Should EC info line not include awards and focus on a description?

<p>For example, I've worked in research labs for multiple years. Should I with that line write a description or just write my awards?</p>

<p>Right now, I have: "Selected for provincially competitive Heritage Youth Research Program. Associate Member of Sigma Xi Research Society." but would it be better if I described what I did? I feel like it might get redundant, with the other info being provided. If I did add what I did, I'd probably say: worked on multiple projects, did experiments + analyzed data independently and then consulted with my mentor. </p>

<p>(I'm sending in a LoR and an abstract which hopefully should make clear what I did/how I worked hard/wasn't a lab grunt.)</p>

<p>Same thing for Science Fair - it's even more self explanatory (lol), but should I include like how I had to write proposals and whatnot and then list my awards in the main honours section/additional info. (Sci fair awards are my big ones but I'm listing politics/social science things because I'm not 100% science fair). </p>

<p>Finally- I've heard some people say they're adding other awards in additional info. Is it worth adding it if they're not as big but support your interest in an area? An example might be the Silver Test Tube Award from ACS or even regional awards I got at science fair. </p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>So you should have “yo I did research” as one of the lines in your ec box, then put the being selected for whatever research program in the line it gives you to describe your recognitions within the ec. Then list your isef/jshs/sts/Siemens/whatever awards in the main awards section. If you really want to you can add the other awards in the additional info section but some random regional science fair award isn’t going to really make a difference one way or the other.</p>

<p>For more well known activities I included the awards I received on the description line but for activities that are not well known I added a brief description of my roles etc</p>