As someone with a computer engineering degree, I think this article is totally lame. I'm just going to have to address each point: Point #5: Some textbooks

As someone with a computer engineering degree, I think this article is totally lame. I'm just going to have to address each point: Point #5: Some textbooks are indeed awful. This is probably the most reasonable point here. But I don't think this is specific to engineering. And it's possible to learn the material in different ways, thanks to the net. Point #4: I don't think it is a professor's job to 'create excitement'. I'm happy with a professor when they do a great job explaining things, not when they sound like a Pontiac ("we build excitement") ad. Point #3: This stands out as particularly awful. Engineering programs don't exist to hold students' hands while they search for work. Point #2: This point manages to be arrogant and incorrect at the same time. In my experience, the brightest students are often the ones with the best grades. Yes, some obviously talented students will slack, but the author is totally over-generalizing. Point #1: Every assignment feels the same. He makes this statement, and then fails to back it up. Yes, many assignments were based on math. This does not make them the same. I don't think many engineers would agree that deriving the Nyquist theorem is the same as solving an RLC circuit network. Engineering is totally about creativity - but like anything, first you need to learn the basics.