The article considers the opposition of a computer, which is essentially an instrument (exaggerated test tube), to descriptive geometry, which is completely objectively defined as fundamental science, that is, science, which is the basis for both other academic disciplines and other sciences, including other fundamental ones. This juxtaposition of a device against science can do a very disservice to higher education, because there is no juxtaposition of a computer against physics, chemistry, mathematics, and other sciences, even non-fundamental ones. For some reason, computer graphics enthusiasts have become hooked on descriptive geometry. Apparently, with far-reaching plans. It is descriptive geometry that deals with the development of spatial perception, and even more so, spatial imagination, which serves as the basis for solving various heuristic problems, creating technical, and not only, inventions. Without spatial imagination, there is no engineer. This is a postulate that cannot be questioned, as Gaspard Monge pointed out, and all Russian, including Soviet, classics of applied geometry, starting with Ya.A. Sevastyanov, wrote about it. Without geometry, a university graduate will be something like a teenager: why know geometry, because there is a computer. Is breeding mitrofanushki the goal of the Ministry of Education?