How do undergraduate research opportunities at Brown compare with Johns Hopkins?

Both Brown and Johns Hopkins make undergraduate biology research accessible early, but the experience differs. Johns Hopkins is more research-saturated, particularly in biomedical science, neuroscience, public health, and engineering, with major medical and research institutions closely tied to the university. Brown offers substantial lab access too, while its open curriculum gives students more freedom to combine biology with other interests and shape a less prescribed academic path.

Johns Hopkins fits a student who wants to be immersed in a high-intensity research environment from the start and is comfortable proactively contacting faculty. Undergraduates can join labs on the Homewood campus and, in some cases, connect with work associated with the School of Medicine and other Hopkins research centers. Programs such as the Provost’s Undergraduate Research Awards can support independent work, and many students build research experience through lab positions, course credit, or summer projects. The scale of Hopkins’s biomedical enterprise provides a broad range of labs, though students still need to identify faculty whose work matches their interests.

Brown may appeal more to a student who wants research to be central but not all-consuming. Biology students can approach professors for lab roles, pursue faculty-mentored projects, and seek funding through undergraduate research programs, including the Undergraduate Teaching and Research Awards. Brown’s smaller, more flexible academic structure can make it easier to explore adjacent areas such as environmental studies, cognitive science, computer science, or ethics before committing to a narrow biology specialty.

Neither school guarantees a first-year lab position. At both, the most effective approach is to read faculty lab pages, send concise individualized emails, and be open to basic tasks at first.