The CRA award is about research. If a nominator can talk about his or her direct experience doing research with the nominee, that is the best use of the available space in the letters of support. CRA is especially interested in the nominee's specific contributions. For example, did the nominee invent a new algorithm, provide a certain proof, or analyze data and uncover new information? If the nominee published a paper, what was the nominee's part in the authorship, and did the nominee present it? After discussing research, the nominator should make brief comments on other aspects such as: community service, leadership, any special factors which the student had to overcome, teaching ability, or academic performance. However, please note that the order of the topics listed in the nomination procedure is intentional. While it is expected the winner of this award will have an excellent GPA and be a star student, details of how well the nominee did in this or that class are not relevant to this nomination.

Like the recommendation letters, the resume should focus on the nominee's research contributions. It is best if each research project is described in a couple of sentences and clearly states what the nominee did. If the nominee has published (and/or submitted) papers, it is essential to list them with full citations (i.e., full author list exactly as given in the publication, title, venue, year, etc.). It is helpful if the nominee’s contribution to the paper is specified either in the resume or the research summary.

The one-page research summary prepared by the student should focus on the research, clearly stating the problem addressed and providing specific details of what the nominee contributed. Remember that the award committee is composed of computer scientists; it is not necessary to explain NP-completeness or what a scheduler is. But the committee isn't made up of specialists in the nominee's field, so it is appropriate to explain the more abstruse details of the research. Concentrate on what the nominee did, not on what the project did overall. We are interested in the nominee's contribution, not the fact that the nominee's advisor's idea is a cool one. The more detail that can be provided on the nominee's part of the project as well as impact and novelty of the nominee’s contribution, the better the award committee can understand what the nominee did. Special attention should be given to research, not implementation: for example, the committee is more interested in the algorithm the nominee designed than in the fact that the nominee implemented it in a particular new language. The nominee's publications (including submitted ones) should be noted and the nominee's part in each publication should be addressed; for example, did the nominee write the first draft, assume responsibility for a particular section, or contribute evaluation results?