In response to my invitation to readers to write in with their suggestions about how to choose a college, I received this excellent letter from an academic scientist:

There are some disciplinary consistencies that travel across universities. The hard sciences are far less politicized than social sciences or humanities (this may also not be helpful if you've got a child bent on majoring classics or poly sci). After a dozen years, I still don't know the political perspectives of half of my colleagues. I doubt they know mine. It's just not relevant.

I'd also disagree with your view that English & History are the "pulse points". Yes, if you are in the humanities. From most sciencists perspectives, they are (sad to say) irrelevant. The pulse points for science students & teachers are revolve around opportunities to do research in science. Doing is learning.

The visiting/application questions could be a little different. What percent of the majors are involved in research? Research with a faculty member is one of the most rewarding, challenging & enriching experiences for an undergrad, but if its less than 5%, that's telling you something about the climate at the University. Research with a professor is usually more limited at the small colleges (the formal teaching those folks do is much greater, there are fewer profs per discipline, etc). But the trade off is that those profs are teaching the laboratory sections themselves. A University with a graduate program, the labs will certainly be taught by graduate students. How many are foreign? The trade-off in sciences for a Research University vs. the small college can be tough, if you are interested in a research future.

Is your child interested in a clinical career (the vast majority of science majors)? Medical schools look favorably on (if not requiring) volunteer experience at a hospital. That's probably not possible at a small school, or an isolated University without a med school. While most med schools are notoriously stand-offish, many faculty there are eager to interact with undergraduates. They may not teach classes, but they offer opportunities that are just not going to be available in a non-university college.

Engineering? Does the University have a co-op program? What are their ties with industry? What are the out of classroom opportunities? What is the first year drop-out or transfer to other program rate (notoriously high in some engineering programs)?

More questions: What is the lab space like? When was the last time they were renovated? Or do they look like something out of Young Frankenstein? Intro science courses may have big lectures, but what are the size of labs (10 is great, 20 is OK, 30 is probably a disaster waiting to happen)? What kind of lab fees are required in addition to tuition? If you are interested in a field-oriented science (geology, ecology), are there field trips on weekends, over break? Having Big Names in Science teach courses is a mixed blessing. Some do a good job, and some don't. But young, enthusastic scientists (who may get judged on research more than teaching for tenure) are some of the best opportunities for learning about science. Sit in on a class or two in the area you like. Can you tell if the prof loved their science?

Young scientists still take English and some version of social science.The questions about core courses you & Myers point out are important. But, in the end most figure out which courses are going to be disasters (politically or otherwise). It is a shame, in my book, that scientists aren't getting a real humanities & social science core. But in choosing a college today may be another factor weighed into the final decision.

Finally, you can probably get a good education nearly anywhere. I know that's not helpful for a parent making an extremely expensive decision, but its still true. A good student can find good teachers, and do what it takes to make that education happen.