Cohort scheduling intentionally places students in the same sections of several classes (e.g., biology, algebra, and writing) with a consistent peer group and is typically done for small groups (<30 students) to enable better interaction among students. The goal of this study was to compare cohort scheduling to traditional scheduling methods among freshmen in a physiology-related program. Outcomes included retention to the university and major, semester grades, and institutional integration and perceived group cohesion. Incoming freshmen (n = 209) were randomized into control (n = 43; scheduled with traditional methods) and intervention (n = 166; coenrolled in first-year seminar course, biology, and medical terminology) groups. Outcomes were collected via surveys or requested from the university registrar. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of retention to the university or major and no differences between groups in pass/fail rates for the first-year seminar or biology courses. At the end of the semester, there were no differences between groups in Perceived Cohesion for Small Groups (P = 0.102) or the Institutional Integration Scale (P = 0.357). However, the intervention group scored higher on the Institutional Integration Scale's subscales related to social integration and faculty. Cohort scheduling did not impact retention to the university or major but improved secondary outcomes related to retention, specifically social integration and student perceptions of faculty.