I liked it. I'm with Listener that the prelude with the drunk doc was overlong and more than necessary to establish the drunken baseline from which he rises. But other than that I liked it through and through. I wasn't expecting the ending, but it tied together well with the rest.
The one part where I got confused was when the newspaper editor was clicking through articles with his smart-pen (unless I misunderstood that)--I thought that was the 25th century at first, but it turned out to not be.
The "Marching Morons" part in the frame narration smacked a bit too much of eugenics for my taste,
I didn't get the eugenics impression. Rather, I thought he was extrapolating the trend of specialization to an absurd degree for comic and philosophical effect. Society generally rewards people for being very very good at a particular thing, but doesn't so much reward, say, a doctor architect. You can't be the best doctor you can be if you're spending half your time being an architect, and vice versa and someone who's kindof good at being a doctor and kindof good at being an architect isn't going to be praised for his roundedness, but rather scolded for his wasted potential in both fields . That's been expanded here to apply not just to career choices but to basic skills. Hemingway's a good doctor, but he doesn't know how to read (IIRC). That's because he's a professional doctor, not a professional reader. I assumed there was a professional reader out there who had no other major skills for similar reasons. The idea is ludicrous of course especially for a skill with such obvious benefit as literacy since that can be used to learn new skills, but makes sense as an extension of current trends to the point of absurdity.
And if technology has advanced to such a degree that it can do pretty much anything without people, that kind of extreme specialization might be a handy way to keep everyone occupied so they don't get into trouble.
and some of the female characters were kind of uncomfortably stereotypical--as one might expect from a story from the 50s. I suppose the girl reporter character helps round that portrayal--while also a bit of a stereotype, at least it's a charming one. Politics aside, the story definitely dragged for me in the middle.
I actually thought rather the opposite. I thought Angie was an unusually real person for a woman in a 1950s SF story. She was intelligent, ambitious, capable, and driven to act in the pursuit of happiness. She saw something was fishy with the original situation and moved it to her advantage, and she worked out a deal with the doc that was mutually beneficial. She was not a vapid setpiece, nor a sexpot, nor a betraying Delilah. Was she a bad person? Sure. Does that make the portrayal of her sexist? Not to me it doesn't.
And on the subject of the female reporter--I don't think it's fair to consider her character a stereotype because she is never onstage to prove herself otherwise. The only exposure we get to her voice is through her words that she wrote was meant to be published in the newspaper. No matter what a unique individual that she is, she is gainfully employed in a career where her continued employment depends on fitting into her boss's (and the public's) expectations of how she should write. Could she write something that really steps out of expectation? Sure, but it would never get published and she'd get fired--her story about Dr. Full already got axed because of its variation from the norm, so there's good reason to think that there are limitations on what she's allowed to say and there's also good reason to suspect that she's pushing those limits by submitting that article.
All in all, I think that from this story alone, I'd guess that Kornbluth had a worldview much more sympathetic to women as real people than did many of his contemporaries.