Will the Research I’m Doing Really Help with College Admissions?

Many of our students—whether in science or another field—are now engaging heavily in research. It’s crucial to pause and reflect: Is the research they’re doing the kind of work that admissions officers will genuinely recognize and value?

Why are students doing so much research these days?

Let’s explore that context. After the end of affirmative action—which previously gave underrepresented minorities a boost—schools like Harvard faced legal defeats in that litigation. Before the pandemic, Asians made up about 25.3% of Harvard’s admitted class; in the latest Class of 2028 data, that figure has risen to 37%. Clearly, the proportion of Asian admittees increased significantly at Harvard.

At Princeton, the Asian representation rose modestly to 20.5% for the Class of 2025.

Stanford, Brown, and other institutions also show upticks in Asian admission rates—though some schools stayed flat or even dipped.

These statistics might suggest: “Wow, with more Asian students being admitted, isn’t it easier now for Korean students to get in?” But the next set of data reveals that reality is more complicated.

Looking at international student trends, there was a pandemic-related dip, but from 2022 to 2023, international enrollment surged again. Indian students increased by 23.3% in a single year, while Chinese student numbers dipped slightly—likely reflecting U.S.–China tensions. However, those numbers bounced back in 2024 and 2025. Korean student growth followed a similar pattern.

Immigration data for international students—including those at all levels of study—show that as recently as 2022, Chinese students were the largest group.

But by 2024, Indian enrollments had overtaken them dramatically: from roughly 297,000 in 2022 to 422,000 in 2024—a 42% jump in just two years. Meanwhile, Chinese numbers also climbed, and Korean student numbers have shown a slight decline.
What this means: While some universities have modestly increased Asian-American admissions post–affirmative action, the total pool of Asian applicants—especially from India and China—has expanded far more rapidly. That surge means marketing and admissions are flooded with competition. As a result, Koreans’ share of admitted students has actually shrunk slightly.

One strategy students are adopting is launching research projects, because admissions messaging suggests that research experience helps. Indeed, data from the Harvard affirmative action case indicated that doing research can help a student gain admission to an elite college. At institutions like UPenn and Caltech, between one-third and one-half of applicants present research experience. But the flip side: some opinion pieces have criticized this trend as gaming the system—calling it a “trick” to get into good schools.

Firms now offer peer-reviewed research “packages” to students—some say these companies multiplied three- to four-fold, with critiques likening them to a pandemic in academic services. Universities simply can’t flood campuses with Asian admits, and within the Asian category, Korean applicants have become a smaller slice.
Yes, lots of Asians are submitting research. Among applicants to top-tier schools, some one-third to one-half now have research projects—whether genuine or packaged. Naturally, universities can’t ban research, and indeed seem to be offering more formal research opportunities. This is now the status quo.

So, should our students be doing research?
Absolutely—but the key question is: Are they doing it well? As research participation rises, universities will inevitably strengthen their evaluation processes to distinguish sincere work from superficial projects.

Rethinking What “Research” Truly Means

Let’s revisit the essence of research. The word “research” comes from French roots: re- meaning “again” and search meaning “to look.” In other words, research is “looking again”—implying that the first attempt didn’t fully succeed. It’s a cycle: you fail, revisit others’ failed attempts, learn, and progressively improve. That learning-from-failure is itself a form of valuable experience.

Research signals intellectual curiosity, analytical ability, and initiative. A full research cycle—developing a hypothesis, testing it through experiments and literature review, analyzing results, and drawing conclusions—demonstrates depth of thought, resilience, and a panoramic vision. These are precisely the qualities that admissions officers value.

Going Deeper: Ontological Humility

Beyond practical outcomes, research cultivates what I call ontological humility—a deep, philosophical sense of modesty about one’s understanding. It shifts students away from studying for tests or SATs and toward a different plane of intellectual engagement. True research demands confronting uncertainty, valuing diverse perspectives, and embracing complexity. That kind of deep, reflective thinking only comes over time.

And that time can’t be rushed. Let’s define two Greek concepts of time:

Chronos: quantitative, linear time (the ticking of a clock).
Kairos: qualitative, contextual time—moments that are ripe for insight, meaning, and decision.

Picture a surfer waiting for the perfect wave. The waiting itself is Chronos—time marching on. But when the wave arrives, the split-second of riding it is Kairos—a moment charged with opportunity and meaning.

Real research involves both. You design an experiment, wait days or weeks for data (Chronos), then hit a critical analytical insight (Kairos), followed by interpretation, peer review, rethinking—another cycle of time. That deep process yields the ontological humility I mentioned.

Is Your Research Authentic and Deep Enough?

Consider PhD students: in one survey, 24.1% said they needed 4–6 months to produce a paper, another 24.1% said 7–12 months, and the largest share said 1–2 years.

Journal data likewise show that on average, research projects take between 79 and 323 days—nearly a year—to complete. In my own combined master’s and PhD work, where I took over someone else’s project (roughly 20% theirs, 80% mine), it still took me 10 months to reach first-author status. If I’d started from scratch, it would easily have taken at least a year.

That’s why I’m cautious—not criticizing any specific company.
Many commercial programs advertise: meet with a professor 10 times, work for 3–6 months, and generate a research paper. Basic programs claim they’ll meet nine times over 12 weeks and deliver a paper. Some even tout finishing a research write-up in 10 days with 30 hours intensive work.

But from my perspective, research must incorporate both Chronos and Kairos. You must live the process: proposal development (keywords, hypothesis, design, background, methodology, references), midterm reporting, abstracting, poster creation—it’s a journey. Even for us, proposal writing alone took well over a month. From start to poster, the minimum realistic timeframe is six months; eight to ten months is typical. My experience—and the literature—suggest that educators need that time to mentor high school students adequately.

The Lesson from History

Consider icons like Nikola Tesla and Alexander Fleming:

Tesla, once Edison’s protégé, developed the alternating current system—the one we use in homes today—after observing phenomena (some say a walk at sunset sparked his insight).
Fleming, while researching antibacterial agents, noticed mold killing germs on a vacation break, sparking penicillin’s discovery.

Both pioneers were deeply immersed, devoting extended, reflective engagement to their questions—combining focus, low-pressure incubation, and sudden insight. Admissions committees aren’t looking for robotic regurgitation—they want that potential: the capacity for deep, original thought.

As more applicants come in with research credentials, universities will likely bolster their evaluation to find whose work genuinely shows those qualities. That means our research must include both Chronos (time spent) and Kairos (moments of insight and agency).

Final Takeaway

Your students should absolutely do research—it must be real, deep, and time‑honored. Reflect: Are they merely tracking time (Chronos), or are they actively engaging, iterating, reflecting, and experiencing those moments of insight (Kairos)? It’s that blend that signals genuine readiness—and yes, pays dividends in college admissions.

Thank you.