Downvoting because this comment adds zero. Read the article. He also teaches a MOOC and has a much more nuanced view than "college is worth it b/c it pays my bills."
Adds nothing? The article doesn't directly mention Ariely's academic appointments at high-tuition universities Duke and MIT! He's just "behavioral psychologist and good friend of Making Sense" and someone who's taught a MOOC.
That selective reporting could make a casual reader think his assessment is being offered against-financial-interest. "Pay for college, not the MOOCs like I've taught!"
But quite to the contrary, suggesting people spend $61K/year on a prestigious university is strongly aligned with Ariely's unmentioned (although easy to find and well-known) professional affiliations and paychecks.
I don't think this disqualifies his analysis – he's got obvious expertise as both as a MOOC teacher and part of the university system, and I've enjoyed his writing and research. But it's definitely relevant, when it's left out of the story/headline. When delivering a pro-high-tuition-college message, in addition to whatever other insight he brings, he's also a pitchman for the institutions that employ him.
Or for comparison, if someone reported, "popular author reports that Apple iOS devices are definitely worth the price premium", wouldn't the fact that the author also worked for Apple be a relevant thing to know?
Is this the same Duke and MIT that are vastly oversubscribed? And he has tenure? There is almost nothing he can say in this context that affects his compensation, his status at the university, or the demand for Duke degrees. That's what tenure is for, and that's a key benefit of elite universities. Faculty can speak very freely. However cynical your stance, there is a real difference between the Apple employee and tenured Duke professor.
If this were not the case, people like Noam Chomsky would not survive to contribute as they do.
Of course he's free to speak his mind, and indeed there are other professors who are skeptical about the cost/value proposition of universities, now and in the near future. I don't know if Ariely is tenured, but I'd lend his views a lot of weight in any situation.
Still, though, people are loyal to the institutions that sustain them... often unconsciously, and often via earlier filtering/selection.
There's no need to assume Ariely is under explicit workplace pressure to promote elite universities, or that he's hustling for the incremental gain to his status or income. It's enough to recognize that someone who's the son of a Columbia MBA, a graduate of Tel Aviv University and a holder of doctorates from both UNC and Duke, and a professor at MIT and Duke, has already been massively selected and rewarded for his deep-seated faith (and ability to thrive) in those sorts of institutions. His intimate familiarity with the system gives his testimony credibility, but his career involvement also makes it unlikely he'd say, "it's just not worth it".
So I'm not even particularly saying that he's wrong, just that his formally-titled, well-remunerated, large-sunk-cost and choice-supportive-bias position inside the high-tuition private-university system is relevant enough to warrant a mention, if he's giving cost/benefit advice to others.
Comments
Downvoting because this comment adds zero. Read the article. He also teaches a MOOC and has a much more nuanced view than "college is worth it b/c it pays my bills."
Adds nothing? The article doesn't directly mention Ariely's academic appointments at high-tuition universities Duke and MIT! He's just "behavioral psychologist and good friend of Making Sense" and someone who's taught a MOOC.
That selective reporting could make a casual reader think his assessment is being offered against-financial-interest. "Pay for college, not the MOOCs like I've taught!"
But quite to the contrary, suggesting people spend $61K/year on a prestigious university is strongly aligned with Ariely's unmentioned (although easy to find and well-known) professional affiliations and paychecks.
I don't think this disqualifies his analysis – he's got obvious expertise as both as a MOOC teacher and part of the university system, and I've enjoyed his writing and research. But it's definitely relevant, when it's left out of the story/headline. When delivering a pro-high-tuition-college message, in addition to whatever other insight he brings, he's also a pitchman for the institutions that employ him.
Or for comparison, if someone reported, "popular author reports that Apple iOS devices are definitely worth the price premium", wouldn't the fact that the author also worked for Apple be a relevant thing to know?
Is this the same Duke and MIT that are vastly oversubscribed? And he has tenure? There is almost nothing he can say in this context that affects his compensation, his status at the university, or the demand for Duke degrees. That's what tenure is for, and that's a key benefit of elite universities. Faculty can speak very freely. However cynical your stance, there is a real difference between the Apple employee and tenured Duke professor.
If this were not the case, people like Noam Chomsky would not survive to contribute as they do.
Of course he's free to speak his mind, and indeed there are other professors who are skeptical about the cost/value proposition of universities, now and in the near future. I don't know if Ariely is tenured, but I'd lend his views a lot of weight in any situation.
Still, though, people are loyal to the institutions that sustain them... often unconsciously, and often via earlier filtering/selection.
There's no need to assume Ariely is under explicit workplace pressure to promote elite universities, or that he's hustling for the incremental gain to his status or income. It's enough to recognize that someone who's the son of a Columbia MBA, a graduate of Tel Aviv University and a holder of doctorates from both UNC and Duke, and a professor at MIT and Duke, has already been massively selected and rewarded for his deep-seated faith (and ability to thrive) in those sorts of institutions. His intimate familiarity with the system gives his testimony credibility, but his career involvement also makes it unlikely he'd say, "it's just not worth it".
So I'm not even particularly saying that he's wrong, just that his formally-titled, well-remunerated, large-sunk-cost and choice-supportive-bias position inside the high-tuition private-university system is relevant enough to warrant a mention, if he's giving cost/benefit advice to others.