WEBVTT
00:00:00.030 --> 00:00:01.830
♪ [music] ♪
00:00:03.630 --> 00:00:05.630
- [Narrator] Welcome to
Nobel Conversations.
00:00:06.930 --> 00:00:10.300
In this episode,
Josh Angrist and Guido Imbens,
00:00:10.300 --> 00:00:13.380
sit down with Isaiah Andrews
to discuss the key ingredients
00:00:13.380 --> 00:00:15.700
in their Nobel-winning collaboration.
00:00:16.700 --> 00:00:19.590
Josh and Guido, first congratulations
on the Nobel Prize!
00:00:19.590 --> 00:00:20.620
Thank you.
00:00:20.620 --> 00:00:23.190
- [Isaiah] The work you did together,
particularly the work
00:00:23.190 --> 00:00:26.186
on the Local Average Treatment Effect,
or LATE framework
00:00:26.186 --> 00:00:28.900
was cited as one of the big reasons
you won the prize.
00:00:29.200 --> 00:00:32.600
At the same time, you only
overlapped at Harvard for a year--
00:00:32.900 --> 00:00:34.300
if I'm remembering correctly--
00:00:35.210 --> 00:00:38.500
it would be great to hear a bit more
about how you started this collaboration
00:00:38.500 --> 00:00:40.964
and what made your working
relationship productive.
00:00:40.964 --> 00:00:43.600
Are there ways in which you felt like
you complimented each other,
00:00:43.600 --> 00:00:46.790
what got things started
on such a productive, trajectory?
00:00:46.790 --> 00:00:50.624
Your job talk, as I recall, Guido,
it wasn't very interesting
00:00:50.624 --> 00:00:52.740
but I think it was
a choice-based sampling--
00:00:52.740 --> 00:00:54.600
It was. It was.
[laughter]
00:00:54.600 --> 00:00:56.280
I was a very marginal hire there
00:00:56.280 --> 00:00:58.336
because they didn't
actually interview me
00:00:58.336 --> 00:00:59.830
on the regular job market,
00:00:59.830 --> 00:01:03.240
but I think they were very desperate
to get someone else
00:01:03.240 --> 00:01:04.900
to actually teach their courses.
00:01:05.920 --> 00:01:08.470
It was after they had
a couple of seminars already
00:01:08.470 --> 00:01:11.123
and they're still looking
in econometrics,
00:01:11.135 --> 00:01:13.940
- ...so Gary called me and kind of--
- [Josh] Gary Chamberlain?
00:01:13.940 --> 00:01:16.700
Gary Chamberlain called me and
interviewed me over the telephone.
00:01:17.400 --> 00:01:21.089
He said, "Okay, well, why don't you
come out and give a talk?"
00:01:21.089 --> 00:01:23.541
- [Josh] I remember this talk
a little bit.
00:01:23.541 --> 00:01:27.140
I remember the dinner that
you and Gary and I had.
00:01:29.000 --> 00:01:32.900
I remember not being very excited
about your job market paper,
00:01:33.600 --> 00:01:38.220
but I saw that Gary was and luckily,
Gary's view prevailed...
00:01:38.580 --> 00:01:39.600
Yes.
00:01:39.600 --> 00:01:41.900
- [Josh] ...and Harvard
made you an offer
00:01:42.400 --> 00:01:46.300
and I think we started talking to
each other pretty pretty soon after
00:01:46.300 --> 00:01:49.810
you arrived in the fall of 1990, right?
00:01:49.810 --> 00:01:52.990
As I said, I came
and I didn't have a very clear agenda.
00:01:52.990 --> 00:01:55.700
I was a little intimidated getting there.
00:01:56.000 --> 00:01:59.776
But Gary kind of said,
"No, you should talk to Josh."
00:01:59.776 --> 00:02:04.578
You should go to the labor seminar,
kind of see what these people do.
00:02:04.578 --> 00:02:06.600
They're doing very
interesting things there."
00:02:07.470 --> 00:02:09.370
I listened to Gary.
00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:11.188
As we did.
00:02:11.188 --> 00:02:14.834
As we did in the those days
and ever since.
00:02:14.834 --> 00:02:16.700
I think it helped that
we were neighbors.
00:02:16.700 --> 00:02:20.774
We both lived in Harvard's
junior faculty housing,
00:02:22.250 --> 00:02:25.040
partly because housing costs
were very high in Cambridge
00:02:25.040 --> 00:02:27.400
relative to our salary,
which was very low.
00:02:27.800 --> 00:02:29.456
I think it also made a difference,
00:02:29.456 --> 00:02:31.212
neither of us came from Cambridge,
00:02:31.212 --> 00:02:33.720
so there were a lot of MIT people
00:02:33.720 --> 00:02:36.441
who already had their whole networks,
00:02:36.441 --> 00:02:38.000
kind of our collaborators.
00:02:38.000 --> 00:02:39.600
♪ [music] ♪
00:02:39.600 --> 00:02:41.850
- [Josh] Well, I think we had figured out
00:02:41.850 --> 00:02:43.800
a mode of working together, also.
00:02:43.800 --> 00:02:46.600
We had kind of a regular date,
so we were neighbors
00:02:46.860 --> 00:02:48.760
and we often did
our laundry together.
00:02:49.160 --> 00:02:51.860
We didn't have laundry
machines at our apartments.
00:02:52.500 --> 00:02:55.450
But we used to do our laundry
and we were talking
00:02:55.450 --> 00:02:59.300
and you had a way
of fairly systematically,
00:03:00.100 --> 00:03:03.300
addressing questions that
would come up in our discussions
00:03:03.300 --> 00:03:05.800
and the one thing that
I was very impressed by,
00:03:06.400 --> 00:03:09.000
our early interaction,
is you would follow up.
00:03:09.993 --> 00:03:11.590
You would write some things down.
00:03:11.590 --> 00:03:13.390
Looking back at those days,
sort of clearly,
00:03:13.390 --> 00:03:16.460
I just had a lot more time
to actually think.
00:03:16.460 --> 00:03:19.600
- I look at my junior colleagues now--
- You don't have time to think now.
00:03:19.600 --> 00:03:23.243
No, but for me that is
kind of one thing,
00:03:23.243 --> 00:03:24.850
but I feel now a lot of
my junior colleagues
00:03:24.850 --> 00:03:27.200
don't actually have a lot
of time to think.
00:03:27.200 --> 00:03:29.710
People are just doing
so many projects,
00:03:29.710 --> 00:03:31.800
and it's actually so hard
00:03:31.800 --> 00:03:34.560
and there's so much pressure
on people to publish.
00:03:34.560 --> 00:03:38.411
I remember spending a lot of time
sitting in my office
00:03:38.411 --> 00:03:41.505
and thinking,
"Wow, what shall I do now?"
00:03:41.505 --> 00:03:42.505
[laughter]
00:03:43.070 --> 00:03:45.096
But it would give me a lot of time
00:03:45.096 --> 00:03:46.883
to actually think about these problems
00:03:46.906 --> 00:03:49.100
and trying to figure it them out
00:03:49.100 --> 00:03:50.900
and I could actually go to seminars
00:03:52.000 --> 00:03:56.651
and then the next day have coffee
or lunch with Josh or Gary
00:03:56.651 --> 00:03:59.020
and actually talk about those things.
00:03:59.020 --> 00:04:01.528
- [Isaiah] You guys weren't actually
at Harvard together all that long,
00:04:01.528 --> 00:04:03.300
you started working
together pretty quickly.
00:04:03.300 --> 00:04:06.600
Were you both in the mindset that
you were looking for co-authors,
00:04:06.600 --> 00:04:09.260
or looking for a particular type
of types of co-authors at the time
00:04:09.260 --> 00:04:11.600
or was it more sort of
fortuitous than that?
00:04:11.600 --> 00:04:13.500
- [Josh] I think we were lucky.
00:04:13.500 --> 00:04:15.848
I don't remember that I was looking.
00:04:15.850 --> 00:04:18.370
I think, it was more fortuitous.
00:04:18.370 --> 00:04:21.411
I said I came in,
I'd done my job market paper,
00:04:21.600 --> 00:04:23.110
and another paper for my thesis
00:04:23.110 --> 00:04:25.500
and I was just very happy
to come to Harvard
00:04:25.500 --> 00:04:27.801
and suddenly there were all these
seminars to go to,
00:04:28.262 --> 00:04:30.712
and lots of interesting people
to talk to,
00:04:31.200 --> 00:04:35.805
but it wasn't a very
conscious thing on my part.
00:04:36.300 --> 00:04:39.200
Looking back, I think there
was a moment for me,
00:04:39.700 --> 00:04:42.933
where I was discussing
instrumental variables,
00:04:42.933 --> 00:04:46.020
potential outcomes,
treatment effects with Guido
00:04:47.000 --> 00:04:50.109
and we had a pretty good discussion,
00:04:50.109 --> 00:04:54.400
but then he also sent me some notes
00:04:55.770 --> 00:05:00.695
and the notes were very methodical
write-up of our discussion
00:05:00.695 --> 00:05:02.966
and what you thought
00:05:03.600 --> 00:05:07.457
we had been concluding
in a fairly formal way
00:05:07.457 --> 00:05:09.887
and I thought, "Well, that's great."
00:05:10.340 --> 00:05:13.020
Talk is cheap, right,
but with somebody...
00:05:13.020 --> 00:05:15.514
- [Guido] Yeah, but--
- ...really writes out their story.
00:05:15.900 --> 00:05:18.500
- [Guido] For me, it really helps
writing things down
00:05:18.500 --> 00:05:22.771
and I do remember working with Josh
00:05:22.771 --> 00:05:26.163
and sitting in my office
and writing things out
00:05:26.633 --> 00:05:29.100
and you guys have all
had the discussions with Gary
00:05:29.100 --> 00:05:32.532
where afterwards we need
to then sit down
00:05:32.532 --> 00:05:34.230
and actually write things up
00:05:34.230 --> 00:05:36.641
to figure out exactly
what was going on.
00:05:37.900 --> 00:05:39.600
I think the other thing we had,
Guido,
00:05:39.600 --> 00:05:41.815
is we had some
very concrete questions
00:05:41.815 --> 00:05:43.750
that came from applications.
00:05:43.750 --> 00:05:45.000
- [Guido] Yeah.
00:05:45.600 --> 00:05:48.100
A lot of econometrics, in my view,
00:05:48.109 --> 00:05:51.651
that we were schooled in
was about models,
00:05:51.670 --> 00:05:55.000
here's a model and what can
you say about this model?
00:05:57.110 --> 00:06:00.200
I think we were thinking about,
here's a particular scenario,
00:06:00.500 --> 00:06:03.800
draft eligibility is an instrument
for whether you serve in the Army.
00:06:04.830 --> 00:06:06.300
What do we learn from that?
00:06:06.300 --> 00:06:07.300
- [Guido] That's right.
00:06:07.300 --> 00:06:11.907
That's right, and that's sort of
where your influence
00:06:11.930 --> 00:06:15.200
on the way I do research now
is still very clear--
00:06:15.200 --> 00:06:16.870
♪ [music] ♪
00:06:16.870 --> 00:06:19.400
- [Isaiah] I guess zooming out
a little bit, just thinking about
00:06:19.400 --> 00:06:20.940
when you guys started
working on this,
00:06:20.940 --> 00:06:23.100
when you started working together,
00:06:23.100 --> 00:06:24.500
any thoughts for folks
00:06:24.500 --> 00:06:26.890
who are just interested in
finding productive
00:06:26.890 --> 00:06:28.170
co-authors being productive?
00:06:28.170 --> 00:06:30.900
I mean, Guido already mentioned
the importance of having time,
00:06:30.900 --> 00:06:32.100
right, which it is.
00:06:32.100 --> 00:06:35.000
It is very easily not to have
a lot of time to think--
00:06:35.000 --> 00:06:36.720
You definitely have to make time.
00:06:36.720 --> 00:06:39.120
That's a great question though,
Isaiah,
00:06:40.400 --> 00:06:43.038
and I tell my students that
00:06:43.038 --> 00:06:46.800
you should pick your co-authors
as carefully,
00:06:46.800 --> 00:06:48.805
maybe more carefully
than you pick your spouse.
00:06:49.390 --> 00:06:51.774
You want to find co-authors who,
00:06:53.800 --> 00:06:57.724
you have some complementarity
00:06:58.120 --> 00:07:00.985
and that's what makes
a strong relationship.
00:07:03.200 --> 00:07:06.900
You don't want to work with somebody
who sees the world exactly like you
00:07:09.300 --> 00:07:11.684
and as much as Guido
and I agree about things,
00:07:11.990 --> 00:07:14.990
we often disagree
about things to this day
00:07:15.835 --> 00:07:18.692
and it's fruitful to have
those discussions
00:07:19.250 --> 00:07:21.400
and we had complimentary skills.
00:07:21.400 --> 00:07:24.700
I was very empirical.
I'm not really an abstract thinker.
00:07:25.500 --> 00:07:29.800
Guido was great at figuring out
what the principles were.
00:07:30.100 --> 00:07:34.500
Yeah, that's right and I totally
agree, kind of [inaudible]
00:07:34.700 --> 00:07:37.829
These are incredibly
important relationships
00:07:37.829 --> 00:07:42.400
and you see a lot of
people working together
00:07:42.600 --> 00:07:45.727
and not necessarily working
very well
00:07:47.000 --> 00:07:51.990
and then it's very hard often
to get out of this relationship.
00:07:52.900 --> 00:07:56.000
A good partnering is a
beautiful thing, like a marriage.
00:07:56.500 --> 00:07:58.500
It produces wonderful children,
00:07:59.500 --> 00:08:03.408
the fruits of the scholarship are
potentially wonderful
00:08:03.408 --> 00:08:07.666
and they exceed the capacity of the
partners to do it on their own
00:08:07.900 --> 00:08:11.132
but a bad co-authorship
can be very destructive
00:08:11.155 --> 00:08:14.629
and time consuming and painful,
just like a bad marriage.
00:08:16.190 --> 00:08:19.262
Arguments may start about
who did what when
00:08:19.262 --> 00:08:22.820
and intellectual property
type issues,
00:08:22.841 --> 00:08:24.700
especially when it when
it goes a little sour
00:08:24.700 --> 00:08:27.602
and somebody thinks the other party
is not pulling their weight.
00:08:30.100 --> 00:08:32.300
There's more co-authorship
now in economics,
00:08:32.300 --> 00:08:33.700
I think that's been documented,
much more.
00:08:33.700 --> 00:08:34.700
- [Guido] Yes.
00:08:34.700 --> 00:08:37.700
There's more teams
and there's larger teams
00:08:38.100 --> 00:08:41.400
and I think that's great,
I love working on teams.
00:08:41.400 --> 00:08:46.800
We do work on schools
with big teams.
00:08:47.000 --> 00:08:50.100
I work often with PI teammates
like Parag Pathak and David Autor
00:08:50.100 --> 00:08:51.100
and then a team of
graduate students,
00:08:51.100 --> 00:08:55.400
but I see that the students
are not always,
00:08:55.400 --> 00:08:57.700
in some ways they're a little
too promiscuous,
00:08:57.700 --> 00:08:58.700
in my view, in their partnering.
00:08:58.700 --> 00:09:02.600
They don't think it through.
00:09:02.600 --> 00:09:03.600
It's difficult to think it's through.
00:09:03.600 --> 00:09:08.500
I think, for me, working
with people always has involved
00:09:08.800 --> 00:09:11.400
spending a lot of one-on-one
time with people,
00:09:11.600 --> 00:09:16.400
you need to figure out
how they think
00:09:16.900 --> 00:09:18.500
and what kind of problems
are interesting
00:09:18.600 --> 00:09:22.600
and how they think about
these problems,
00:09:22.600 --> 00:09:23.600
how they like to write,
to make that--
00:09:23.600 --> 00:09:26.600
And it takes some maturity on
everybody's part.
00:09:26.600 --> 00:09:27.600
Yes. Yes.
00:09:27.600 --> 00:09:29.600
In what sense?
00:09:29.600 --> 00:09:30.600
Just in the sense of knowing
what's going to work for them,
00:09:30.600 --> 00:09:32.900
knowing when things are
versus aren't working?
00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:36.500
- [Josh] Maturity in the
sense of having some judgment
00:09:36.600 --> 00:09:40.100
to be able to face it honestly,
if it's not going well,
00:09:40.300 --> 00:09:45.100
sometimes you have to have
some difficult discussions.
00:09:45.250 --> 00:09:46.250
Is it worth continuing?
00:09:46.400 --> 00:09:49.100
"I was hoping you would do this,
and you didn't,"
00:09:49.200 --> 00:09:51.400
maybe it turns out
there's some feeling
00:09:51.400 --> 00:09:54.155
in the other direction,
the same way.
00:09:54.155 --> 00:09:56.800
And Josh is very good
[chuckles]
00:09:56.800 --> 00:09:59.600
in the being honest,
part from the beginning,
00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:03.600
- [Josh] For better or worse.
00:10:03.600 --> 00:10:04.600
- [Guido] I would write this stuff
and then I remember the
00:10:04.600 --> 00:10:09.343
first version of the paper
with Rubin,
00:10:09.343 --> 00:10:11.710
Josh was in Israel at the time,
Don and I were in Cambridge
00:10:12.900 --> 00:10:15.500
and so I would talk
with Don regularly,
00:10:16.300 --> 00:10:18.600
but Don wasn't really doing
much writing in those days,
00:10:18.600 --> 00:10:20.400
I would write things
and then I would fax them to Josh
00:10:20.500 --> 00:10:25.200
and they would come back,
first page just one big cross, No,
00:10:25.300 --> 00:10:29.400
second page, one big line, No
00:10:30.800 --> 00:10:31.700
and that would go for awhile
00:10:31.700 --> 00:10:32.600
but he still does that.
00:10:32.600 --> 00:10:36.800
I sent him the first draft
of my Nobel lecture,
00:10:36.900 --> 00:10:38.100
and Josh goes, No, no!
00:10:38.800 --> 00:10:43.300
I've gotten some PDF comments
like that from Josh, very helpful.
00:10:45.700 --> 00:10:46.600
Omit needless words.
00:10:47.800 --> 00:10:52.000
I have few co-authors
who are willing to do that.
00:10:53.200 --> 00:10:58.400
Especially as you get older,
it's harder to put up with that.
00:10:59.300 --> 00:11:03.100
I would find it harder now to start
working with people who did that
00:11:03.800 --> 00:11:05.600
early on in a co-author relationship.
00:11:05.600 --> 00:11:08.900
It's also very hard because
you need to have enough trust.
00:11:09.300 --> 00:11:15.400
Josh, for being willing
to be very critical,
00:11:15.700 --> 00:11:20.800
he was also willing
to admit being wrong.
00:11:21.150 --> 00:11:22.150
♪ [music] ♪
00:11:22.500 --> 00:11:25.600
- [Josh] But you have to be on
the lookout for good partners,
00:11:25.800 --> 00:11:29.200
somebody who can help you
answer questions
00:11:29.200 --> 00:11:30.200
that you can't answer yourself.
00:11:30.200 --> 00:11:33.000
I think there's a natural tendency
for people to gravitate
00:11:33.000 --> 00:11:34.400
to people who are similar
in outlook and skills
00:11:35.400 --> 00:11:41.000
and that's not as useful
00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:42.000
Josh is right, nowadays
it's very tempting
00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:46.500
to find people who think
about the same problems
00:11:46.500 --> 00:11:50.500
you're already thinking about,
who think along the same lines
00:11:53.000 --> 00:11:56.400
and that may not lead
to very novel stuff.
00:11:58.500 --> 00:12:01.800
But at the same time finding people
00:12:01.800 --> 00:12:02.800
who actually have
very different ideas,
00:12:02.800 --> 00:12:05.000
it's going to take a lot of time.
00:12:05.200 --> 00:12:08.390
Guido, you mentioned in passing
how working with Josh
00:12:08.390 --> 00:12:10.290
has influenced how you do research,
00:12:10.290 --> 00:12:11.600
could you say a little more
about that?
00:12:11.600 --> 00:12:14.100
I'd also be interested
to hear from Josh,
00:12:14.100 --> 00:12:15.100
did working with Guido influence
the way that you do research?
00:12:17.500 --> 00:12:20.900
- [Guido] Nowadays, I'm much
more conscious of the fact that,
00:12:20.900 --> 00:12:24.600
for me, good economic research
00:12:24.600 --> 00:12:25.600
comes out of talking to people
doing empirical work,
00:12:25.600 --> 00:12:29.300
and it's really not reading
econometrica
00:12:29.800 --> 00:12:31.500
or the reading the stats journals,
00:12:31.500 --> 00:12:35.000
but it's actually talking to people
doing empirical work,
00:12:35.100 --> 00:12:37.200
going to the empirical seminars.
00:12:38.100 --> 00:12:40.300
When I was at Berkeley,
00:12:40.400 --> 00:12:45.500
David Carr and Raj Chetty,
as colleagues there
00:12:45.500 --> 00:12:46.700
and I would talk to them
and listen to them,
00:12:46.900 --> 00:12:48.200
trying to figure out
00:12:49.900 --> 00:12:54.500
how are they solving their problems
and other things there
00:12:54.700 --> 00:12:57.424
where I'm not really quite happy
with the way they're doing things
00:12:57.424 --> 00:13:04.200
and trying to look for
methodological problems,
00:13:04.200 --> 00:13:07.900
where there's some more
general solutions possible.
00:13:07.900 --> 00:13:11.700
I tried to tell it to my students
that I encourage them to work
00:13:11.800 --> 00:13:14.500
as research assistants also,
00:13:14.500 --> 00:13:18.724
for the people doing empirical work
at Stanford.
00:13:19.700 --> 00:13:21.100
There was no [subbing]
00:13:21.100 --> 00:13:22.100
but that I learned while
I was in graduate school,
00:13:22.100 --> 00:13:25.000
but it really came out of
working with Josh.
00:13:25.000 --> 00:13:26.000
as well as talking to Gary,
00:13:26.000 --> 00:13:31.000
Gary us was always encouraging
of doing that
00:13:31.000 --> 00:13:33.600
and because he done that himself,
00:13:33.600 --> 00:13:36.900
he'd worked with on empirical
problems with Zvi Griliches
00:13:36.900 --> 00:13:39.500
early in his career.
00:13:39.500 --> 00:13:40.500
Yeah.
00:13:40.500 --> 00:13:44.600
Well, I became more more interested
in the econometric theory
00:13:45.400 --> 00:13:47.000
through our interaction,
00:13:47.100 --> 00:13:52.400
and I think empiricists are often
impatient with econometric theory,
00:13:52.400 --> 00:13:55.500
partly because empirical work is
very time-consuming,
00:13:56.000 --> 00:13:59.100
and you may have a sense
that something is
00:13:59.300 --> 00:14:02.400
convincing and sensible
00:14:03.000 --> 00:14:04.100
and you haven't really fully
made the case for that,
00:14:04.100 --> 00:14:05.100
but you're convinced
00:14:05.100 --> 00:14:09.700
and that motivates you to pursue it,
like the draft lottery story.
00:14:10.700 --> 00:14:17.300
I was pretty sure that was
worth doing
00:14:17.300 --> 00:14:21.100
and I came away from
working with Guido
00:14:21.100 --> 00:14:24.800
seeing that there was
the potential to say something
00:14:24.800 --> 00:14:25.800
more than just about
that particular problem,
00:14:25.800 --> 00:14:29.500
and I think over the those early
years in the 90s,
00:14:29.500 --> 00:14:35.000
our thinking evolved together
that there's actually a framework,
00:14:35.100 --> 00:14:37.800
a way to solve a lot of problems
00:14:38.200 --> 00:14:41.700
and I think that that is the power
of the late framework,
00:14:41.700 --> 00:14:42.800
is it answers a lot of questions
in some sense.
00:14:43.150 --> 00:14:44.150
♪ [music] ♪
00:14:44.500 --> 00:14:46.300
In some sense, did you find that,
00:14:46.300 --> 00:14:50.700
email versus facts versus in-person,
the medium mattered
00:14:50.700 --> 00:14:52.000
to how collaboration went
00:14:52.100 --> 00:14:54.300
or they're ways that you felt like
00:14:54.300 --> 00:14:55.300
it was the most useful
to collaborate?
00:14:55.300 --> 00:14:59.700
To me, I think what matters most is,
initially you have a period--
00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:04.100
We needed that initial period,
00:15:04.100 --> 00:15:05.100
that was very intense with
almost daily interaction
00:15:05.100 --> 00:15:08.800
and we also became friends.
00:15:08.900 --> 00:15:13.900
You don't develop the kind of
friendship, electronically usually
00:15:15.000 --> 00:15:19.000
but once you have that foundation
you can be pen pals
00:15:19.300 --> 00:15:25.300
and we did use e-mail,
though it wasn't as useful then
00:15:25.500 --> 00:15:28.400
but it worked,
but we definitely had a lot of faxes.
00:15:28.400 --> 00:15:34.000
I still have these faxes, long faxes
00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:35.000
and then in the summer,
I would come to Cambridge,
00:15:35.000 --> 00:15:40.300
usually to the NBR meetings
and hang around for a few weeks
00:15:40.300 --> 00:15:43.000
and you visited me in Israel.
00:15:43.000 --> 00:15:44.000
I visited in Israel.
00:15:44.000 --> 00:15:48.400
But yeah, there was good foundation
from that that year
00:15:48.500 --> 00:15:51.000
and in some sense that was enough.
00:15:51.500 --> 00:15:53.000
and nowadays,
00:15:53.300 --> 00:15:56.600
I have the co-authors
in lots of different places,
00:15:56.600 --> 00:15:59.100
but it's always been important
00:15:59.200 --> 00:16:01.400
to spend some time with people
in the same place each year.
00:16:01.500 --> 00:16:04.900
You understand how they work,
how they think,
00:16:05.000 --> 00:16:07.600
even to the point that,
00:16:07.600 --> 00:16:09.400
you know when they actually respond,
00:16:09.400 --> 00:16:10.400
whether they respond quickly
or whether that means,
00:16:10.400 --> 00:16:14.100
they're not actually doing anything
00:16:14.100 --> 00:16:15.100
or that mean they're thinking hard
about a problem
00:16:15.100 --> 00:16:17.300
and they just take take longer.
00:16:17.300 --> 00:16:20.200
but you do need to
develop some understanding there.
00:16:20.200 --> 00:16:24.304
♪ [music] ♪
00:16:24.304 --> 00:16:25.900
We've talked about
how your collaboration started,
00:16:26.900 --> 00:16:31.000
maybe just to step back slightly
were they're sort of features about
00:16:31.000 --> 00:16:34.000
the environment at Harvard
or in Cambridge, at the time,
00:16:34.000 --> 00:16:35.000
which you felt like contributed to it?
00:16:35.000 --> 00:16:37.400
Coming from Brown,
00:16:38.000 --> 00:16:42.100
I felt it was very intimidating place
because it clearly was a very, very
00:16:43.500 --> 00:16:45.100
impressive set of people.
00:16:45.200 --> 00:16:48.200
Zvi Griliches was there,
Dale Jorgensen--
00:16:48.200 --> 00:16:49.200
Gary, Jerry Hausman, Whitney Newey,
sometimes Jamie Robins.
00:16:52.600 --> 00:16:55.900
I mean, my view of that
in retrospect,
00:16:55.900 --> 00:16:58.300
I can't say I loved every
minute of every talk
00:16:58.300 --> 00:16:59.500
I ever gave in that Workshop,
00:16:59.500 --> 00:17:01.400
but that was the highest powered,
00:17:01.400 --> 00:17:02.400
that was the group
you wanted to reach...
00:17:02.400 --> 00:17:03.400
- [Guido] Yeah.
00:17:03.400 --> 00:17:04.900
And you would get extraordinarily
insightful feedback,
00:17:05.100 --> 00:17:10.600
even if it wasn't always
easy to swallow.
00:17:11.300 --> 00:17:12.940
Yeah, and I have for a while,
00:17:12.940 --> 00:17:16.200
I would basically give
a talk every semester
00:17:16.200 --> 00:17:19.000
because we didn't have any money
to be inviting people.
00:17:19.500 --> 00:17:22.000
Gary would say,
"Well, why don't you give a talk?"
00:17:22.350 --> 00:17:23.350
[laughter]
00:17:26.800 --> 00:17:31.600
That was the arena for young people
with our interest.
00:17:31.700 --> 00:17:34.700
- [Guido] Yeah, it was really
very impressive,
00:17:35.000 --> 00:17:36.600
but it was quite tough--
00:17:36.700 --> 00:17:37.700
It was intimidating.
00:17:37.800 --> 00:17:41.000
People there had very strong
views on what they thought was
00:17:41.200 --> 00:17:46.100
the way you should do econometrics,
00:17:46.850 --> 00:17:47.850
the way the direction
things should go,
00:17:48.600 --> 00:17:53.300
now, I would think things were
getting a little stale that in fact,
00:17:53.300 --> 00:17:56.000
we were bringing in a lot
of the new ideas...
00:17:56.000 --> 00:17:57.000
- [Josh] Yeah.
00:17:57.000 --> 00:18:01.900
...and that wasn't necessary
immediately appreciated.
00:18:02.800 --> 00:18:04.300
- [Josh] But that's okay.
- And that's fine.
00:18:04.300 --> 00:18:10.140
We were pushed
and a lot of great discussions
00:18:11.250 --> 00:18:13.000
in that workshop about
what should we make of late?
00:18:13.000 --> 00:18:15.800
But there were other questions
that were just as interesting,
00:18:15.800 --> 00:18:18.000
like the role of
the propensity score,
00:18:18.400 --> 00:18:19.600
that was a big deal in the 90s
00:18:19.700 --> 00:18:24.300
and econometrics was
moving towards that
00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:27.800
and there were a lot
of great questions.
00:18:27.900 --> 00:18:28.500
Yeah,
00:18:28.500 --> 00:18:33.300
I learned a huge amount
there from the time I spent--
00:18:33.300 --> 00:18:34.900
- [Josh] I think the other thing
that Guido and I
00:18:35.000 --> 00:18:36.900
both benefited from is we both,
00:18:37.400 --> 00:18:40.500
not at the same time, but in
early in our careers, taught
00:18:40.800 --> 00:18:42.700
econometrics with Gary Chamberlain,
00:18:43.200 --> 00:18:46.500
and that was like an
apprenticeship for us, I think.
00:18:46.800 --> 00:18:51.500
I taught a mixed graduate,
undergrad 1126,
00:18:51.500 --> 00:18:52.100
I don't know if they still have
that number,...
00:18:52.500 --> 00:18:53.500
- [Isaiah] Ahuh, they do.
00:18:53.900 --> 00:18:57.800
...very interesting course that it had
00:18:57.800 --> 00:18:58.800
both graduate and undergraduate
enrollment
00:18:58.800 --> 00:19:04.900
and it was relatively applied for
an econometrics class,
00:19:05.000 --> 00:19:06.600
and I learned a lot by teaching
that with Gary.
00:19:07.500 --> 00:19:10.100
But in that sense,
Harvard was a great place,
00:19:11.350 --> 00:19:12.350
very flexible there.
00:19:13.600 --> 00:19:16.332
The other thing I remember
about Harvard is,
00:19:16.710 --> 00:19:20.150
well I had very good students,
00:19:20.300 --> 00:19:25.100
I taught a lot of wonderful students
00:19:25.200 --> 00:19:26.200
who went on to have
wonderful careers.
00:19:26.300 --> 00:19:30.750
Also, Harvard as an institution,
00:19:30.750 --> 00:19:31.750
you're probably are aware of this,
Isaiah,
00:19:31.750 --> 00:19:34.800
as a junior faculty member,
they didn't then ask much of us,
00:19:35.000 --> 00:19:37.300
other than teaching our classes.
00:19:37.800 --> 00:19:41.300
We didn't have administrative concerns,
to speak of.
00:19:41.300 --> 00:19:45.300
I think I went to two faculty meetings
in my two years at Harvard
00:19:46.600 --> 00:19:50.920
and so we're left--
00:19:50.920 --> 00:19:53.400
You were given a lot of freedom
and flexibility.
00:19:53.400 --> 00:19:58.100
I went to the chair said,
"Can I teach this course with Rubin?"
00:19:59.000 --> 00:20:04.100
I think it was Friedman
at the time. It was like, "Fine."
00:20:05.200 --> 00:20:10.100
It wasn't really any concern about
what what it was about
00:20:10.700 --> 00:20:12.350
and again, that was a very
intimidating experience,
00:20:12.350 --> 00:20:13.350
but it was a great experience.
00:20:13.350 --> 00:20:14.350
♪ [music] ♪
NOTE Paragraph
00:20:14.700 --> 00:20:17.600
- [Narrator] If you'd like to watch more
Nobel Conversations, click here.