Hi folks, as one of the co-authors of said paper, I'd like to share some of my thoughts about the write up and the study. First, IMHO the Economist article doe

Hi folks, as one of the co-authors of said paper, I'd like to share some of my thoughts about the write up and the study. First, IMHO the Economist article does not reflect what we reported or tested. We did not test whether university "broadened the mind." There are many ways, as a researcher, that I would test that including some of the ideas expressed here, such as examining changes in ideology, changes in knowledge of different theoretical and knowledge systems. We didn't do that. The closest we came was testing changes in openness to experience. But even that measure is not a good proxy for "broadening the mind." Second, the changes found in the vocational sample aren't necessarily negative. When people decide on what they want to do with their lives, they naturally diminish their interests in alternatives that reflect paths they have chosen against. We've found this pattern in other samples, including college samples and view this as a natural, if not healthy development. Third , while the changes found in the vocational sample may be construed as "different" the other way to view them is that they are the changes that the college sample will eventually experience. They just don't have to because of the opportunities for exploration and not choosing offered by university life. In closing, we appreciate your interest in the study. We have registered our objections about the way the article was written up with the Economist. The entire process was botched in our opinion--in part because of a breakdown of QC at the Economist and in part because we were not as timely in our responses to the writers queries as they needed us to be given their tight deadline.