The Ivy Institute | College Admissions Research | November 2026
Executive Summary
A student can make a real contribution before an extracurricular project is finished. We followed nine selected projects, one per student. Four had a documented result that another person could see or experience. The other five had evidence of an idea, preparation or work in progress, without enough information to confirm a result. In these materials, a working demonstration, a substantial draft and a delivered activity all counted as results. A suggested launch date did not.
The distinction matters when a parent asks, “How is your project going?” A student who has tested something with a small audience may have a good answer even if the larger plan is still underway. Another student may have a thoughtful proposal that depends on a partner’s agreement. Describing that dependency accurately helps a family decide what to do next.
These nine students came from a review of authorized advising experiences covering January 2025 through November 8, 2026. Some projects first appeared after work had begun. Others were still at the idea stage when we last heard about them. We could verify outputs for four of nine projects, or 44.4%. We could not establish a completion rate for the original proposals or an abandonment rate. Missing follow-up means the later outcome is unknown. None of the findings measures admission chances.
The Ivy Institute conducted and funded this study and publishes it as a provider of paid college advising. Our students and the projects they discuss with advisers may differ from those of other families. Source for internal findings: The Ivy Institute, internal materials, data, and information.
Table of contents
What counts as a project?
A student proposes a neighborhood event. They recruit a friend, discover that the original location is unavailable, and try a smaller activity somewhere else. When did the project start? Did it finish when the smaller activity took place? Would it matter if the initial idea had been a series of events?
Those questions matter in a research report because changing the definition changes the count. They also matter at home. A family that recognizes only a final public launch may miss learning, revision and work that happened earlier. A family that calls every plan a finished achievement may leave the student without a clear next step.
For this study, a project meant an identifiable effort beyond ordinary application preparation with an intended product, service, investigation or activity. It needed to be possible to say what the student was trying to do. Joining a club was insufficient on its own. Describing a distinct project within a club could qualify. A proposed effort could enter the review even if the first planned action never became visible.
We asked three questions. What stage could we document for each selected project? What kinds of information helped us distinguish intention, work and output? When progress was uncertain, did the information actually explain why? We did not assume that an unfinished project was a failure, that a completed project was effective or that any activity improved the student’s admission prospects.
How we followed the projects
We began with 15 distinct students for whom we had authorized advising histories in an existing research frame. We screened dated material from January 1, 2025 through November 8, 2026. We looked for proposals, projects, prototypes, events, writing, outreach, workshops, launches and similar forms of work. We read the surrounding discussion to find out whose project it was, whether it was an actual effort or an illustrative example, and whether the student had done something or was considering doing it.
We selected nine clear project histories by judgment, one project from each of nine students. We wanted to retain both plans and work already underway, with a recognizable intended result and enough context to distinguish one project from another. We did not try to assign a stage to every extracurricular activity or to every student in the original group. The six students without a selected project may have done substantial work elsewhere. Calling this a count of students who undertook projects would misstate the study.
The nine projects are a set of examples with results we can describe in aggregate. They do not make up a group of nine newly proposed ideas all followed forward for the same length of time. A student who discussed something already delivered had a different chance of showing an output from a student whose idea first appeared close to the end of the review. That difference limits the question we can answer. We can describe what was visible by the last useful observation. We cannot estimate the probability that a new idea will become a completed project.
The stages we looked for
| Stage | Evidence we looked for | What would leave the stage uncertain |
|---|---|---|
| Proposal | A student or adviser describes a specific idea, intended audience or result and a next decision. | A general suggestion to get more involved, with no identifiable project. |
| Start | The student has taken a concrete step to carry out the project, such as gathering material, trying the work or producing part of it. | A future task list, an expected kickoff or a plan to ask someone. |
| Output | Something identifiable has been made, demonstrated or delivered. A partial draft or pilot can qualify. | A description of what the student hopes eventually to make. |
| Continued work | A later dated observation shows substantive work on the same effort. | A later conversation that merely repeats the project name or recommends including it in an application. |
| Completion | There is evidence that the intended project or an explicitly bounded phase was finished. | A result exists, but the intended scope or finish point is unclear. |
| Pause | The student or responsible group explicitly put the project on hold. | An adviser suggested waiting, a mentor had not replied or follow-up ended. |
| Abandonment | The student explicitly decided to stop pursuing that particular project. | A different idea became interesting or the earlier one was never mentioned again. |
These stages help describe a history. They are not a score for judging students. A student can start with an idea and return to planning after a test fails. An output may appear while work continues. A student might complete a workshop but leave open whether the larger initiative will run for another year. In those circumstances, the workshop and the initiative answer different completion questions.
How we treated dates
We dated an observation when the available information described the student or adviser discussing the work. If a student recalled something that happened earlier, we kept the date of that account. We did not invent the date of the original event. Several stages could be reported on a single day, but that is different from being able to observe the transitions between them.
Likewise, a planned date is evidence of a plan. A week after that date, a statement that still describes preparation can tell us that preparation is documented at the later point. It cannot establish whether the student privately tried something in between. We looked for direct evidence of action before recording an output.
We also checked that later mentions referred to the same project. A student can work on multiple technical experiments, several pieces of writing or more than one community activity. A shared topic, partner or school subject is insufficient to join them. When a possible later description used a different identity or could refer to another effort, we retained the last unambiguous observation. That choice can make a history look shorter, but it prevents one student’s or one project’s achievements from being attributed to another.
How we counted results
The main calculation counts a single yes or unknown for each of nine students’ selected projects. “Yes” requires a specific reported output. We allowed a contemporaneous demonstration or a clear account of an already delivered activity or produced draft. We do not imply that the public could inspect every output or that a finished product was independently evaluated. “Unknown” means that the review did not confirm a result by the last observation. It does not change to “no” merely because the observation period ended.
We kept one project per student so that a student who explored many ideas did not dominate the count. We also kept one output status per project. A student might describe several parts of a prototype or multiple sessions of a recurring activity, but that still contributes only one project to the output total. No school, institution, location, unusual topic or family identity appears beside an individual result in the public report.
What we could verify
Output documented — 4 of 9
Output unconfirmed — 5 of 9
| Last-observation evidence | Projects | Share of nine |
|---|---|---|
| At least one identifiable output was reported or demonstrated | 4 | 44.4% |
| A project was identifiable, but an output remained unconfirmed | 5 | 55.6% |
The first group included tangible work in more than one form. An output could be a draft that was still being expanded, a demonstration of something already built, or an activity that people had actually participated in. The second group included plans and preparation as well as work described as underway. An expected launch, a hoped-for partnership and a statement of purpose did not establish delivery. The Ivy Institute, internal materials, data, and information.
These two rows answer a narrower question than the title might initially suggest. We could identify a result in four histories. We could not verify that those four projects reached all their original goals. Nor could we verify that the other five failed to produce anything. Public accounts of extracurricular activities often begin after a clear outcome is available. Including incomplete histories changes the denominator and makes the uncertainty visible.
The stage descriptions include pause and abandonment because both are possible outcomes. We found insufficient unambiguous evidence to publish rates for these stages. A plan to postpone something is different from confirmation that the student paused it, and a missing update cannot settle the matter. We also do not publish a stage-by-stage breakdown that could reveal which student faced a particular obstacle. The complete counts we can safely publish are in the table and accompanying data.
One change matters in a group of nine
If one more currently unconfirmed project were later shown to have an output, the share would move from 4 of 9 to 5 of 9, or 55.6%. If one of the four reported outputs failed a stricter independent check, the share would become 3 of 9, or 33.3%. These are sensitivity checks. They do not add a project, correct an observation or establish new facts. One judgment changes the percentage by 11.1 points.
Calling four of nine a “success rate” would hide three important things. The projects were deliberately selected. Students entered observation at different stages. And success was never defined by a shared goal. A student who wanted to try a manageable first version could succeed without going public. A student who delivered a public event may still have missed an intended audience. We did not measure reach, quality, student learning or community benefit.
Why the last observation is important
Think of a family reading a month-old plan to organize a neighborhood repair day. The plan lists a date and three jobs. Without later information, the most accurate statement is that a repair day was planned. The team may have held it, postponed it, discovered that another group already did the same work, or changed to a different activity. The date printed on the plan cannot choose among those possibilities.
Now imagine that a later account says the team repaired two items in a trial session. The family can describe a pilot output. Whether the bigger event ever happened is still open. One good habit is to describe the latest thing known to be true in a complete sentence. “We ran a trial with two items and are deciding whether to hold a larger session” communicates more than a label such as “in progress” or “successful.”
These examples are invented. They illustrate the same rule we used in the study. A later mention of a project in an application discussion did not count as renewed work unless it actually described the student doing something new. The student may have remained enthusiastic about the work. Enthusiasm alone cannot establish a new stage.
Why projects sometimes remain open
The internal material identified concrete questions about partner agreement, mentoring availability and whether an idea addressed an unmet need. These were documented dependencies or questions. We could not establish that any one of them generally caused projects to stall. In particular, waiting for a reply does not show that the potential partner rejected the idea. Recognizing an existing alternative does not establish that the student abandoned the project.
Time, equipment and scope can matter in many projects, but those general possibilities do not become internal findings unless a particular history supports them. We did not assign a student a time-management problem because a date passed. We did not infer lack of equipment because a prototype was missing. We did not label a changed idea as loss of motivation. Each would add a private explanation the evidence could not establish.
For a parent, a more useful question is often “Which part depends on someone else?” If a student wants to run an activity in an existing community, the host has a legitimate say in whether and how it happens. If the student wants access to equipment, the person responsible for that equipment sets the conditions. Helping a student identify whose agreement matters can advance the project even before there is anything to publish.
When another group already offers something similar
A student learns that a tool they planned to make already exists. There are several reasonable next steps. They might ask users what is missing. They might contribute to the existing effort. They might use the tool to solve a different problem. They might decide that people are already well served and put their time elsewhere. A family conversation can treat all four as thoughtful choices.
That choice also affects how the student describes their work. Researching existing options can be a real first step. It is not the same as building an original tool. If the student does build something, a transparent account can say what was adapted and what the student created. Inflating originality makes the project harder to explain, especially when the intended users already know the existing alternatives.
When a partner has not agreed
Imagine a student who wants to lead a workshop at a community center. The student has a lesson plan and a date they would like to use. The center has not agreed to host it. The student already has an output, the lesson plan. They do not yet have a delivered workshop or a partnership. Keeping these facts distinct gives the student two options. They can approach the center with a specific, respectful proposal, and they can test the lesson in a setting where participation is already appropriate.
It is useful to ask what would make the activity worthwhile to the host. The student may discover that the community center needs something shorter, in another language or at a different time. A change that makes the project more responsive may make the original plan less recognizable. When describing what happened, the student can acknowledge who suggested the change and how it affected the work.
When the student’s interest changes
A project can teach a student that they dislike part of the work, enjoy an unexpected task or want to pursue a different question. Families sometimes find it easier to discuss this after something tangible exists. A single test, a sample page or a trial conversation gives the student an experience to reflect on. But a student need not spend months producing an unwanted output just to justify changing direction.
The study cannot identify a student’s private reasons for continuing or stopping. In the family guide, we suggest asking the student to name the decision in their own words. “I am interested in the subject, but I want to try a smaller version” means something different from “I want to stop this project.” The language can be simple and can change later as long as it accurately reflects the current decision.
What research on youth activities adds
Reed Larson, David Hansen and Giovanni Moneta asked 2,280 eleventh-grade students at 19 high schools about experiences in organized activities. The researchers found that the types of experiences students reported differed across activities. For example, reports about initiative were relatively frequent in arts and sports, while different opportunities for interpersonal development appeared in other settings. The study measured what young people said they experienced. It did not use project completion as its single measure of value. Larson, Hansen and Moneta, Developmental Psychology, 2006
That distinction helps interpret our results. If a book is unfinished but the student has worked out how to organize a complex chapter, the unfinished state says something about the manuscript. It tells us much less about what the student learned. Conversely, a published page or a completed workshop tells us that an output exists. It does not prove that the student learned a particular skill or that the audience benefited.
Hansen, Larson and Dworkin also studied young people’s self-reported developmental experiences in organized activities. Their research provides a way to ask families a different kind of follow-up question. What did the student learn about managing time, working with others or making decisions? Those are questions a student can answer directly. Our private observations were not collected through the same survey, so we do not assign the researchers’ findings to the students in this study. Hansen, Larson and Dworkin, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2003
Neither study compares the admission chances of students with finished and unfinished projects. Neither independently examined Ivy’s students. Their value here is to clarify that participation, learning, output and external outcomes are different things. A family can care about all four while keeping separate evidence for each.
Designing a project a student can actually test
Start with a result small enough for the student to explain without a long title. A project about neighborhood history could begin with one recorded and properly consented conversation, or with an annotated map assembled from public material. A project about design could begin with one model that solves one physical problem. A student who wants to teach could start with a single lesson and a clear idea of who has agreed to try it. These are examples, not model achievements. The right size depends on the student’s interest, skill, available time and the people affected.
| Question to ask | A concrete answer might include |
|---|---|
| Who is this for? | An actual user, reader or group whose interest the student can check. A personal learning project can be for the student. |
| What would count as a first version? | One session, a working feature, a short draft, a small test or an agreed piece of service. |
| Which part is mine? | The student’s contribution and the parts belonging to a partner, mentor or teammate. |
| What permission or resource is needed? | Access to a space, a host’s agreement, supervision, materials or an appropriate way to get feedback. |
| What would show that work has started? | A concrete action already taken, with a date if useful. |
| What would show the first version is finished? | A defined deliverable or a completed activity, even if the wider project continues. |
The answers do not need to sound impressive. A small project is often easier to test precisely. If the student can describe the first version, they can ask for a specific kind of feedback. If the goal is “change how people think about history,” almost any outcome can be made to fit after the fact. If the goal is to write a short, sourced guide someone can use on a walk, the student can see whether a reader understands the route and the evidence behind the story.
One project, three sensible finish lines
Imagine a student interested in making school performances easier to hear. A first version might be a short explanation of where sound is lost in one room. A second might be a small prototype tested with permission in that room. A third might be a recommendation the student presents to the people responsible for the space. Each is a possible finish line for a different scope of work.
The family can help by asking which finish line the student is choosing for now. If the student completes the explanation and decides that equipment testing needs supervision they do not have, the explanation remains a completed phase. A student should not have to describe it as an entire building improvement program to make it worth doing.
If the student later tests a prototype, write down what was tested and what changed. “The test gave us a reason to move the microphone” is more useful than “the project grew.” If a final recommendation is presented, distinguish presentation from adoption. The school’s decision about whether to act is different from the student’s work in presenting a reasonable suggestion.
A project can begin with listening
Students often feel they should arrive with a solution already designed. For a community project, the more useful first step can be asking whether someone wants the proposed help. The student can prepare a brief explanation, listen to the response and accept that the answer may be different from what they expected. A group that already has a working service may need a volunteer rather than another new initiative.
Listening does not have to become a public survey or an internet campaign. The question can be modest and appropriate to the setting. “Would a one-page explanation help new volunteers learn this task?” is something a potential host can answer. “How can I transform your entire organization?” requires the host to do much more work before the student has demonstrated an understanding of the organization.
It is also possible for a student to choose a project with no outside user. A personal translation, a home experiment that is safe to conduct, a piece of art or a reading guide can be valuable on its own terms. The student can define an audience later if they want one. The study offers no evidence that a project needs a brand, a public platform or an external partner to deserve a student’s time.
What parents can do in a ten-minute check-in
Ask the student to show you one thing that is different from the last time you spoke. That might be a sketch, a revised question, a draft introduction or a decision from a prospective partner. If there is nothing to show yet, ask what decision or dependency is holding the next step open. Let the student explain in ordinary language before offering solutions.
Next, ask what they want from you. They may want a reader, a ride, help locating safe materials, or simply time without another suggestion. If an adult takes over the difficult middle, the student can end up with a finished product that is hard to describe as their own. A parent can often help more by reducing one practical obstacle and leaving the central creative work with the student.
Finally, agree on a concrete next check if one would be useful. A small test with a clear end can be easier to discuss than a promise to “work harder.” The student can also say they want to pause. If they do, record what would prompt a revisit, or that they have chosen to end the effort. A clear pause is more informative than a project that stays on a list for months after everyone has stopped discussing it.
How to describe unfinished work accurately
A student who has a partial draft can say what exists and what remains. A student who has asked a host about a workshop can say they developed the idea and sought permission. A student whose prototype did not work can describe the test and the problem it revealed. These are concrete accounts of work. No invented audience, exaggerated scope or promised future achievement is needed.
Use care with words that imply a result controlled by someone else. “Submitted” is different from “published.” “Invited a partner” is different from “partnered.” “Tested with three willing readers” is different from “improved literacy.” “Built a trial version” is different from “launched a service.” The right verb often does more to improve accuracy than another adjective.
For team projects, give credit in both directions. Say what the group did and what the student contributed. A student may have designed one part, arranged a test, found a flaw or explained the result. If the student’s role changed over time, saying so can make the account easier to follow. The purpose is to help another person understand the real work, whether or not the project reached its original finish line.
What can you learn from an unfinished project?
Suppose a student has a folder of photographs, permission to use them and a rough order for a presentation. They have already made decisions about audience and sequence. If the family asks only “Is it done?” the answer might be no. A more informative answer would describe which photograph opens the story, which one needs a better source and who still has to review the draft. That gives the student a way to decide whether to keep going and the parent a way to understand what help would be welcome.
This is an invented example. In the actual review, we needed the same distinction when deciding whether an observation documented a start, a partial output or a finished activity. Gathering materials can establish that the work has begun. A draft can establish an output. Confirming that the intended recipient saw it or that the complete project met its purpose takes further evidence.
The problem with looking back from a finished activity
When a student looks back on something they delivered, they can often explain the result in one tidy sentence. The earlier uncertainty may disappear from the story. A group that hosted a successful event probably considered ideas it never pursued. A student with a polished manuscript may have spent weeks deciding which subject to cover. A retrospective description tells us that a later stage occurred, but it rarely supplies a reliable date for every preceding step.
The reverse is also true. A student describing a brand-new idea may sound confident about the proposed outcome. The audience, title and launch date can all be clear in the plan. That clarity is valuable for organizing work. It does not make the result more certain than the evidence allows. A study that compares retrospective accounts of successful activities with prospective descriptions of ideas has to acknowledge the difference.
A useful family exercise is to write two separate sentences: “As of today, I have…” and “The next thing I hope to…” A student can then decide whether they want to add a third: “This part depends on…” Those sentences can be kept private. They make it easier to revise a plan without rewriting the history of what actually happened.
A completed phase can be enough
Consider a student who wants to teach younger students how to read a map. A first project could be a printable activity tested with a sibling who wants to try it. A second project could involve working with a teacher to adapt it for a class. A third could involve a series of neighborhood walks. The activity sheet could be finished even if the student never secures permission to run a class or a walk.
Parents sometimes identify the largest possible version as the “real” project and describe everything else as preparation. It can help to ask what the student actually intended and what the intended audience needs. If the teacher wants a one-page resource and has no room for a field trip, the smaller version may be the better deliverable. That judgment depends on the people involved. Our study did not evaluate the quality of any particular project’s goals.
The same principle applies to personal learning. A student might want to understand the history of a game, translate a short piece or build a model to see whether an idea works. The student can complete that inquiry without beginning an organization devoted to it. If the project does become larger, the student can define a new phase with a new finish line instead of continually moving the first one.
Check whether the audience has agreed to be part of the work
A plan to work with people can sound concrete before any of those people have agreed. A school, library or community group has its own duties and priorities. A useful proposal makes it easy for the recipient to say what would help, what is impractical and whether another arrangement already exists.
Imagine a student who wants to record short interviews for a local history project. They can begin by using public sources to learn what material already exists. Before recording anyone, they need an appropriate process for permission and for decisions about where voices or images would appear. A parent can help the student think through those questions without assuming that everyone who has a story wants it placed online. This is planning guidance for an invented example. The study did not contact students, families or outside organizations to obtain new personal information.
Even in a low-stakes design project, a potential audience can correct the student’s assumptions. Something that looks like a missing resource from the outside may already exist in a form the student has not seen. Finding it can save time. A student can keep the original concern while changing how to contribute.
A guide to the next conversation
| When the student says… | A follow-up that leaves the work with the student |
|---|---|
| “I have an idea.” | What is the smallest version that would help you decide whether to pursue it? |
| “I have started.” | What did you do that you could describe or show today? |
| “The draft is done.” | Done for your own review, ready for a reader, or complete for the purpose you chose? |
| “We need a partner.” | What do you need the partner to agree to, and what might they need from you? |
| “It didn’t work.” | What did you try, what happened and what decision does that help you make? |
| “I want to stop.” | Would you like to close out this version, keep anything for later or simply move on? |
These questions are suggestions, not a scoring system. A student who cannot yet answer one has identified the next uncertainty. A student who decides to move on does not owe the family a public success story. A short, accurate account of the decision can preserve the learning and free up time for something else.
Limits and conclusion
The review was small and selected by judgment. One student’s project counted once, and we selected nine histories from 15 students with available experiences. The nine projects covered different subjects, began at different times and entered the study at different stages. Some were described retrospectively. We did not use a common follow-up period beginning on a verified proposal date, and we could not inspect every underlying product or independently confirm every student’s account.
For those reasons, we do not report a time-to-completion estimate, a national prevalence, a rate of project abandonment or a causal effect of advising. A more complete study would enroll projects when the student first proposed them, agree in advance on a manageable definition of completion, and check back at the same intervals even when little had happened. With consent, students could identify their own reasons for a pause or change of direction. Independent reviewers could then compare stage assignments and report agreement.
In the evidence available here, four of nine selected projects had a reported or demonstrated result, and five remained without a confirmed output. A useful family question follows directly from that distinction. What have you actually made or done so far, and what would you like to do with it next? That question leaves room for a finished project, a promising first attempt and an honest decision to change plans. The Ivy Institute, internal materials, data, and information.
