Aditya Chakraborty comments on Cameron’s “nudge agenda”. He’s not that impressed. I can’t say that I am, either. Like Chakraborty, I realise that the original concept has become corrupted. Thaler’s “cute technocratic solutions to mainly minor problems” is in danger of being co-opted into social engineering. The idea behind the nudge concept is to provide little cues that lead people to make a preferred – or more rational – choice. One such idea I saw suggested would be to paint “look right” on the street by crossings. Thaler uses the idea of small notices in hotel rooms to indicate how other people don’t waste towels – in other words, little cues to people that indicate socially acceptable behaviour without actually doing anything. People can choose to ignore the nudges if they see fit. That is not what politicians want to do – they want to use nudge to push people into a decision that they decide is the most rational. Which is of course a paradox. If people are inherently irrational, then politicians and bureaucrats, being people – are equally capable of being irrational and, frankly, frequently are. Therefore, what places them in a position to make rational choices on our behalf?
Having noticed all of this, and also that the Market doesn’t always produce the most ideal results all of the time, Chakraborty seems to be suggesting that nudge isn’t the way forward. He uses an example of students making a choice about university based upon the weather – this is highly irrational. So I am left asking; if students are too irrational to make their own decisions about which university to go to, who should make it? That’s the thing with free choice – we get the opportunity to make the wrong choices and live with the decision. Better that, though, than have politicians and bureaucrats making them for us. Indeed, I get the distinct feeling that Chakroborty would prefer something more, er, authoritarian… Maybe it’s just me.
Considering the dumbing down of education in the Labour years, choosing a university by the weather situation seems about par for the course.
Given the costs of heating and the unpleasantnes of struggling through bad weather choosing where to spend 3 years on the basis of the weather strikes me as far from irrational. Who’s best off this week, students in mid Scotland or those in London? I think the market is working perfectly well.
I guess that rather depends on the other factors such as facilities and quality of tuition being equal, then maybe. I’m not sure I’d make a decision based upon it being a grotty day when I went to look at the place, though…
That said, it isn’t up to anyone else to make those decisions on behalf of the students, which is what the linked article is implying.
I went to Manchester for the weather.
Bollocks to nudge.
Putting a picture of a fly in a urinal is a good idea, but it should not be extrapolated into a system of governmental control.
Woodsy, I can answer your question easily – it’s students in Scotland that are better off (providing they are Scottish) as they get a student grant and do not have to pay back loans for tuition fees. This more than offsets the extra heating bills.
I chose Oxford Poly as it was they only one that provided an Engineering HND with an Auto Engineering option.
Regarding the fly on the urinal story, this comment amused me.
It’s not a real fly, you twat!