"I disagree with his anti-engineering and anti-research points. Attacking pseudo-technical degrees like undergraduate business, sure. Attacking humanities resea

"I disagree with his anti-engineering and anti-research points. Attacking pseudo-technical degrees like undergraduate business, sure. Attacking humanities research, sure" I think you're missing the point. At Johns Hopkins I had a mix of good teachers and bad; most of the professors there did a lot of research, but that didn't have any bearing on whether or not they were any good at teaching. Personally, I have no problem with professors doing research AND teaching, provided that they do a good job when it comes to teaching. The problem arises when universities, and this included Johns Hopkins (which is why I refuse to give any money to the alumni fund when they all me), is that it was clear that so long as the professors were doing research and publishing papers, what they did in the classroom was inconsequential. I had professors who clearly had no idea as to what they were teaching -- they were regurgitating what was in the text book. (It showed on exam questions like "Calculate the rate of this reaction at equilibrium".) On the flip side of this, I audited a course on parallel computing taught by a professor who had worked with and IIRC helped develop IBM's Scalable Power 2. She was an excellent professor, and I ended up learning a lot from her. In the end, my only disappointment is that it was an audit, and therefore didn't affect my GPA.