Cornell or Brown for undergraduate research opportunities?

Cornell has the edge for undergraduate research opportunities. Its overall research enterprise is larger and broader, with especially deep strength in engineering, agriculture and life sciences, computing, materials, architecture, and hotel administration, so there are simply more labs, centers, and applied projects where undergrads can plug in.

Scale is the biggest differentiator. Cornell’s mix of private colleges and state-supported colleges creates a wide spread of research areas, including fields that Brown does not offer at the same depth, such as agriculture, veterinary-related research environments, labor and industrial relations, and certain applied sciences. For a student who is still exploring or wants interdisciplinary options, that breadth matters because it increases the odds of finding several labs that fit your interests.

The second difference is the style of access. Brown is very undergraduate-focused and students often describe professors as approachable, which can make it easier to build close mentoring relationships early. But Brown’s research ecosystem is smaller, so while opportunities are definitely real, the menu is not as extensive. Cornell can feel bigger and more decentralized, yet that same size often translates into more openings across more departments, especially once you start contacting faculty directly.

A third factor is the kind of research experience you want. Brown can be especially appealing if you value a flexible curriculum and want room to shape an unusual academic path alongside research. Cornell stands out more for students who want a dense, high-volume research environment with many formal institutes, applied projects, and field-specific infrastructure. For pure access to hands-on undergraduate research across the widest range of subjects, Cornell is the stronger answer.