Many will say studying at Politecnico is a daunting task. To a certain extent, I agree, but I also realise that difficult does not necessarily mean informative. Here are my main takeaways from being a student at Politecnico for three years.
A foreword: ultimately these are opinions and, as such, while very well-reasoned and -informed, they are subjective, and vary in nature. I would be glad to discuss them by email (see home page).
1. Based on my experience, courses that introduce theoretical foundations feel irrelevant, but are much more useful in the long run. Indeed, interacting with the world through frameworks rather than common sense, scales to engineering tasks of increasing complexity. I also think those courses are the true added value of university: once you work, it's harder to justify prioritising theoretical study over direct impact. On this point, the hands-on approach I came to appreciate in NYC, does not teach the engineering mindset as much. That kind of professionalisation typically occurs through technical high schools; an engineer, on the other hand, needs to be more flexible. To sum up: Politecnico is too skewed towards theory? Good. That said, my perception is that Politecnico stays theoretical in the Master's programme as well, and I believe that, at that point, this harms students. Of course, as I am not taking my Master's there, this statement is weakly supported.
2. "Information engineers": students that are trained primarily in Math/CS methods rather than specific industry domain. Prime examples of this species are Mathematical, CompSci, and Automation Engineers. I've come to realise that they usually cannot afford to be generalists, and the sooner they specialise in a domain in their career, the better. Let me explain: a methodological background evolves at a professional level either into a mathematical focus, a methodological focus (applied mathematicians), or an early domain verticalisation (physicists, biologists...). My experience suggests two patterns. First, a methodological background is an enabling asset once specialised: turned-specialists information engineers tend to outperform colleagues with domain-specialised preparation, and disrupt their field. A great example is that of AlphaFold or WeatherCast: methodological training often proves more flexible and innovation-prone and, ultimately, an impact driver. Secondly, success in the theoretical or methodological tracks is inherently a more difficult and less predictable process. In my opinion, it tends to yield less immediate, observable impact outside academia too.
3. The latter message -- that applied doesn't mean applicable -- hardly passes through in my course, and Politecnico is responsible for that. Personally, only after 5 semesters of methodological preparation, I realised that impact was my main decision driver, therefore forcing myself to get domain-verticalized (WIP). This was especially due to chats I had with the great GC and EZ -- notably, here lies a secondary lesson: talking with people one looks up to always has high ROI. But I am not a good representative of my class, as I packed my experience with extracurricular activities. Politecnico's academic offer alone would have made my decisions uninformed. In support of this, perhaps, very few of my coursemates moved towards applications. In short, the lesson to be learned here is that lack of exposure ultimately implies lack of interest. Equivalently, to appreciate something, just do it long enough. By the way, Politecnico can address this issue: it could mandate (or at least structure access to) cross-domain application projects in science and engineering.
4. One position of mine that is not widely shared is that Politecnico's mandate is not to become Stanford and coddle 10k students, but rather to graduate more than 15% of Italy's new engineers each year. We are talking big numbers: Politecnico is a 50k-students behemoth. Comparatively, in the 2025 QS Engineering Ranking top20 only 2 universities exceeded 40k students; Politecnico ranked 21st. My point is this: education is not just about quality, and when looking at rankings size matters. Processes complexity, efficiency, measurable economic impact, and social inclusivity are all directly connected to size. That nobody focuses on size is also why many Politecnico students are unaware of their university's true objective: to provide an extraordinary education, without barriers (socioeconomic, to start), and to everybody willing to commit to rigorous study. My advice here is to chat with the Professors actually managing the institution: it will take 5 minutes to understand their goals.
5. Never disappoint anyone: you're better off lowering expectations and then exceeding them, than raising them (perhaps to boost the mood) and then failing to meet them. I learned that by raising expectations.
6. Cultivate friendships, not connections. A lesson at which I have perhaps failed most, and which I now hold very close to my heart and mind. Being genuinely interested in people is, without exception, the best way to make them genuinely interested in you.
7. Getting to know yourself, or more specifically, understanding what level of well-being allows you to perform at your best, is essential. A bit like sports for physical health, in my experience, tranquillity and well-being are a medicine for productivity that, if commercialised, would be priceless. Of course, I learned this by completely ignoring my well-being and all my limits for a year (and paying the price for that).
About Politecnico, I could say much more: I loved the place and the people there, and would advise anybody to take the leap and choose it over any other institution. But really, only one thing needs to be said: thank you, to everybody who made it such an enriching ride.