[RWebb]

At a major research university (and UO just makes the cut) laboratory courses are usually taught by TA's (grad. students) under the supervision of a professor. This cuts costs and makes the grad. students happy (they get a stipend, some power and recognition). It makes the professors VERY happy as their legacy is based on their own research and what their own grad. students do, NOT on what their undergraduates do. The entire system for the professors is geared towards research, not towards quality undergraduate education. The latter is best achieved at a top 4 year liberal arts college for a liberal arts major, but not so much for a science major.

A small honors college gives a student many of the advantages of a top liberal arts 4 year college but without the tuition cost. For a science major, they still get the benefit of being in a research environment and (at least as a Jr or Sr) learning from the top scientists in their field. That won't apply much for a liberal arts major.

A college education is NOT training. It is a generalized education - to teach people to think. A 2 year degree is a completely different animal and is training based. But most students should pay some attention to what they will do after graduation and structure their courses outside their major (or in their major) to that end. A student with a lot of financial resources has greater luxury of choice. It is good for parents to think about that after your daughter consumes a cool 1/4 million at an elite liberal arts school with a major in the Cultural Anthropology of fabric arts in Kuwhatistan and then joins the PeaceCorps, and follows that up by waitressing while living in your basement, then moves out and graduates to working at a freakin' Goat Ranch in California (which BTW does not even make goat cheese so you don't even get goat cheese).

Gettin' the idea here?