compare these options by subject, format and the work you would personally undertake.
The Center for Excellence in Education lists an in-person program covering science, mathematics, computing and engineering.
Best for
Students comparing campus science programs
Boston University Pre-College Programs lists an in-person track spanning computer science, neuroscience, science and statistics.
Best for
Students interested in computing or neuroscience
Indigo Research lists online mentorship in artificial intelligence, humanities and social sciences.
Best for
Students comparing remote mentorship
Save the recommended research options to compare their subjects, formats and fit with your next learning goal.
Compare and save research optionsState the question and project setting clearly.
Name the method you actually used.
Separate your tasks from teammates' and mentors' work.
Keep findings within the limits of your analysis.
Describe the output and publication stage accurately.
Explain one specific lesson or change in understanding.
Check character limits and remove repeated details.
Confirm permissions and each university's supplement instructions.
| Age / year group | Best focus | Good opportunity types | What to prepare |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early high school | Learn methods and record questions | Class investigations, reading projects, teacher-guided reviews | Notes, sources, feedback, personal task records |
| Middle high school | Define scope and document contributions | School projects, mentored investigations, suitable research programs | Question, method, role, output, limitations |
| Application year | Select accurate examples and reflect | Existing projects, permitted presentations, relevant follow-up work | Concise descriptions, reflection, verified contribution details |
Yale asks applicants to specify their contributions to collaborative research, and Caltech requires a recommender who can discuss specific contributions.
Identify your decisions and tasks alongside the support you received.
Yale accepts a research paper, abstract or poster through its STEM supplement, while MIT requests an abstract or poster if available.
Name the actual output without implying that submission means publication.
Caltech says it does not reward a particular collection of programs or research positions and considers access to opportunities when interpreting applications.
Evaluate mentoring by the learning and support it offers.
MIT, Yale and Caltech use different forms, routes and criteria for research submissions. Yale says most successful applicants submit only required materials.
Follow the instructions of each institution receiving your application.
Use the Opportunity Match Quiz to narrow further research options around the experience you want to develop.
Step 1 of 4
Selection reviewed by
Co-founder, Succeed | Founder, Immerse Education (2012–2026)
Sean works at the intersection of academic enrichment, program quality and university preparation, with expertise in evaluating pre-university experiences for ambitious secondary school students.
Use this guide to build a shortlist, then find matching opportunities in Succeed.
