USC vs. Michigan: Which university offers better access to undergraduate research?

The biggest practical tradeoff is Michigan’s exceptional breadth and formal first-year research infrastructure versus USC’s smaller, more relationship-driven environment. Michigan’s Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) is specifically designed to place newer students, including first-years, on faculty-led projects across disciplines. Its large research ecosystem, including major professional schools, hospitals, institutes, and laboratories, creates an unusually wide menu of possible projects.

USC also gives undergraduates real research access, particularly through programs such as the Undergraduate Research Associates Program and school-specific opportunities in Dornsife, Viterbi, the health sciences, and the arts. Because USC has fewer undergraduates and smaller classes in many programs, a proactive student may find it easier to build a direct relationship with a professor. However, opportunities can be more decentralized, so students often need to identify relevant faculty and apply or reach out independently rather than relying on one university-wide matching pipeline.

Field matters. Michigan has a particular advantage for students who want to explore many possibilities, work in large-scale science, public health, medicine-adjacent research, social science, or humanities projects, or secure a structured research role early without already knowing a specific lab. USC can be especially compelling when a student has identified a niche faculty mentor, wants research connected to Los Angeles industries or communities, or values a more intimate campus setting.

For early, dependable access to a broad range of meaningful undergraduate research, Michigan has the edge because UROP and its overall research scale make the path more visible and systematic. USC is still an excellent research choice, but it rewards students who take initiative in finding the right professor or program.