4 ms·
I don't see why being irrational is bad. A "labour of love" is precisely something that does not obey the law of diminishing returns. Passion and interest are m
by sn41 10y ago
I don't see why being irrational is bad. A "labour of love" is precisely something that does not obey the law of diminishing returns. Passion and interest are much more sustaining and fulfilling than a job in the finance sector just because it is highly paid.
I think "rationality" is a stupid assumption, often wrong. Of course, people need more money, but a lot of people are also willing to make sacrifices for something else - spouses, children, parents, religion or country. Money is important, but not the overriding concern for everyone. I often feels that the correct word for a "rational" individual in the sense of economics is "sociopath".
Ralph Nader once said about his organization, that "you can bring your conscience to work" every day. This actually counts for a lot.
However the basic point of the article, that the Universities are conning students is perfectly valid (source: ex-PhD student, can relate to the frustration).
This point needs to be better made, avoiding slinging mud on the intellect of the hapless students. This article is an example of how you can write a dubious article, even in the presence of good data.
- catskul2 10y agoIt's not necessarily bad if you can afford to be irrational. If you can't, the it's bad for obvious reasons.
- groovy2shoes 10y agoEveryone on this thread seems to be focusing entirely on money when determining whether or not something is rational. The Economics 101 definition of rational that I recall from university is only tangentially related to strictly monetary value -- things usually provide non-monetary value as well ("opportunity cost", etc.). If every trade were always based solely on monetary value, trade would be a zero-sum game, but it's not: fair trade is a win-win situation. Seller wins because the product is worth more to the buyer than it cost to produce; buyer wins because the product is worth more to them than it cost to buy. If this weren't the case, one or both parties would decline the trade (assuming, of course, as economists are wont to do, that both parties are rational). As you point out, there are plenty of non-monetary benefits to academia: passion, interest, fulfillment, pride, etc. These things have different value to different people depending on their own interests and goals. If the total benefit (tangible and intangible) is worth more to someone than the opportunity cost, then, according to economics, that person is still acting rationally in such pursuits. I'm not an economist, but this is seriously undergraduate-level Introductory Economics material.