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 --> 00:00:15.690
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 --> 00:00:25.986
on the Local Average Treatment Effect,
or LATE framework
00:00:25.986 --> 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 --> 00:00:36.250
it would be great to hear
a bit more
00:00:36.250 --> 00:00:38.500
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 --> 00:00:46.470
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 --> 00:01:03.000
but I think they were very desperate
to get someone else
00:01:03.000 --> 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 --> 00:01:20.828
He said, "Okay, well, why don't you
come out and give a talk?"
00:01:21.089 --> 00:01:23.411
- [Josh] I remember this talk
a little bit.
00:01:23.411 --> 00:01:26.941
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 --> 00:02:06.990
They're doing very
interesting things there."
00:02:07.470 --> 00:02:08.880
I listened to Gary.
00:02:09.880 --> 00:02:10.938
As we did.
00:02:10.938 --> 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,
00:02:22.030 --> 00:02:25.040
partly because housing costs
were very high in Cambridge
00:02:25.040 --> 00:02:27.200
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 --> 00:02:33.360
so there were a lot of MIT people
00:02:33.360 --> 00:02:36.027
who already had their whole networks,
00:02:36.441 --> 00:02:37.800
kind of our collaborators.
00:02:37.800 --> 00:02:39.460
♪ [music] ♪
00:02:39.460 --> 00:02:41.850
- [Josh] Well, I think we figured out
00:02:41.850 --> 00:02:43.800
a mode of working together, also.
00:02:43.800 --> 00:02:46.410
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.
00:02:49.510 --> 00:02:51.912
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 --> 00:02:59.072
and you had a way
of fairly systematically,
00:03:00.330 --> 00:03:03.300
addressing questions that
would come up in our discussions
00:03:03.300 --> 00:03:05.562
and the one thing that
I was very impressed by,
00:03:06.400 --> 00:03:08.728
our early interaction,
is you would follow up.
00:03:09.993 --> 00:03:11.500
You would write some things down.
00:03:11.500 --> 00:03:13.250
Looking back at those days,
sort of clearly,
00:03:13.250 --> 00:03:16.460
I just had a lot more time
to actually think.
00:03:16.460 --> 00:03:19.370
- I look at my junior colleagues now--
- You don't have time to think now.
00:03:19.370 --> 00:03:22.753
No, but for me that is
kind of one thing,
00:03:22.753 --> 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 --> 00:03:38.081
I remember spending a lot of time
sitting in my office
00:03:38.081 --> 00:03:41.505
and thinking,
"Wow, what shall I do now?"
00:03:41.505 --> 00:03:42.835
[laughter]
00:03:43.410 --> 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
00:03:46.883 --> 00:03:48.790
and trying to figure it them out
00:03:48.790 --> 00:03:50.610
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 --> 00:03:58.640
and actually talk about
those things.
00:03:58.640 --> 00:04:01.298
- [Isaiah] You guys weren't actually
at Harvard together all that long,
00:04:01.298 --> 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 --> 00:04:13.020
- [Josh] I think we were lucky.
00:04:13.020 --> 00:04:15.254
I don't remember that I was looking.
00:04:16.130 --> 00:04:17.900
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,
00:04:21.411 --> 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 --> 00:04:27.701
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 --> 00:04:49.859
and we had a pretty good discussion,
00:04:49.859 --> 00:04:54.539
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 --> 00:05:28.880
and you guys have all
had the discussions with Gary
00:05:28.880 --> 00:05:32.212
where afterwards we need
to then sit down
00:05:32.212 --> 00:05:33.920
and actually write things up
00:05:33.920 --> 00:05:36.641
to figure out exactly
what was going on.
00:05:37.810 --> 00:05:39.360
I think the other thing we had,
Guido,
00:05:39.360 --> 00:05:41.655
is we had some
very concrete questions
00:05:41.655 --> 00:05:43.610
that came from applications.
00:05:43.610 --> 00:05:45.000
- [Guido] Yeah.
00:05:45.600 --> 00:05:47.465
A lot of econometrics, in my view,
00:05:47.870 --> 00:05:51.421
that we were schooled in
was about models,
00:05:51.421 --> 00:05:55.411
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 --> 00:06:11.930
That's right, and that's sort of
where your influence
00:06:11.930 --> 00:06:14.890
on the way I do research now
is still very clear--
00:06:14.890 --> 00:06:16.970
♪ [music] ♪
00:06:16.970 --> 00:06:19.060
- [Isaiah] Zooming out
a little bit, just thinking about
00:06:19.060 --> 00:06:20.940
when you guys started
working on this,
00:06:20.940 --> 00:06:22.353
when you started working together,
00:06:23.100 --> 00:06:24.410
any thoughts for folks
00:06:24.410 --> 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 --> 00:06:34.860
It is very easily not to have
a lot of time to think--
00:06:34.860 --> 00:06:36.250
You definitely have to make time.
00:06:36.250 --> 00:06:38.569
That's a great question though,
Isaiah,
00:06:40.400 --> 00:06:42.738
and I tell my students that
00:06:42.738 --> 00:06:46.500
you should pick your co-authors
as carefully,
00:06:46.500 --> 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
00:07:09.370 --> 00:07:11.754
and as much as Guido
and I agree about things,
00:07:12.071 --> 00:07:14.820
we often disagree
about things to this day
00:07:15.565 --> 00:07:18.688
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 --> 00:07:24.821
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
00:07:42.400 --> 00:07:45.679
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 --> 00:08:10.842
but a bad co-authorship
can be very destructive
00:08:10.842 --> 00:08:14.336
and time consuming and painful,
just like a bad marriage.
00:08:16.190 --> 00:08:18.922
Arguments may start about
who did what when
00:08:18.922 --> 00:08:22.640
and intellectual property
type issues,
00:08:22.640 --> 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 --> 00:08:32.070
There's more co-authorship
now in economics,
00:08:32.070 --> 00:08:34.250
I think that's been documented,
much more.
00:08:34.250 --> 00:08:35.090
- [Guido] Yes.
00:08:35.090 --> 00:08:37.460
There's more teams
and there's larger teams
00:08:38.100 --> 00:08:40.651
and I think that's great,
I love working on teams.
00:08:40.651 --> 00:08:43.070
We do work on schools
with big teams.
00:08:43.070 --> 00:08:49.230
I work often with PI teammates
like Parag Pathak and David Autor
00:08:49.230 --> 00:08:51.100
and then a team of
graduate students,
00:08:51.100 --> 00:08:54.260
but I see that the students
are not always,
00:08:54.260 --> 00:08:56.480
in some ways they're a little
too promiscuous,
00:08:56.480 --> 00:08:58.700
in my view, in their partnering.
00:08:58.700 --> 00:09:00.420
They don't think it through.
00:09:01.180 --> 00:09:03.600
It's difficult to think it through.
00:09:03.930 --> 00:09:08.500
I think, for me, working
with people always has involved
00:09:08.500 --> 00:09:11.061
spending a lot of one-on-one
time with people,
00:09:11.431 --> 00:09:12.981
you need to figure out
how they think
00:09:14.712 --> 00:09:17.465
and what kind of problems
they're interested in
00:09:17.465 --> 00:09:19.546
and how they think about
these problems,
00:09:19.546 --> 00:09:23.127
how they like to write,
to make that--
00:09:23.600 --> 00:09:26.060
And it takes some maturity on
everybody's part.
00:09:26.060 --> 00:09:28.339
- Yes. Yes.
- [Isaiah] In what sense?
00:09:28.339 --> 00:09:30.600
Just in the sense of knowing
what's going to work for them,
00:09:30.600 --> 00:09:32.640
knowing when things are
versus aren't working?
00:09:33.200 --> 00:09:36.131
- [Josh] Maturity in the
sense of having some judgment
00:09:36.600 --> 00:09:40.151
to be able to face it honestly,
if it's not going well,
00:09:40.151 --> 00:09:42.603
sometimes you have to have
some difficult discussions.
00:09:43.583 --> 00:09:45.075
Is it worth continuing?
00:09:46.400 --> 00:09:48.795
"I was hoping you would do this,
and you didn't,"
00:09:49.100 --> 00:09:51.560
maybe it turns out
there's some feeling
00:09:51.560 --> 00:09:53.445
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 --> 00:10:01.310
- [Josh] For better or worse.
00:10:01.310 --> 00:10:03.896
- [Guido] I would write this stuff
and then I remember
NOTE Paragraph
00:10:04.600 --> 00:10:08.192
the first version of the paper
with Rubin,
00:10:08.963 --> 00:10:10.590
Josh was in Israel at the time,
00:10:12.700 --> 00:10:14.165
Don and I were in Cambridge
00:10:14.165 --> 00:10:16.010
and so I would talk
with Don regularly,
00:10:16.010 --> 00:10:18.600
but Don wasn't really doing
much writing in those days,
00:10:18.600 --> 00:10:21.801
I would write things
and then I would fax them to Josh
00:10:21.801 --> 00:10:26.733
and they would come back,
first page just one big cross, "No,"
00:10:26.733 --> 00:10:29.555
second page, one big line, "No"
00:10:30.570 --> 00:10:33.470
and that would go for awhile
but he still does that.
00:10:33.470 --> 00:10:36.800
I sent him the first draft
of my Nobel lecture,
00:10:36.800 --> 00:10:39.309
and Josh goes,
"No, no!"
00:10:40.330 --> 00:10:44.649
I've gotten some PDF comments
like that from Josh, very helpful.
00:10:45.150 --> 00:10:46.720
Omit needless words.
00:10:47.390 --> 00:10:51.717
I have few co-authors
who are willing to do that.
00:10:54.280 --> 00:10:58.400
Especially as you get older,
it's harder to put up with that.
00:10:59.300 --> 00:11:02.905
I would find it harder now to start
working with people who did that
00:11:03.810 --> 00:11:05.830
early on in a co-author
relationship.
00:11:05.830 --> 00:11:08.900
It's also very hard because
you need to have enough trust.
00:11:12.520 --> 00:11:16.559
Josh, for being willing
to be very critical,
00:11:16.559 --> 00:11:20.470
he was also willing
to admit being wrong.
00:11:20.470 --> 00:11:22.500
♪ [music] ♪
00:11:22.500 --> 00:11:25.370
- [Josh] But you have to be on
the lookout for good partners,
00:11:25.800 --> 00:11:28.010
somebody who can help you
answer questions
00:11:28.010 --> 00:11:29.710
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 --> 00:11:37.779
to people who are similar
in outlook and skills
00:11:37.779 --> 00:11:40.220
and that's not as useful.
NOTE Paragraph
00:11:40.220 --> 00:11:43.497
- [Guido] Josh is right, nowadays
it's very tempting
00:11:43.497 --> 00:11:46.500
to find people who think
about the same problems
00:11:46.500 --> 00:11:49.142
you're already thinking about,
who think along the same lines
00:11:49.730 --> 00:11:56.283
and that may not lead
to very novel stuff.
00:11:58.500 --> 00:12:01.108
But at the same time finding people
00:12:01.108 --> 00:12:02.800
who actually have
very different ideas,
00:12:02.800 --> 00:12:04.380
it's going to take a lot of time.
00:12:04.680 --> 00:12:07.570
Guido, you mentioned in passing
how working with Josh
00:12:07.570 --> 00:12:10.270
has influenced how you do research,
00:12:10.270 --> 00:12:11.880
could you say a little more
about that?
00:12:11.880 --> 00:12:13.800
I'd also be interested
to hear from Josh,
00:12:14.490 --> 00:12:16.730
did working with Guido influence
the way that you do research?
00:12:16.730 --> 00:12:19.460
- [Guido] Nowadays, I'm much
more conscious of the fact that,
00:12:20.620 --> 00:12:21.990
for me, good economic research
00:12:21.990 --> 00:12:25.270
comes out of talking to people
doing empirical work,
00:12:25.600 --> 00:12:29.300
and it's really not reading
econometrica
00:12:30.130 --> 00:12:31.500
or the reading the stats journals,
00:12:31.500 --> 00:12:34.550
but it's actually talking to people
doing empirical work,
00:12:34.550 --> 00:12:37.034
going to the empirical seminars.
00:12:38.770 --> 00:12:40.400
When I was at Berkeley,
00:12:41.250 --> 00:12:44.167
David Carr and Raj Chetty,
as colleagues there
00:12:44.780 --> 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
00:12:48.601 --> 00:12:53.894
how are they solving their problems
and other things there
00:12:53.894 --> 00:12:57.111
where I'm not really quite happy
with the way they're doing things
00:12:57.111 --> 00:13:01.097
and trying to look for
methodological problems,
00:13:02.710 --> 00:13:07.532
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
00:13:11.700 --> 00:13:13.199
as research assistants also,
00:13:13.199 --> 00:13:18.409
for the people doing empirical work
at Stanford.
00:13:19.700 --> 00:13:20.810
There was no [subbing]
00:13:20.810 --> 00:13:22.100
but that I learned while
I was in graduate school,
00:13:22.100 --> 00:13:25.380
but it really came out of
working with Josh,
00:13:25.380 --> 00:13:26.990
as well as talking to Gary,
00:13:26.990 --> 00:13:30.367
Gary was always encouraging
of doing that
00:13:30.367 --> 00:13:31.860
and because he done that himself,
00:13:31.860 --> 00:13:35.830
he'd worked with on empirical
problems with Zvi Griliches
00:13:35.830 --> 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
00:13:45.500 --> 00:13:47.100
through our interaction,
00:13:47.100 --> 00:13:51.960
and I think empiricists are often
impatient with econometric theory,
00:13:51.960 --> 00:13:55.040
partly because empirical work is
very time-consuming,
00:13:55.040 --> 00:13:59.100
and you may have a sense
that something is
00:13:59.300 --> 00:14:00.740
convincing and sensible
00:14:00.740 --> 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 --> 00:14:07.465
and that motivates you
to pursue it,
00:14:07.860 --> 00:14:10.604
like the draft lottery story.
00:14:10.604 --> 00:14:12.441
I was pretty sure that was
worth doing
00:14:14.420 --> 00:14:19.613
and I came away from
working with Guido
00:14:19.613 --> 00:14:22.348
seeing that there was
the potential to say something
00:14:22.733 --> 00:14:25.220
more than just about
that particular problem,
00:14:26.560 --> 00:14:29.028
and I think over the those early
years in the 90s,
00:14:31.600 --> 00:14:33.360
our thinking evolved together
00:14:33.360 --> 00:14:35.500
that there's actually
a framework here,
00:14:35.500 --> 00:14:37.270
a way to solve a lot of problems
00:14:37.270 --> 00:14:40.700
and I think that that is the power
of the LATE framework,
00:14:40.700 --> 00:14:42.930
is it answers a lot of questions.
00:14:42.930 --> 00:14:44.500
♪ [music] ♪
00:14:44.500 --> 00:14:46.300
- [Isaiah] In some sense,
did you find that,
00:14:46.300 --> 00:14:48.560
email versus facts
versus in-person,
00:14:48.560 --> 00:14:51.462
the medium mattered
to how collaboration went
00:14:51.462 --> 00:14:53.030
or they're ways that you felt like
00:14:53.030 --> 00:14:55.300
it was the most useful
to collaborate?
00:14:55.300 --> 00:14:58.761
To me, I think
what matters most is,
00:14:58.781 --> 00:15:00.860
initially you have a period of--
00:15:01.020 --> 00:15:02.340
We needed that initial period,
00:15:02.340 --> 00:15:06.477
that was very intense with
almost daily interaction
00:15:06.477 --> 00:15:08.358
and we also became friends.
00:15:08.900 --> 00:15:13.992
You don't develop the kind of
friendship, electronically usually
00:15:13.996 --> 00:15:14.996
[laughter]
00:15:15.000 --> 00:15:18.731
but once you have that foundation
you can be pen pals
00:15:19.300 --> 00:15:24.314
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 --> 00:15:31.300
I still have these faxes,
these long faxes
00:15:32.920 --> 00:15:36.885
and then in the summer,
I would come to Cambridge,
00:15:36.907 --> 00:15:40.300
usually to the NBR meetings
and hang around for a few weeks
00:15:40.300 --> 00:15:41.949
and you visited me in Israel.
00:15:41.949 --> 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
00:15:49.000 --> 00:15:51.500
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
00:15:59.100 --> 00:16:01.380
to spend some time with people
in the same place,
00:16:01.380 --> 00:16:04.900
so you understand how they work,
how they think,
00:16:05.800 --> 00:16:07.350
even to the point that,
00:16:07.350 --> 00:16:08.900
you know when
they actually respond,
00:16:08.900 --> 00:16:10.267
whether they respond quickly
or whether that means,
00:16:10.267 --> 00:16:11.710
they're not actually doing anything
00:16:11.710 --> 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 longer,
00:16:17.300 --> 00:16:21.707
but you do need to
develop some understanding there.
00:16:21.707 --> 00:16:23.484
♪ [music] ♪
00:16:23.484 --> 00:16:26.900
- [Isaiah] 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 --> 00:16:35.770
which you felt contributed to it?
00:16:36.290 --> 00:16:37.920
Coming from Brown,
00:16:37.920 --> 00:16:42.174
I felt it was very intimidating place
because it clearly was a very, very
00:16:43.500 --> 00:16:45.200
impressive set of people.
00:16:46.590 --> 00:16:49.040
Zvi Griliches was there,
Dale Jorgensen--
00:16:49.040 --> 00:16:53.780
Gary, Jerry Hausman, Whitney Newey,
sometimes Jamie Robins.
00:16:53.890 --> 00:16:55.900
I mean, my view of that
in retrospect,
00:16:55.900 --> 00:16:58.000
I can't say I loved every
minute of every talk
00:16:58.000 --> 00:16:59.270
I ever gave in that Workshop,
00:16:59.270 --> 00:17:00.990
but that was the highest powered,
00:17:00.990 --> 00:17:02.670
that was the group
you wanted to reach...
00:17:02.670 --> 00:17:03.600
- [Guido] Yeah.
00:17:03.600 --> 00:17:07.974
And you would get extraordinarily
insightful feedback,
00:17:07.974 --> 00:17:10.600
even if it wasn't always
easy to swallow.
00:17:11.300 --> 00:17:12.660
Yeah, and I have for a while,
00:17:12.660 --> 00:17:15.940
I would basically give
a talk every semester
00:17:15.940 --> 00:17:19.000
because we didn't have any money
to invite people.
00:17:19.500 --> 00:17:22.000
Gary would say,
"Well, why don't you give a talk?"
00:17:22.000 --> 00:17:23.000
[laughter]
00:17:26.800 --> 00:17:30.758
That was the arena for young people
with our interest.
00:17:30.758 --> 00:17:32.778
- [Guido] Yeah, it was really
very impressive,
00:17:32.778 --> 00:17:35.448
but it was quite tough--
00:17:35.448 --> 00:17:37.128
It was intimidating.
00:17:37.800 --> 00:17:41.000
People there had very strong
views on what they thought was
00:17:42.810 --> 00:17:44.560
the way you should do econometrics,
00:17:44.560 --> 00:17:46.720
the way the direction
things should go,
00:17:49.340 --> 00:17:51.710
now, I would think things were
getting a little stale,
00:17:51.710 --> 00:17:55.550
that in fact, we were bringing in
a lot of the new ideas...
00:17:55.550 --> 00:17:57.000
- [Josh] Yeah.
00:17:57.000 --> 00:18:01.900
...and that wasn't necessary
immediately appreciated.
00:18:02.380 --> 00:18:04.300
- [Josh] But that's okay.
- And that's fine.
00:18:04.300 --> 00:18:07.730
We were pushed
and a lot of great discussions
00:18:07.730 --> 00:18:12.887
in that workshop about
what should we make of LATE?
00:18:12.887 --> 00:18:15.687
But there were other questions
that were just as interesting,
00:18:15.687 --> 00:18:18.267
like the role of
the propensity score,
00:18:18.267 --> 00:18:20.678
that was a big deal in the 90s
00:18:20.689 --> 00:18:24.300
and econometrics was
moving towards that
00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:27.550
and there were a lot
of great questions.
00:18:27.550 --> 00:18:28.790
Yeah,
00:18:29.430 --> 00:18:32.810
I learned a huge amount
there from the time I spent--
00:18:32.810 --> 00:18:34.760
- [Josh] I think the other thing
that Guido and I
00:18:34.760 --> 00:18:36.800
both benefited from is we both,
00:18:37.400 --> 00:18:39.810
not at the same time, but in
early in our careers,
00:18:39.810 --> 00:18:42.400
taught 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 --> 00:18:50.640
I taught a mixed graduate,
undergrad 1126,
00:18:50.640 --> 00:18:52.080
I don't know if they still have
that number,...
00:18:52.080 --> 00:18:53.500
- [Isaiah] Ahuh, they do.
00:18:53.500 --> 00:18:55.480
...very interesting course
that it had
00:18:55.480 --> 00:18:57.885
both graduate and undergraduate
enrollment
00:18:58.800 --> 00:19:02.869
and it was relatively applied for
an econometrics class,
00:19:03.270 --> 00:19:06.794
and I learned a lot by teaching
that with Gary.
00:19:07.500 --> 00:19:11.350
But in that sense,
Harvard was a great place,
00:19:11.350 --> 00:19:13.210
very flexible there.
00:19:13.600 --> 00:19:15.879
The other thing I remember
about Harvard is,
00:19:16.710 --> 00:19:18.612
well I had very good students,
00:19:20.300 --> 00:19:22.672
I taught a lot of
wonderful students
00:19:22.690 --> 00:19:25.013
who went on to have
wonderful careers.
00:19:26.300 --> 00:19:28.346
Also, Harvard as an institution,
00:19:28.346 --> 00:19:31.400
you're probably are aware of this,
Isaiah,
00:19:31.400 --> 00:19:35.350
as a junior faculty member,
they didn't then ask much of us,
00:19:35.350 --> 00:19:37.140
other than teaching our classes.
00:19:37.640 --> 00:19:40.730
We didn't have administrative concerns,
to speak of.
00:19:41.300 --> 00:19:43.757
I think I went to two
faculty meetings
00:19:43.757 --> 00:19:45.356
in my two years at Harvard
00:19:46.600 --> 00:19:48.940
and so we're left--
00:19:50.920 --> 00:19:53.400
You were given a lot of freedom
and flexibility.
00:19:54.300 --> 00:19:57.886
I went to the chair said,
"Can I teach this course with Rubin?"
00:19:59.620 --> 00:20:04.133
I think it was Friedman
at the time. It was like, "Fine."
00:20:05.200 --> 00:20:09.383
It wasn't really any concern about
what what it was about
00:20:09.383 --> 00:20:11.790
and again, that was a very
intimidating experience,
00:20:11.790 --> 00:20:13.350
but it was a great experience.
00:20:13.350 --> 00:20:14.505
♪ [music] ♪
NOTE Paragraph
00:20:14.505 --> 00:20:16.010
- [Narrator] If you'd like to
watch more
00:20:16.010 --> 00:20:17.943
Nobel Conversations,
click here,
00:20:18.358 --> 00:20:20.676
or if you'd like to learn more
about econometrics,
00:20:20.676 --> 00:20:23.160
check out Josh's
"Mastering Econometrics" series.
00:20:24.075 --> 00:20:26.943
If you'd like to learn more about
Guido, Josh, and Isaiah,
00:20:26.943 --> 00:20:28.744
check out the links
in the description.
00:20:28.744 --> 00:20:30.577
♪ [music] ♪