First-year common book Nudge causes much debate within the AC Community

By: Hannah Brencher

Posted: 10/16/09

Since attending summer orientation in June, first-year students spent the summer with their minds occupied by thoughts of new roommates, the end of home-cooked meals and the concept of a "nudge."

Nudge, written by economist Richard H. Thaler and legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein, was put into the hands of the class of 2013 as their first-year common book for the fall semester. On Tuesday, October 6, 2009, the main concepts of the book became the centerpiece for an intellectual debate. Taking place in the Hagan Campus Center Hall and with nearly two-thirds of the class in attendance, the debate was one of the most successful events for first-year students in the past few years.

The debate featured four faculty participants from separate disciplines. "I really wanted to showcase our faculty that we have here, because these are the people that they will take classes with," said Jennifer Morrison, associate dean for the First Year. "This will allow them to gain an appreciation of how different disciplines form our perspectives."

The participants took a stand from their own discipline, all looking to answer a common question: Can we nudge our way to a better society? Supporting the argument was Professor B.J. Dobski, department of Political Science and Professor Smriti Rao, department of Economics and Global Studies. Opposing the argument was Professor Richard Gendron, department of Sociology and Anthropology and Professor Amy Lyubchik, department of Psychology.

Moderated by Professor Geoffrey Vaughan from the department of Political Science, the debate allowed students to see the book from the viewpoints of the economist, the sociologist, the political scientist and the psychologist. This wide variety of standpoints on the issues in the book gave students the ability to agree and disagree with arguments while continuing to develop their own connections with the book.

"I walked into the debate with an open mind," said Bonnie Srubas, a first-year student who attended Tuesday's event. "The book really got me thinking."

This is the goal in mind when picking the first-year common book, a piece of literature that will stimulate the minds of the incoming undergraduates, preparing them to draw connections in their classes from the start of their college careers.

The common book is determined by a faculty committee. This year Nudge took the forefront after being suggested by Assistant Professor of English, Rachel Ramsey, who received positive feedback of the book from students in one of her literature classes.

As students began reading the first 120 pages over the summer, the faculty committee worked to plan a proper follow-up event.

Apart from past years where the author of the book would make a visit to the college, Dean Morrison expressed the desire to make this year's presentation of the book one where students would not be talked at but would get to see controversy in action, in the form of a debate.

Junior Jon Bishop decided to attend the debate after leading a common book reading of Nudge with the first-years as an orientation leader this summer. "I was interested in seeing the freshmen turn out and gain more of an explanation of the book. I think the professors can offer insights on the positives and negatives of this influential book," said Bishop.

Throughout the book, Thaler and Sunstein argue how "choice architecture" can nudge humans in the right direction without violating the freedom of choice. The faculty participants were vocal in expressing their own views on the concept of nudging.

Supporting the idea that nudges can create a better society, Professor Rao argued that although "nudges are hard, it's hard to come up with a good one that works, but it doesn't mean that we should not try."

Opposing the idea that nudges can formulate a better society, Professor Gendron argued that although nudges may be necessary and desirable, they are not sufficient to deal with the major issues in society such as income, education and health care reform.

The students were also given the chance to be active participants in the Nudge debate. At the start of the program, students were asked to place their votes on whether they believed we could, in fact, nudge our way to a better society. After hearing the multifaceted sides to this argument, students were given the chance to revote at the end of the debate, some finding that their mind had been changed.

Dean Morrison picked up a blue paper from one of the two voting boxes and scanned it over. She recalled one ballot where a student changed her mind during the debate and now was completely unsure of the side she was on.

"And that's good, because in many ways, we want them to know very rarely are things yes and no, black and white," said Dean Morrison of the undecided ballot.

Two-hundred and twenty students weighed in for the pre-vote and 281 students casted a final vote after the debate. Of those students, 52 changed their position.

Regardless of the final outcome of the debate, students took away a new insight on a book that they studied for the last several months. The question may still be left unanswered of whether we can nudge our way to a better society, but more valuable than the final result is the fact that for a brief period of time the intricate concepts of Nudge were lifted off the pages and placed upon the podium.