POPULARITY
12 episodes with angrist
7 episodes with angrist
2 episodes with angrist
2 episodes with angrist
2 episodes with angrist
2 episodes with angrist
2 episodes with angrist
2 episodes with angrist
Vi er ikke vanskelige å be om å snakke om hva sporten kan lære oss om verden, økonomien og bærekraften, så når vår gode venn Christer Thrane, professor i sosiologi ved Høgskolen i Innlandet, ga ut boken "Helt i mål: Lær statistisk tenkning med tall fra sportens verden", var det en enkel beslutning å invitere ham på et bærekraftseventyr. Christer har selv bakgrunn fra idrettens verden, og selv om han snakker ned sin egen matematiske og statistiske begavelse, har en skrevet en serie med strålende bøker om statistiske analyser og dataanalyse. Vi bruker idrettens verden for å snakke oss inn i verdien av statistisk tenkning og intuisjon i møte med krevende problemer og beslutninger. Lars Jacob forteller om en elleveåring med sofistikert forståelse for "expected goals", Christer peker tilbake til legendariske Arsène Wengers inntreden i Premier League, og vi snakker om datarevolusjonen i idretten. Det fører Lars Jacob til å trekke en parallell til den empiriske revolusjonen i økonomifaget og statistikk-politiarbeidet til aktører som Andrew Gelman, Alex Edmans og andre. Christer nikker til empirikere som Angrist og Pischke, er optimistisk på vegne av den oppvoksende generasjons statistikkferdigheter, og plutselig dukker Johannes Thingnes Bø opp. Sveinung snakker om multiple regresjoner og undrer seg over svart/hvitt-tenkningen i samfunnet, mens Lars Jacob minner om Jon Elsters evne til å sparke med begge bein og innrømmer tvilsomme praksiser i sin tid som ungdomsskolelærervikar og ambulansesjåfør. Vi spør oss om det burde være obligatorisk statistisk voksenopplæring for alle, skiller mellom mono- og multikausalitet og Christer prøver å unngå magesår. Vi spør oss om dataene og statistikkens rolle for komplekse problemstillinger som bærekraft, Christer drar en røykeparallell og slår et slag for "stein på stein"-tilnærmingen. Vi mimrer om den gode filmen "Thank you for smoking", Sveinung trekker inn språkmodeller, KI og anabole steroider, Lars Jacob minner om Harry Redknapps legendariske instruks "just go out there and fucking run around a bit", Christer trekker inn Brian Cloughs papir versus-gress-perspektiv, og vi avslutter med en liten meditasjon over om dataorienteringen kan hemme den kritiske sansen vår, men er enige om at det i det store bildet leder oss i riktig retning. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Greetings! Today's guest on the Mixtape needs no introduction, but I guess I will anyway. N. Greg Mankiw is a household name to many of us in economics. Either you are a macroeconomist, and his work in new Keynesian economics was something that you had come to know extremely well, or you are literally every other economist, and his principles of economics textbooks you know backwards and forwards because it was either the book you studied as a sophomore in college, or probably even more common, it was the book you used to learn how to teach economics. This interview was a lot of fun, and it kind of fits in a way with something that I keep gravitating towards which is to talk to people in economics who have written textbooks — people like Bill Greene, Mas Col-ell, Jeff Wooldridge, Angrist and Pischke. Thanks again for tuning in.And I know I said I was going to move to doing these every other week, but man does it seem like it's been a long time since I've done one, so I'm not sure but I will have to decide if I can handle doing them only every other week. We'll see.Scott's Mixtape Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
This week on The Learning Curve, co-hosts Alisha Searcy of DEFR and Mike Goldstein interview Joshua Angrist, the Ford Professor of Economics at MIT. Prof Angrist shares his journey from growing up in Pittsburgh to becoming a Nobel Prize-winning economist. He reflects on his family, formative educational experiences, and his time as a paratrooper in the Israeli Defense Forces, where he gleaned […]
This week on The Learning Curve, co-hosts Alisha Searcy of DEFR and Mike Goldstein interview Joshua Angrist, the Ford Professor of Economics at MIT. Prof Angrist shares his journey from growing up in Pittsburgh to becoming a Nobel Prize-winning economist. He reflects on his family, formative educational experiences, and his time as a paratrooper in the Israeli Defense Forces, where he gleaned […]
This week on The Learning Curve, co-hosts Alisha Searcy of DEFR and Mike Goldstein interview Joshua Angrist, the Ford Professor of Economics at MIT. Prof Angrist shares his journey from growing up in Pittsburgh to becoming a Nobel Prize-winning economist. He reflects on his family, formative educational experiences, and his time as a paratrooper in the Israeli Defense Forces, where he gleaned valuable life lessons. Prof. Angrist explores the controversies and his motivations behind studying K-12 education, emphasizing what policymakers often overlook about education and labor markets. He discusses his groundbreaking research on charter schools, highlighting how his findings have influenced policymakers. Angrist also talks about his Nobel-winning work on the analysis of causal relationships in economics and the innovative research currently underway at Blueprint, his lab at MIT.
Welcome to another exciting episode of the Mixtape with Scott! Today, I get to have on the show someone who has become something of a friend the last few years, an expert in health economics and social policy, Adriana Lleras-Muney at UCLA, a Professor of Economics at UCLA.Dr. Lleras-Muney's journey in economics is super impressive and even involves traveling through all the alleyways of causal inference. After earning her Ph.D. from Columbia University where she wrote a job market paper on compulsory schooling, at a time where it had just become accepted wisdom that the Angrist and Krueger 1991 article needed a fresh take. She then went to Princeton, the birth place of causal inference in labor, before making her way to UCLA where Guido Imbens had just gotten to, and who is also now one of her coauthors in a new article at the Quarterly Journal of Economics. So when I think about her story, it's hard for me not to hear the echoes, I guess, of the history of causal inference too. Her academic accolades are too many to name, but I'll name a few. She's an associate editor for the Journal of Health Economics and serves on the board of editors for both the American Economic Review and Demography. She's also been a permanent member of the Social Sciences and Population Studies Study Section at the National Institute of Health and an elected member of the American Economic Association Executive committee. In 2017, her contributions to the field were recognized with the prestigious Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE).But what really sets Adriana apart is her groundbreaking research. She's been at the forefront of exploring the relationships between socioeconomic status and health, with a particular focus on education, income, and policy. Her recent work has taken a fascinating turn, examining the long-term impact of government policies on children. She's been digging into programs like the Mother's Pension program and the Civilian Conservation Corps from the first half of the 20th century, uncovering insights that are still relevant today. Her work has appeared in all the major journals in economics such as the American Economic Review, Econometrica, The Review of Economic Studies, and the Quarterly Journal of Economics.So, all that said, I hope you find this interview as interesting as I did. The video will be posted most likely later to YouTube; my Scottish hotel has surprisingly very slow internet and I'm still downloading the video, and so will likely be uploading it too all night. But thank you again for all your support. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
Welcome to the 12th episode of the third season of the Mixtape with Scott, a podcast devoted to listening to the stories of living economists. This week's guest is Daniel Chen, an economist at the Toulouse School of Economics. I had a chance to meet Daniel when he came to Baylor and presented to use a tour de force of his body of scholarship, and I was mesmerized by it. Except for one other person, I had not met someone with that level of productive scholarly energy before. I was really stunned by how much work he had crammed into a career, spreading so many topics, and yet all held together under this umbrella of "political economy". I knew of many of Daniel's works by reputation and one in particular we discuss which is about a law and economics program that trained federal judges, but I hadn't met him before, and I did not put two and two together that he had gone to MIT and had on his committee Bannerjee, Duflo, Kremer and Angrist -- four key Nobel laureates in the history of causal inference and the natural experiment movement that really captured the profession. So I asked him if we could talk and I could hear his story and he agreed. Daniel will share it in this talk as we go through the kind of kid he was, and probably frankly still is, a deeply curious, very meticulous, thoughtful, and creative person. We talked about his childhood, majoring in applied math at Harvard, being very drawn to theory and yet people, making economics a surprising and unexpected opportunity for him, and eventually becoming what he told me was a "data rat" who collected datasets. He also fits with this other part of the professional story that I've been wanting to share with people which are these economists that also go to law school and JDs. He after finishing MIT decided to get a JD at Harvard law school, and his explanation for it is kind of interesting because it all feels somehow unplanned and yet clearly he is, in my opinion anyway, driven by his own goals. I loved meeting him, loved talking to him, loved listening to his story, and I hope you do too! Thank you for tuning in as always!Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
Welcome to this week's episode of the Mixtape with Scott. One of the new themes I'm hoping to pursue is the students of the 2021 winners of the Nobel Prize. And today's interview is with Marianne Bitler, professor of economics at University of California Davis. Dr. Bitler was in the first cohort of Josh Angrist's PhD advisees at MIT. She graduated in 1998 from MIT where Angrist was one of her advisors before going into a career in government. She took the long way to get into academia, moving through UC Irvine and landing at UC Davis. Her career has been marked by an interest in means tested poverty programs as well as reproductive health, but it's also been marked by early interest in heterogenous treatment effects from a methodological perspective, making her contributions some of the earlier work that I think highlights some of the challenges we face when focusing exclusively on means. It was a pleasure talking to Marianne and I hope all of you find this as interesting to listen to as I did. Thanks again for tuning in!Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
This week's guest on the Mixtape with Scott is Christopher Taber. Chris is a professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin where he is department chair, the James Heckman professor of economics and the Walker Family chair. Chris is a labor economist and econometrician who has made numerous contributions to both areas such as the returns to education, difference-in-differences with small numbers of interventions, techniques for evaluating claims of selection on observables and more. In addition to fitting into my long running interest in econometrics and labor economics, though, I wanted to talk with Chris because this year I'm wanting to interview more “the students of [BLANK].” And Chris was Jim Heckman's student as a grad student at the University of Chicago and this year in addition to interviewing the students of Orley, Card, Angrist and Imbens, I am also want to interview the students of Jim Heckman as I continue to flesh out the causal inference revolution that began in labor economics in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s at Princeton, Harvard, MIT, Chicago and Berkeley. Thanks for tuning in! I hope you enjoy this chance to listen to Chris's story as much as I did.Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
This week's guest on The Mixtape with Scott is the Xiaokai Yang Chair of Business and Economics at Monash University, Sascha Becker. Sascha is an economist who is hard to pin down into just one field. He's probably most widely known, across the most general set of economists, as a contemporary economic historian. One of his specializations within economic history has been religion, most notably the Protestantism in Europe and its relationship to long term literacy (particularly among women) and human capital more generally. But even within history, he writes on topics that go far beyond traditional economic questions — like, for instance, his work reexamining Max Weber's the Protestant work ethic hypothesis, for instance, or his more recent work examining the relationship between the church and national socialism. Sascha studies a topic in religion that overlaps with my own religious tradition (Protestantism and the Reformation churches more specifically), and so it's drawn me into enjoying a lot of and benefiting from his extensive ongoing research on the topics. But I also have been interested in Sascha because of his role in the spread of causal inference throughout economics, particularly within Europe. As Sascha will share in the podcast, his advisor in graduate school, Andrea Ichino, came to Sascha's program after graduating from MIT. When Andrea taught, then, a microeconometrics course in the late 1990s, he did not use a book — he used his lecture notes belonging to the class he'd taken in his own PhD program taught by Josh Angrist. Sascha implied, as I have long suspected, that the passing on of causal inference was coming, not through econometrics textbooks, but through the placements of students that could be directly tied back to original proponents, which is why (or rather I have conjectured) the spread of causal inference within economics spread through applied microeconomics fields, like labor, public and development, early on, as opposed to econometricians. Early on, Sascha wrote a package in Stata with Andrea on implementing matching with the propensity score that has almost 4000 citations to this day. And Sascha himself probably did dozens of workshops all across Europe in the early 00's teaching matching to students and faculty who otherwise didn't have the red phone direct access to Angrist. As he said, matching was huge back then (no doubt made even moreso by Dehejia and Wahba's publications), but while he was teaching matching, it now seems more likely he was teaching all over Europe what we consider to be causal inference methodologies based on the Rubin causal model, including matching, IV and the LATE theorem. I continue to remain fascinated by the spread of causal inference in its earliest days throughout economics, and the role that the applied fields, like labor economics, played. But this podcast touches on many topics, including that but much more than that too, and I hope you enjoy listening to it half as much as I enjoyed talking to and learning more about Sascha's own life and journey. Thanks again for tuning in. If you like the podcast, consider sharing it with others, or leaving a rating on Spotify and Apple. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
Update before introducing the podcast episode.Things have been light on the substack and I apologize for that. I spent two weeks traveling, seeing the country with my two high school aged daughters on a road trip from Waco, to Big Bend, to Marfa Texas, to the Grand Canyon. There at the Grand Canyon, I realized I was old and tired and it was hot and the girls gave it their best shot but sadly, they weren't being blown away by the scenery, so we decided to then pull the plug a day early and go to Las Vegas. The Vegas trip was always meant to just be a way for me to find an airport for me to fly my youngest back to Waco in time for her camp, but then it turned into three days and two nights on the Strip where I learned you can pay $100 for a hamburger, two cheese steaks, a coke and two water bottles. At which point I told the girls we are going to try a new trick called “intermittent fasting” where none of us eats for the next 48 hours. Psyche! They ate but I did wish I could've lugged the Coleman stove and dehydrated beans up from the car at a few points as I had no idea Vegas was that expensive. We did Cirque de Soleil (we saw O which was beautiful). To be honest, the girls hadn't really ever been out of Texas. I mean they had been on vacations but we usually vacation in Texas — the Hill Country is our special spot, on the rivers. But my heart is for the open road — ever since I read On the Road by Jack Kerouac when I was 16, everything changed for me. I developed a habit of stream of consciousness writing, which I perfected as the years went by on social media, but which made writing the carefully disciplined academic articles much more difficult. And I fell in love with America, and seeing America from behind a steering wheel. And getting to share that with my girls meant the world to me. They've beautiful young ladies, 11th and 12th grade, and they wore outfits and we did a lot of pictures in front of the choreographed water fountains, we saw the new massive LED dome, and then the next morning, my daughter flew back, and me and my oldest daughter drove straight to San Francisco, which had always been the destiny. San Francisco. My favorite city in the United States, and one of my favorite in the world. I'd found us a really nice airbnb in the Mission District. My daughter really had no idea what was waiting for her, but I knew that if I could just get us there, and if we could just walk the streets together, moving between neighborhoods and commercial areas, that it would affect her. And it did. She was like me deeply moved by the beauty of the city. Another book that had a major impact on my development was Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities, and all I really wanted was my daughter to feel a great American city with her feet and eyes, moving down the streets, navigating the BART. I gave her the job of getting us everywhere we needed to go so that she could master the public transportation system; I sensed that that was all that she needed to really feel her self esteem lift. Navigating public transportation involves going to depots, putting money on a card, going through turn styles, watching the people, getting on the train, reading maps, sit in a seat as a train moves through the dark — all experiences someone who has never had has conjured up feelings that really are new. And we don't have that in Waco. I doubt my daughter have ever taken a bus in Waco, as Texas is an automobile centered place. So she did, and it was empowering just like I thought it would be. She said all she wanted to do was go to thrift stores, so we did. We went to Haight and for an entire day, all we did was go from thrift and vintage stores, one after another. I got some great Sam Smith Adidas for only $10. Couldn't believe they fit. And I got a bunch of other things that looked great until I brought them home and then they didn't, but she found the most beautiful sweater and pants. And I saw my daughter as this young woman and just thought how fortunate I am to be here with her. And so we had four days and three nights there. We even did touristy things — took a ferry to the Golden Gate Bridge and to Alcatraz where I didn't wear a hat and so my bald head turned red as a beet. But then we drove back. I really did not have a plan for the return trip at all. I had a plan to get there, but not so much to get back. So I decided — okay, where have I never been? And I'd never really been to the northern part of Nevada, or Utah, or even much of Colorado. So that's what we did. We drove Northern Nevada, through Reno, and then to Utah. I don't know what I was expecting Utah to be like. Growing up in Mississippi and Tennessee, our lives were either in those states or on vacation to Florida. The middle part of the country, anywhere where there were mountains— I'd never seen. I'd seen the Smoky mountains in college, because I went to UT-Knoxville, but I'd never seen the mountains of the rest of the country. And so as a kid, I just thought Utah, Idaho and Iowa were probably all basically the same state. I thought maybe they were all just the scenery from Hoosiers, or possibly they looked like what I imagined Notre Dame looked like from watching Rudy. I had absolutely no idea that the country up there was like that as I'd never gone. So when I drove through Salt Lake City with her, and I saw the mountains towering over the city, it was just stunning. And it remained stunning — we drove for days, through Utah, down through Colorado, through this thick never-ending national park. I was listening to The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, and we were just talking and looking at things that we'd never seen before. I saw things in that national park that I didn't even know could look that way. I didn't know we'd cut roads through mountains that way, or that there were roads overlooking valleys like that — endless roads through endless mountains through endless valleys, all covered with endless trees, forests laid out like a blanket over the mountain. They're getting older. Next year, my oldest will graduate. Then the year after, my youngest will graduate. I've begun transitioning my life into a level of building into the next phase of my career. Writing, the workshops, more ambitious research projects that seem to take forever, consulting. I've gotten off social media, because it is such a negative place for me mentally. I suspect that things that happened on social media both last year but even really in the years leading up to it, left some scars. I noticed as much when recently I had something like a “flashback” when a new paper about online harassment of economists came out. I carry inside my body this feeling like the top layer of my skin is somehow slightly pulled away from the bone. It's hard to explain. I'm going to see someone about it hopefully in the next couple of weeks. Decided I wanted to kick the tires, see what's going on. Maybe try to get a better handle on why I am having a little trouble moving on, or why some things really get to me that to others looking in don't make a lot of sense. I wish I was on the other side of my story where I'm a wise old man who says many wise things and floats along the ground, his feet never touching, having evolved. But I'm instead a man with his feet firmly on the ground, sometimes feeling planted into the ground, stuck. I make progress, and think it's all done, all in the past, but then an event happens, and I wake up and think where am I? What happened? Am I really back at square one again? So, that's why things have been quiet on here. I had some things I was going to write, papers I was hoping to read closely and write up, but I just have been slow to really feel confident I understand why the papers had been written. There is a guy at Brandeis name Tymon Sloczynski, a young econometrician, whose work I have grown to admire immensely. It's full of insights, and it's probably things he's written that forced me to start looking more closely at covariates in regressions. He's got an Restat where he shows that the regression model with additive covariates ends up putting weights on groups that are more or less the opposite of what you'd think it would do — weighting up the smallest groups in the data, and weighting down the largest ones, causing the OLS estimates of aggregate causal parameters in certain specifications to not be as easily interpretable. I just was struck by how much I don't understand about OLS, and so I was hoping to do a series through several of his papers because I really think Tymon is an amazing writer and thinker. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.PodcastSo, with that all out of the way, I'd like to introduce you to this week's podcast guest, Jonathan Meer, a professor at Texas A&M in the economics department. Waco Texas is they say “centrally located”. They say that because you can get to Dallas in 100 minutes, Austin in 90 minutes and College Station in 90 minutes. And if you're willing to go a little further, Houston isn't much further. It's not pretty driving the way driving through Northern Nevada or Utah is, unfortunately, but waiting for you when you get there is Jonathan Meer, one of the funniest and thought provoking friends in my community of economist-friends. So there's always consumer surplus associated with making the drive.I reached out to Jonathan because Jonathan isn't really one of the “applied microeconomists” crowd that popped up at some point over the last couple of decades as much as he is a traditional microeconomist. The applied microeconomists were people like me who sort of took Becker as their inspiration to look at all of human behavior through an economic lens on the one hand, and then took Angrist and the credibility revolution to be the tools through which they'd do it. Meer was different. Meer was what I sometimes call on here “real economist” because he studied classic topics in labor and public finance, as well as ventured out on his own into areas around charitable giving. He moved between quasi-experimental and experimental work, but his overall grasp of economic theory was deep. He is considered one of the best instructors at all at A&M from what I can gather (I think the long name he has on his title is associated with his teaching skills). He teaches one of those massive micro economics classes with more students enrolled than populated some of the towns I drove through in Colorado. And he, from what I can gather, when he holds court, they all are on the edge of their seat, loving the lessons.Meer knew what he wanted to be from a young age — an economist. He wasn't one of these Johnny-come-lately types, like me, who learned about economics super late. He learned about economics early, way earlier in fact than anyone I spoke to so far. He went to Princeton then Stanford. If you get to know him, he's basically the classic “work hard play hard” guy. He loves people, and is constantly having big parties at his house in College Station where he invites people from diverse walks of life to come and watch him make these ridiculous cocktails and tell jokes. He reminds me of characters from Walker Percy novels. I have grown to appreciate our friendship as the years have passed. And I was grateful to have this chance to talk to him and hear more of his story. I hope you find it interesting too.Thanks as always for tuning in. Thanks for supporting this effort to run a podcast of personal stories aggregating into an oral history of the profession. All stories matter. Each of our stories matter. Your story matters. It is important that we believe that and not cheapen the experience of others by forcing their realities into our two dimensional caricatures of who they are or what this life is about. I do these podcasts to remember that people are good and valuable, not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. And I do them as part of my own effort to remain whole and sane and get better and just not let go of the thread of yarn that links me back to thing I hold dear — economics. So sit back and enjoy this interview with Jonathan!Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
Lisa's lifelong friend Shayna, an avid TTL listener, shares her story of battling (and beating!) breast cancer after a diagnosis at age 30. Shayna spills: The importance of advocating for yourself and knowing your body The surprising reason why losing her hair was one of the hardest parts Her and her husband's approach to keeping things “normal” How her identity shifted How she handled telling her young children she was sick What to do (and not do) to support a loved one going through cancer and more! Instagram: The Truthiest Life on Instagram @thetruthiestlife Host @lisahayim To support TTL, subscribe, follow, or share episodes with family and friends! If you're loving TTL, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts! Edited by Houston Tilley Intro Jingle by Alyssa Chase aka @findyoursailsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
My guest this week on the podcast is Phillip Levine, the Katharine Coman and A. Barton Hepburn Professor of Economics at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. I've only personally met Phil once — at a conference on the family many years ago and just briefly. But I have been a huge admirer of him for many reasons for a long time, ever since graduate school, and I wanted to interview him for a lot of reasons. First, he attended Princeton in the 1980s at that heady time when Orley, Card, Krueger, Angrist and so many others were there. The birth place of the credibility revolution is arguably the Princeton's Industrial Relations Section where a shift in empirical labor took place that eventually ran through the entire profession and placed it on a new equilibrium. Phil was there, colleagues and students with those people, and himself part of that “first generation” of labor economists who thought that way and did work that way and I wanted to hear about his life and how it passed through, like a river bending and turning, the Firestone library and beyond. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.But I also have a special interest in Phil. I actually first learned difference-in-differences from a book that Phil wrote on abortion policy entitled Sex and Consequences (Princeton University Press). I graduated from the University of Georgia in 2007, but the job market had started in 2006, and around the spring when I had accepted my job at Baylor, I was finishing my dissertation. I had one chapter left and it was going to be an extension of Donohue and Levitt's abortion-crime hypothesis to the study of gonorrhea. My reasoning was that if abortion legalization had so dramatically changed a cohort by selecting on individuals who would have grown up to commit crimes, then it should show up in other areas too. My argument was relatively straightforward and I'll just quote it here from the article I later published with Chris Cornwell in the 2012 American Law and Economics Review.“The characteristics of the marginal (unborn) child could explain risky sexual behavior that leads to disease transmission. For example, Gruber et al. (1999) show that the child who would have been born had abortion remained outlawed was 60% more likely to live in a single-parent household. Being raised by a single parent is a strong predictor of earlier sexual activity and unprotected sex, evidenced by the higher rates of teenage pregnancy among the poor.”It's funny the order in which things go. I think I somewhat understood what I was doing because I already had planned to do my study before reading Phil's book. I was going to use the early repeal of abortion in 1969/1970 in five states (California and New York being two of them) followed by the 1973 Roe v. Wade as this staggered natural experiment to see whether abortion legalization led to a drop in gonorrhea a generation later. I had adapted a graph I'd seen by Bill Evans to illustrate how the staggering of the roll out would lead a visual “wave” of declines in gonorrhea in the repeal stages among an emerging cohort that would last briefly until the Roe cohort entered. Visually, I believed you should see a drop in gonorrhea for 15yo starting in 1986 that would get deeper until 1988, flatten, and then disappear completely by 1992. The design for this idea came from a paper I just linked to above — by Phil Levine. It was entitled “Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who is the “Marginal Child”?” coauthored with Doug Staiger and Jon Gruber, published in the 1999 QJE. It came out two years before Donohue and Levitt's 2001 QJE on abortion and crime and arguably really set the stage for that paper. The two papers are very different — Phil, Staiger and Gruber are looking at who was aborted using instrumental variables with the five “repeal states” as the instrument. The abstract is worth reading:“Cohorts born after legalized abortion experienced a significant reduction in a number of adverse outcomes. We find that the marginal child would have been 40–60 percent more likely to live in a single-parent family, to live in poverty, to receive welfare, and to die as an infant.” They used, in other words, instrumental variables whereas Donohue and Levitt used a lagged abortion ratio measure, if I recall correctly. Phil's paper really struck me as the more credible design at that time because the staggering of legalization gave such precise predictions — something about the timing, something about the location. It just really haunted me for a long time.Well, while I was preparing for that project, reading the literature on the economics of abortion, continuing my ongoing interest in the economics of sexual behavior, Phil has a chapter where he sets up for the reader a table explaining something called “difference-in-differences”. While econometrics was my field, I couldn't recall hearing what that was, because it wasn't really best I could tell an estimator. Rather it was what we now call a research design. I don't have the book here at the house, but the table made a huge impression on me because if you just walk through the before and after differencing, even without potential outcomes, you can see with your own eyes exactly why difference-in-differences identifies a causal effect. I have a version of the table in my book, which I'll produce below.Once I saw that, it was easy to understand triple differences — a design that many people find very confusing if they only think of it in terms of regression equations. Almost immediately after I understood Phil's DiD table, I adapted it to my repeal versus Roe context and imagined “Well, what if there were other things happening in these repeal states later? Is there an untreated group I could imagine was affected by those unseen things but which wasn't treated?” And I thought “Let me use a slightly older group of individuals in the same states as the within-state controls”. That approach — the triple difference — can be seen below in a table I mocked up for a lecture in which I teach triple difference using Guber's 1994 paper that introduced the design for the first time. And so I wrote the chapter, and of all my chapters, it was the only one I ever published. Thank you for reading Scott's Substack. This post is public so feel free to share it.Where am I going with this? I guess what I'm saying is that as luck would have it, I made a monumental jump in my understanding of this “way of thinking” about doing empirical work from a single table in a short little book on abortion policy by Phil Levine. That one table so completely captivated my mind that ever since I have only wanted to learn more about causal inference in fact. As odd as it may sound, something about difference-in-differences really unlocked for me what the whole empirical enterprise was about. As Imbens said, there is something about potential outcomes that just makes crystal clear what we mean by causality, and many of the research designs that have over time been fully mapped onto potential outcomes — difference-in-differences being one — extend that clarity for a lot of us. Phil's work has consistently been part of the broader education of labor economists about what the Princeton tradition left us — make clear where the variation in the data is coming from, make clear who is and is not functioning as the counterfactual, “clean identification”, carefully collected data, on questions that matter.Phil has had a very interesting life; I caught only a peek of it from this interview. He opened up and shared about being a young man growing up middle class where family experiences during difficult economic times appeared to cause inside him an interest in labor. He gravitated towards law but a chance research class in college placed him on a new trajectory. His professors encouraged him to go to Princeton because, to put it bluntly, that was in their opinion where the best labor economics was at the moment. So he did. He alluded to graduate school being very hard — something many of us can identify with — but he survived, graduated, and took a job at Wellesley College where he's been ever since. We discussed his interest in topics in labor economics, his emerging interest in abortion policy, his coauthorships with several people he calls close friends, and his favorite project of all time — a 2019 AEJ: Applied study with Melissa Kearney, a longtime collaborator, on the effect of Sesame Street on educational outcomes, finding strong effects for boys. We also discussed the nonprofit he founded called MyInTuition which is an online calculator that shows the projected cost of college once financial aid is factored in. This topic around the opaque pricing of higher education is something Phil cares deeply about and has a new book on the topic too. All in all, Phil is an exemplary labor economist and someone I admire greatly. Not just for his careful empirical style and approach, but also because as you can see throughout his life a deep care for people. I have a deep admiration for the labor economists. Most of us are after all workers. We buy the things we need to survive using money we earned from work. Throughout human history, we have lived at the break even condition of survival, many of us not having enough calories to even make it through the day. The researchers who study work, be it economists or not, are studying poverty, one of the most dangerous plagues that has ever been around, far more dangerous than Covid or the plague. In Phil I see someone whose entire life has been about trying to better understand the causes of the wealth of nations, to quote Adam Smith, be it his early work on unemployment insurance, or his later work on children's television shows. It was a pleasure to talk to him and I hope you enjoy this interview as much as me. Forgive me for this rambling essay. If you enjoy the podcasts and the substack more generally, please consider supporting it by becoming a subscriber! Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
My guest this week on the podcast is Phillip Levine, the Katharine Coman and A. Barton Hepburn Professor of Economics at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. I've only personally met Phil once — at a conference on the family many years ago and just briefly. But I have been a huge admirer of him for many reasons for a long time, ever since graduate school, and I wanted to interview him for a lot of reasons. First, he attended Princeton in the 1980s at that heady time when Orley, Card, Krueger, Angrist and so many others were there. The birth place of the credibility revolution is arguably the Princeton's Industrial Relations Section where a shift in empirical labor took place that eventually ran through the entire profession and placed it on a new equilibrium. Phil was there, colleagues and students with those people, and himself part of that “first generation” of labor economists who thought that way and did work that way and I wanted to hear about his life and how it passed through, like a river bending and turning, the Firestone library and beyond. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.But I also have a special interest in Phil. I actually first learned difference-in-differences from a book that Phil wrote on abortion policy entitled Sex and Consequences (Princeton University Press). I graduated from the University of Georgia in 2007, but the job market had started in 2006, and around the spring when I had accepted my job at Baylor, I was finishing my dissertation. I had one chapter left and it was going to be an extension of Donohue and Levitt's abortion-crime hypothesis to the study of gonorrhea. My reasoning was that if abortion legalization had so dramatically changed a cohort by selecting on individuals who would have grown up to commit crimes, then it should show up in other areas too. My argument was relatively straightforward and I'll just quote it here from the article I later published with Chris Cornwell in the 2012 American Law and Economics Review.“The characteristics of the marginal (unborn) child could explain risky sexual behavior that leads to disease transmission. For example, Gruber et al. (1999) show that the child who would have been born had abortion remained outlawed was 60% more likely to live in a single-parent household. Being raised by a single parent is a strong predictor of earlier sexual activity and unprotected sex, evidenced by the higher rates of teenage pregnancy among the poor.”It's funny the order in which things go. I think I somewhat understood what I was doing because I already had planned to do my study before reading Phil's book. I was going to use the early repeal of abortion in 1969/1970 in five states (California and New York being two of them) followed by the 1973 Roe v. Wade as this staggered natural experiment to see whether abortion legalization led to a drop in gonorrhea a generation later. I had adapted a graph I'd seen by Bill Evans to illustrate how the staggering of the roll out would lead a visual “wave” of declines in gonorrhea in the repeal stages among an emerging cohort that would last briefly until the Roe cohort entered. Visually, I believed you should see a drop in gonorrhea for 15yo starting in 1986 that would get deeper until 1988, flatten, and then disappear completely by 1992. The design for this idea came from a paper I just linked to above — by Phil Levine. It was entitled “Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who is the “Marginal Child”?” coauthored with Doug Staiger and Jon Gruber, published in the 1999 QJE. It came out two years before Donohue and Levitt's 2001 QJE on abortion and crime and arguably really set the stage for that paper. The two papers are very different — Phil, Staiger and Gruber are looking at who was aborted using instrumental variables with the five “repeal states” as the instrument. The abstract is worth reading:“Cohorts born after legalized abortion experienced a significant reduction in a number of adverse outcomes. We find that the marginal child would have been 40–60 percent more likely to live in a single-parent family, to live in poverty, to receive welfare, and to die as an infant.” They used, in other words, instrumental variables whereas Donohue and Levitt used a lagged abortion ratio measure, if I recall correctly. Phil's paper really struck me as the more credible design at that time because the staggering of legalization gave such precise predictions — something about the timing, something about the location. It just really haunted me for a long time.Well, while I was preparing for that project, reading the literature on the economics of abortion, continuing my ongoing interest in the economics of sexual behavior, Phil has a chapter where he sets up for the reader a table explaining something called “difference-in-differences”. While econometrics was my field, I couldn't recall hearing what that was, because it wasn't really best I could tell an estimator. Rather it was what we now call a research design. I don't have the book here at the house, but the table made a huge impression on me because if you just walk through the before and after differencing, even without potential outcomes, you can see with your own eyes exactly why difference-in-differences identifies a causal effect. I have a version of the table in my book, which I'll produce below.Once I saw that, it was easy to understand triple differences — a design that many people find very confusing if they only think of it in terms of regression equations. Almost immediately after I understood Phil's DiD table, I adapted it to my repeal versus Roe context and imagined “Well, what if there were other things happening in these repeal states later? Is there an untreated group I could imagine was affected by those unseen things but which wasn't treated?” And I thought “Let me use a slightly older group of individuals in the same states as the within-state controls”. That approach — the triple difference — can be seen below in a table I mocked up for a lecture in which I teach triple difference using Guber's 1994 paper that introduced the design for the first time. And so I wrote the chapter, and of all my chapters, it was the only one I ever published. Thank you for reading Scott's Substack. This post is public so feel free to share it.Where am I going with this? I guess what I'm saying is that as luck would have it, I made a monumental jump in my understanding of this “way of thinking” about doing empirical work from a single table in a short little book on abortion policy by Phil Levine. That one table so completely captivated my mind that ever since I have only wanted to learn more about causal inference in fact. As odd as it may sound, something about difference-in-differences really unlocked for me what the whole empirical enterprise was about. As Imbens said, there is something about potential outcomes that just makes crystal clear what we mean by causality, and many of the research designs that have over time been fully mapped onto potential outcomes — difference-in-differences being one — extend that clarity for a lot of us. Phil's work has consistently been part of the broader education of labor economists about what the Princeton tradition left us — make clear where the variation in the data is coming from, make clear who is and is not functioning as the counterfactual, “clean identification”, carefully collected data, on questions that matter.Phil has had a very interesting life; I caught only a peek of it from this interview. He opened up and shared about being a young man growing up middle class where family experiences during difficult economic times appeared to cause inside him an interest in labor. He gravitated towards law but a chance research class in college placed him on a new trajectory. His professors encouraged him to go to Princeton because, to put it bluntly, that was in their opinion where the best labor economics was at the moment. So he did. He alluded to graduate school being very hard — something many of us can identify with — but he survived, graduated, and took a job at Wellesley College where he's been ever since. We discussed his interest in topics in labor economics, his emerging interest in abortion policy, his coauthorships with several people he calls close friends, and his favorite project of all time — a 2019 AEJ: Applied study with Melissa Kearney, a longtime collaborator, on the effect of Sesame Street on educational outcomes, finding strong effects for boys. We also discussed the nonprofit he founded called MyInTuition which is an online calculator that shows the projected cost of college once financial aid is factored in. This topic around the opaque pricing of higher education is something Phil cares deeply about and has a new book on the topic too. All in all, Phil is an exemplary labor economist and someone I admire greatly. Not just for his careful empirical style and approach, but also because as you can see throughout his life a deep care for people. I have a deep admiration for the labor economists. Most of us are after all workers. We buy the things we need to survive using money we earned from work. Throughout human history, we have lived at the break even condition of survival, many of us not having enough calories to even make it through the day. The researchers who study work, be it economists or not, are studying poverty, one of the most dangerous plagues that has ever been around, far more dangerous than Covid or the plague. In Phil I see someone whose entire life has been about trying to better understand the causes of the wealth of nations, to quote Adam Smith, be it his early work on unemployment insurance, or his later work on children's television shows. It was a pleasure to talk to him and I hope you enjoy this interview as much as me. Forgive me for this rambling essay. If you enjoy the podcasts and the substack more generally, please consider supporting it by becoming a subscriber! Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
** THE EARLIER PODCAST WAS MISSING TEN MINUTES SO I HAD TO REPOST **Brigham Frandsen is a professor at BYU's economics program. He did his undergrad at BYU double majoring in physics and economics where he coauthored two articles — one in physics on lasers, one on the distribution of income with his professor, the famed James McDonald. In this interview, we discuss a lot of things about his life, BYU's own production function at producing future economists through careful and intensive mentoring of undergraduates, his time at MIT where he worked with Josh Angrist, and his own research as a labor economist and applied econometrician. I found this to be a really enjoyable talk as I learned more about topics I really wasn't expecting to learn about. I think one of the themes I see emerging in econometrics over the last few decades that is now becoming a little more salient to me as time passes is the issue of heterogenous treatment effects. Heterogenous treatment effects for instance is at the core of the local average treatment effect literature that Angrist and Imbens were involved in (as well as others at the time). You see it too in the problems with twoway fixed effects and difference-in-differences with staggered adoption. And it's in Brigham's work too — from his earliest paper with James McDonald on income distribution, to his newer work with Lars Lefgren on bounds. I think when the story is written, we will see that this heterogeneity and selection have been focal points for econometricians and applied researchers and Brigham will be one of many people I think who helped pushed that forward.If you want to learn more from Brigham, you can though — he's teaching a workshop on machine learning and causal inference at Mixtape Sessions Oct 27-28. You'll get to pick up some python probably while you're at it — a twofer!Thanks for tuning in for the podcast. Apologies for the double posting on this — apparently my software refused to convert the MP4 video to more than 45 minutes no matter what I did. But I have a new workflow and it won't happen again. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
** THE EARLIER PODCAST WAS MISSING TEN MINUTES SO I HAD TO REPOST **Brigham Frandsen is a professor at BYU's economics program. He did his undergrad at BYU double majoring in physics and economics where he coauthored two articles — one in physics on lasers, one on the distribution of income with his professor, the famed James McDonald. In this interview, we discuss a lot of things about his life, BYU's own production function at producing future economists through careful and intensive mentoring of undergraduates, his time at MIT where he worked with Josh Angrist, and his own research as a labor economist and applied econometrician. I found this to be a really enjoyable talk as I learned more about topics I really wasn't expecting to learn about. I think one of the themes I see emerging in econometrics over the last few decades that is now becoming a little more salient to me as time passes is the issue of heterogenous treatment effects. Heterogenous treatment effects for instance is at the core of the local average treatment effect literature that Angrist and Imbens were involved in (as well as others at the time). You see it too in the problems with twoway fixed effects and difference-in-differences with staggered adoption. And it's in Brigham's work too — from his earliest paper with James McDonald on income distribution, to his newer work with Lars Lefgren on bounds. I think when the story is written, we will see that this heterogeneity and selection have been focal points for econometricians and applied researchers and Brigham will be one of many people I think who helped pushed that forward.If you want to learn more from Brigham, you can though — he's teaching a workshop on machine learning and causal inference at Mixtape Sessions Oct 27-28. You'll get to pick up some python probably while you're at it — a twofer!Thanks for tuning in for the podcast. Apologies for the double posting on this — apparently my software refused to convert the MP4 video to more than 45 minutes no matter what I did. But I have a new workflow and it won't happen again. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
Background stuff about causal inference Josh Angrist once quipped (on my podcast!) that a paper he wishes he had written was written by his classmate, Bob LaLonde. It was LaLonde's job market paper, later published in the AER, that arguably helped bring to broader attention some of the empirical problems around causal inference within applied labor at the time. It was very ingenious too. LaLonde took a job trainings program conducted as an RCT, showed that the causal effect of the program was around $800-900, then dropped the experimental control group. He then pulled in six datasets from nationally representative surveys of Americans (3 from Current Population Survey, 3 from Panel Survey Income Dynamics). He reran the analysis with and without covariates adjustment. Not surprising to modern readers, the estimates were severely biased. Not only were the magnitudes off, most of the time the results showed a negative result. This is noteworthy mainly because of the RCT because the RCT established the ground truth of the trainings program — the truth was the program caused an average return of $800-900. So if using typical methods couldn't even get close to that — well, that's a problem. And they didn't, and one more spark of many sparks that lit the fuse that became the credibility revolution occurred. LaLonde's paper was published in 1986. Angrist would graduate in 1989 and take a job at Harvard where he'd meet Guido Imbens. During the time together at Harvard in the 1990s, Imbens and Angrist would meet with Don Rubin, the head of the stats department, and between the three of them, several breakthrough contributions to instrumental variables were born. Rajeev Dehejia Revisits LalondeIn the midst of this time were Angrist, Imbens and Rubin were all at Harvard, there was a young graduate student in the economics department named Rajeev Dehejia. Rubin and Imbens one semester co taught an innovative new class on causal inference and Rajeev was one of the students who took it that year. Together with his classmate, Sadek Wahba, the two students decided after the class concluded to not so much replicate Lalonde, but rather extend the analysis using the more up-to-date methods learned from Imbens and Rubin. They chose the propensity score and published two papers reevaluating the Lalonde data — one in 1999 JASA and one in 2002 Restat. The propensity score analysis ultimately did much better than what Lalonde's analysis had done. A lot of gains were made simply from recognizing the serious common support violations rampant in all six of those datasets. One value of the propensity score is, after all, the dimension reduction you get from taking for instance 10 variables and collapsing into one scalar (the propensity score). Once they did, they saw how bad the negative selection was. A huge number of people on the non experimental controls had propensity scores with so many zeroes after the decimal it was like the data was saying “these people in the CPS wouldn't appear in that treatment group in a million years!”That's how I knew of Dehejia for years — the author of two papers showing that propensity score analysis might have promise for program evaluation with deep negative selection baked into the data. I saw him as one of the earliest researchers in the broader credibility revolution trained by that next wave of people connected to Princeton Industrial Relations Section like Angrist as well as Imbens and Rubin who began reshaping our applied practices in paper after paper. So it is a great pleasure to introduce him to you this week in my podcast The Mixtape with Scott. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
Background stuff about causal inference Josh Angrist once quipped (on my podcast!) that a paper he wishes he had written was written by his classmate, Bob LaLonde. It was LaLonde's job market paper, later published in the AER, that arguably helped bring to broader attention some of the empirical problems around causal inference within applied labor at the time. It was very ingenious too. LaLonde took a job trainings program conducted as an RCT, showed that the causal effect of the program was around $800-900, then dropped the experimental control group. He then pulled in six datasets from nationally representative surveys of Americans (3 from Current Population Survey, 3 from Panel Survey Income Dynamics). He reran the analysis with and without covariates adjustment. Not surprising to modern readers, the estimates were severely biased. Not only were the magnitudes off, most of the time the results showed a negative result. This is noteworthy mainly because of the RCT because the RCT established the ground truth of the trainings program — the truth was the program caused an average return of $800-900. So if using typical methods couldn't even get close to that — well, that's a problem. And they didn't, and one more spark of many sparks that lit the fuse that became the credibility revolution occurred. LaLonde's paper was published in 1986. Angrist would graduate in 1989 and take a job at Harvard where he'd meet Guido Imbens. During the time together at Harvard in the 1990s, Imbens and Angrist would meet with Don Rubin, the head of the stats department, and between the three of them, several breakthrough contributions to instrumental variables were born. Rajeev Dehejia Revisits LalondeIn the midst of this time were Angrist, Imbens and Rubin were all at Harvard, there was a young graduate student in the economics department named Rajeev Dehejia. Rubin and Imbens one semester co taught an innovative new class on causal inference and Rajeev was one of the students who took it that year. Together with his classmate, Sadek Wahba, the two students decided after the class concluded to not so much replicate Lalonde, but rather extend the analysis using the more up-to-date methods learned from Imbens and Rubin. They chose the propensity score and published two papers reevaluating the Lalonde data — one in 1999 JASA and one in 2002 Restat. The propensity score analysis ultimately did much better than what Lalonde's analysis had done. A lot of gains were made simply from recognizing the serious common support violations rampant in all six of those datasets. One value of the propensity score is, after all, the dimension reduction you get from taking for instance 10 variables and collapsing into one scalar (the propensity score). Once they did, they saw how bad the negative selection was. A huge number of people on the non experimental controls had propensity scores with so many zeroes after the decimal it was like the data was saying “these people in the CPS wouldn't appear in that treatment group in a million years!”That's how I knew of Dehejia for years — the author of two papers showing that propensity score analysis might have promise for program evaluation with deep negative selection baked into the data. I saw him as one of the earliest researchers in the broader credibility revolution trained by that next wave of people connected to Princeton Industrial Relations Section like Angrist as well as Imbens and Rubin who began reshaping our applied practices in paper after paper. So it is a great pleasure to introduce him to you this week in my podcast The Mixtape with Scott. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
From the earliest days of economics as a formal science, economists have been trying to understand the causes of the wealth of nations. In the field of development economics, the introduction of the randomized controlled trial has become an important tool in the broader toolbox of economists for trying to understand the many things that may cause the improvement of human welfare in lower income countries, too. This work has been ground breaking and recognized by the Nobel committee for its lasting importance. Like many others, I have been inspired by the development economists relentless effort to address poverty through rigorous causal inference and program evaluation. While most people know that randomization is an important ingredient in causal inference, what is not as widely known is the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption, or SUTVA for short. We know that randomized treatments can eliminate selection bias and thus allow us to use realized outcomes in place of potential outcome. SUTVA requires that the potential outcomes themselves be stable and unchanging when treatment assignments of other units change, which brings to mind complex problems with externalities between people and interference when designing experiments, but as Imbens and Rubin note in their 2015 book, SUTVA also requires that treatments not vary unknowingly across units. Such “hidden variation in treatment” can make causal interpretation difficult if not possible. But SUTVA also brings to mind the problems of external validity. When someone reading of a study's large gains in a field experiment, they might then decide to roll out such a program at large scale. Assume for simplicity constant treatment effects for a moment — can they expect the same thing to happen in their community what happened in this particular trial? They can insofar as they do not inadvertently change the treatment itself by unknowingly varying the inputs in important ways. If the RCT found large literacy gains using a particular type worker, but to bring it to scale, the policymaker foregoes using those same inputs, then it becomes a new empirical question as to whether the effect found in the lab will in fact scale, even with constant treatment effects. But we have known this for centuries. Concepts like production functions and cost functions directly speak to these very things. Successful policy requires evidence but also a set of skills that maybe aren't there when designing or evaluating an RCT. It requires both cognitive skill, and perhaps even moreso non cognitive skill, as often the economist then must wear both a scientist hat, a manager hat, and an entrepreneur hat. And not every economist has those skills, or maybe even is interested in venturing into the messy world of building socially impactful policy. But I have also been inspired by a small group of applied development economists like Noam Angrist, Co-founder and Executive Director of Youth Impact (formerly Young 1ove), and Paul Niehaus at GiveDirectly, who create organizations that try to bring effective programs to larger scale while simultaneously committing themselves to constant evaluation of themselves and their programs. Whether it's a trend or not, I don't know, but I have been intrigued. This week on The Mixtape with Scott, I have the pleasure of interviewing one of these economist entrepreneurs, Noam Angrist. Noam is, as I said, the co-founder and executive director of Youth Impact, a non-profit focused on improving the welfare of young people around the world through education and health programs. I met him for the first time several years ago because I noticed what he was doing and had done and wanted to introduce him to my students. So I wrote and asked him if he would be willing to be the de facto keynote speaker at a conference I was helping organize on causal inference. He graciously agreed and spoke with us about the organization he had helped found and the work they were doing in developing countries scaling rigorously evaluated interventions to reach thousands of youth around the world. I was very intrigued because of the blend of causal inference and economics with such creative entrepreneurial work. Given the explosive success of the credibility revolution at changing hearts and minds, I suppose it was only a matter of time before economist-entrepreneurs trained in that way of thinking would begin moving outside of academic departments and into other parts of the world. We have seen it with economists in tech. Noam Angrist is an example of the contemporary economist-entrepreneur who works closely with governments, academia and even commerce to bring the best of all things to help achieve the age-old quest of economics of improving the well being of humans alive today.In this interview, Noam and I talked about growing up in Massachusetts and the looking back serendipitous injury in high school that put him on a path to studying economics at MIT. He's since embarked on an original career as an economist where his competency as a leader, his creativity and curiosity as a scientist and his innate commitment to public service and community is shaping the type of work and the way that work is done at Youth Impact. I hope you enjoy this interview as much as I did. Please follow, subscribe and consider supporting The Mixtape with Scott!Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
From the earliest days of economics as a formal science, economists have been trying to understand the causes of the wealth of nations. In the field of development economics, the introduction of the randomized controlled trial has become an important tool in the broader toolbox of economists for trying to understand the many things that may cause the improvement of human welfare in lower income countries, too. This work has been ground breaking and recognized by the Nobel committee for its lasting importance. Like many others, I have been inspired by the development economists relentless effort to address poverty through rigorous causal inference and program evaluation. While most people know that randomization is an important ingredient in causal inference, what is not as widely known is the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption, or SUTVA for short. We know that randomized treatments can eliminate selection bias and thus allow us to use realized outcomes in place of potential outcome. SUTVA requires that the potential outcomes themselves be stable and unchanging when treatment assignments of other units change, which brings to mind complex problems with externalities between people and interference when designing experiments, but as Imbens and Rubin note in their 2015 book, SUTVA also requires that treatments not vary unknowingly across units. Such “hidden variation in treatment” can make causal interpretation difficult if not possible. But SUTVA also brings to mind the problems of external validity. When someone reading of a study's large gains in a field experiment, they might then decide to roll out such a program at large scale. Assume for simplicity constant treatment effects for a moment — can they expect the same thing to happen in their community what happened in this particular trial? They can insofar as they do not inadvertently change the treatment itself by unknowingly varying the inputs in important ways. If the RCT found large literacy gains using a particular type worker, but to bring it to scale, the policymaker foregoes using those same inputs, then it becomes a new empirical question as to whether the effect found in the lab will in fact scale, even with constant treatment effects. But we have known this for centuries. Concepts like production functions and cost functions directly speak to these very things. Successful policy requires evidence but also a set of skills that maybe aren't there when designing or evaluating an RCT. It requires both cognitive skill, and perhaps even moreso non cognitive skill, as often the economist then must wear both a scientist hat, a manager hat, and an entrepreneur hat. And not every economist has those skills, or maybe even is interested in venturing into the messy world of building socially impactful policy. But I have also been inspired by a small group of applied development economists like Noam Angrist, Co-founder and Executive Director of Youth Impact (formerly Young 1ove), and Paul Niehaus at GiveDirectly, who create organizations that try to bring effective programs to larger scale while simultaneously committing themselves to constant evaluation of themselves and their programs. Whether it's a trend or not, I don't know, but I have been intrigued. This week on The Mixtape with Scott, I have the pleasure of interviewing one of these economist entrepreneurs, Noam Angrist. Noam is, as I said, the co-founder and executive director of Youth Impact, a non-profit focused on improving the welfare of young people around the world through education and health programs. I met him for the first time several years ago because I noticed what he was doing and had done and wanted to introduce him to my students. So I wrote and asked him if he would be willing to be the de facto keynote speaker at a conference I was helping organize on causal inference. He graciously agreed and spoke with us about the organization he had helped found and the work they were doing in developing countries scaling rigorously evaluated interventions to reach thousands of youth around the world. I was very intrigued because of the blend of causal inference and economics with such creative entrepreneurial work. Given the explosive success of the credibility revolution at changing hearts and minds, I suppose it was only a matter of time before economist-entrepreneurs trained in that way of thinking would begin moving outside of academic departments and into other parts of the world. We have seen it with economists in tech. Noam Angrist is an example of the contemporary economist-entrepreneur who works closely with governments, academia and even commerce to bring the best of all things to help achieve the age-old quest of economics of improving the well being of humans alive today.In this interview, Noam and I talked about growing up in Massachusetts and the looking back serendipitous injury in high school that put him on a path to studying economics at MIT. He's since embarked on an original career as an economist where his competency as a leader, his creativity and curiosity as a scientist and his innate commitment to public service and community is shaping the type of work and the way that work is done at Youth Impact. I hope you enjoy this interview as much as I did. Please follow, subscribe and consider supporting The Mixtape with Scott!Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
I first met Peter Arcidiacano, professor of economics at Duke University, while I was a PhD student at the University of Georgia and I have followed his work since from a distance. I originally followed Peters work because he’d written several articles about sex from a two-sided matching perspective. I was struck by the fact that we both saw thinking about sexual relationships in terms of a matching problem. Two sided matching perspectives focus on the assignment mechanisms that bring people together, and when it comes to sexual relationships, the relative supply of possible partners and competition for those partners will in equilibrium result in pairings, some of which may become the most life sustaining and defining partnerships of those peoples lives. Peter’s work was gratifying to read, and I have often looked up to him for his successful merging of theory and econometrics to study topics I cared about. The economic way of thinking is not about topics, nor is it is not about data, even though economists tend to have particular topics they study intensely and use data usually to do so. The economic way of thinking does though typically involve careful study of allocation mechanisms, such as prices and markets, that bring the productive capacity of communities into existence. These things are important as they animate humans to work together, produce output that manages the production itself, and increasingly towards the end of history, left surplus for humans to enjoy. Who ends up in what activities doing what types of specialized work ultimately shapes that which is made, how much and how it is distributed. The allocations end up not only shaping our lives, but our children’s lives. Starting conditions can cast a long shadow lasting centuries even causing certain groups to creep ahead as more and more of the surplus mounts and accrues to them, while others watch as a shrinking part of the growing pie flows to them.In the United States, in the 21st century, one of the key institutions in all of this assignment of love and commerce has been the university. And within the university system, there are gradations of institutional pedigree and at the top of the pack sits elite institutions whose students seem practically destined to shape and receive the surplus. Given the path dependence in wealth, and how it has interacted with race, it is therefore no wonder that policymakers and economists have for decades sought to refine the rules by which schools can select high school applicants for admission. In many ways, our country’s fight over the use of race in selecting students into college is the old debates about capitalism and the self adjusting market system writ large. So it’s in this broader context about work, schools, matching and allocation mechanisms that I think of Peter and his scholarship. When I review the range of topics on Peters vita, I see the signature marks of the modern 21st century labor economist. Someone interested in markets and how they work to connect people into productive cooperation. Someone interested in institutions, someone concerned about inequality and discrimination, someone versed both in economic theory and econometrics, someone at home with a bewildering array of numbers in a spreadsheet. To me, it is natural that Peter has pivoted so fluidly between topics like sex, work, discrimination and higher education because in my mind these are all interconnected topics concerning the assignment mechanisms we use in America to organize society and maintain our collective standard of living.I invited Peter on the Mixtape with Scott as part of an ongoing series I call “economists and public policy”. The series focuses on how economics and economists think about and attempt to shape public policy. It includes people with a variety of perspectives, and even some who are critics of economics itself. Previous guests on the podcast in the “economists and public policy” series have been Sandy Darity, Elizabeth Popp Berman, Anna Stansbury, Mark Anderson, Alan Manning, Larry Katz, Jeremy West and Jonathan Meer. Peter has not only produced academic articles in some of economics’ most impactful outlets — he has recently served as expert witness in two major discrimination cases, one of which put him on the opposite side of the stand as David Card, winner of 2021 Nobel Prize in economics. You can read about the cases here. They involve the broader topic of race and affirmative action at universities. The cases more specifically involve whether Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill admissions criteria show signs of discrimination. One of the things about Peter’s involvement as expert witness that I want to highlight, though, is that his expert testimony was, at its core, an example of the role that econometrics can play in the shaping of public policy. It is more and more the case that economics’ role in the shaping of public policy in the 21st century will involve not merely economic theory, but also statistical analysis of complex datasets too, and I think it is worth pausing and noting that the economist shapes public policy oftentimes these days as much through interpreting data as her counterpart did using pure economic theory. I hope you find this discussion with Peter thought provoking and informative about both his work on these cases, but also about the role of economics and econometrics in forming public policy. But I also hope that the interview will give you a deeper insight into Peter and who he is. Scott’s Substack as well as The Mixtape with Scott are supported by user subscriptions. Please share this episode to people within and outside economics that you think might be interested. I love doing these interviews and using the substack to do deeper dives into econometrics and the lives of economists and if you find this work valuable, please consider subscribing and supporting it. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.TranscriptScott Cunningham:In this week's episode of Mixtape: the Podcast, I had the pleasure of talking with a professor at Duke University, named Peter Arcidiacono. I can never pronounce it correctly, no matter how many times I try. I first met Peter in graduate school. He was, probably then, an assistant professor at Duke, where he has spent his entire career. I was a PhD student at the University of Georgia. And he had a research paper on a topic that I was also working on, involving marriage markets. He's been an incredibly prolific producer in the area of labor economics and education, as well as affirmative action. And he uses tools in econometrics, that I largely never invested in, structural econometrics and discrete choice modeling. So when I read his work, I usually do it, both, because I'm interested in the paper and the paper topic, but also because I'm hoping that this will be a chance for me to open my mind a little bit more, and pick up on some of that econometric modeling, that I lack.Peter is also an expert witness in a high profile case, right now, involving affirmative action and racial discrimination at Harvard University, and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, both of which have been combined into a single case. As I understand it, it's going for the Supreme court soon. In this interview, we walk through a lot of big and small issues around society's preferences around poverty, inequality, as well as the role that higher education is playing in both. My name is Scott Cunningham, and this is Mixtape: the Podcast.Scott Cunningham:Okay. This is great. I don't know if you remember. So this is an interview with professor of economics at Duke University, Peter Arcidiacono. And we're going to be talking about a range of topics. But just to give the reader and the listener a little bit of background, Peter, could you tell me a little bit about yourself, and what your involvement is with a current case, going before the Supreme court, involving University of North Carolina and Harvard University?Peter Arcidiacono:Certainly. And thanks for having me on. I've been at Duke now, for over 20 years. This was my first job out of grad school, and stayed here ever since. And a lot of my work has been on higher education, both with regard to choice of college major, as well as affirmative action.And one of the really dissatisfying things about working on affirmative action, is that universities hide their data. So you can't really get a good sense of how the programs are working, because you typically don't have the data. And I think that that really matters, because to me, so much of the discussion about affirmative action, is in the binary. Either we have it, or we don't have it. But what it means to have it, is something, as economists, we would think about, that's something we would be optimizing over. And so, there's really a large space between race as a tiebreaker in admissions, and what somebody like Abraham Kennedy would advocate for, which would be more of a quota system.And so, thinking about where you stand on that, to me, I had this opportunity to work on these two cases, two lawsuits. One brought against Harvard, and one against UNC, on the role of race in these admissions processes. And for me, it was an opportunity to look behind the veil, and see how these programs actually operated.My intent was always to, a feeling as though, if I'm going to be an expert on affirmative action, I should know how these processes actually work. So my intent was always to use this for the purposes of research, as well. And we've written a number of papers out of the Harvard case. Four have been accepted now, and we just released a fifth one on racial preferences of both schools. And we'll see what happens with that. So those lawsuits, I testified in trial, at both those cases. My counterpart in the Harvard case was David Card, who recently won the Nobel Prize. I was wondering how I would respond to that. And actually, my response, I got to go up against a Nobel Prize winner.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:So those experiences were somewhat traumatizing. But both experts, David Card and Kevin Hoxby, are pillars in the field, and people who have been very helpful to me, and who I have a great deal of respect for.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:So these cases have now, in both those cases, the side I was on lost at the first round. In the Harvard case, they also lost at the appellate round.Peter Arcidiacono:In UNC, it didn't actually go through the appellate round, because-Scott Cunningham:Oh, so-Peter Arcidiacono:... supreme court merged the cases.Scott Cunningham:... Both the Harvard University case and the Chapel Hill case, were already decided, but not at the Supreme Court level.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:So the decision was appealed. It's now before the Supreme Court.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:I think the Supreme Court scheduled here, arguments in October, and then, we'll see when they release a decision.Scott Cunningham:Okay. So, and these are both cases involving affirmative action and racial discrimination amongst particular groups of people? Is that groups of students, is that right?Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. Though, in the UNC case, there's actually no claim of Asian American discrimination. So that actually, you only see that at Harvard. You don't see that at UNC. That doesn't mean, I think that Asian discrimination is unique to Harvard.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:I think it has to do with the fact of there not being that many Asian Americans in North Carolina.Scott Cunningham:North Carolina, right.Peter Arcidiacono:It's always been a bigger issue at the very top schools.Scott Cunningham:And you were called in, as an expert witness, for the plaintiff in both of those cases.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:Right. So David Card is the expert witness for Harvard, representing Harvard, against an accusation of, well, what exactly is the accusation against both of these institutions, and who brought these accusations against them?Peter Arcidiacono:So the group is called Students for Fair Admissions. And they basically got groups of students to, as their plaintiffs. Though, it's not about those particular students, in terms of remedies. And in Harvard, there's three claims. One, whether or not they're discriminating against Asian American applicants, relative to white applicants.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:Two, whether the size of the preferences given for underrepresented groups, is constitutional.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And three, whether there were race-neutral alternatives that they could have used. So the Supreme Court has said, "If there is a race-neutral alternative, you should use that."Scott Cunningham:Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:I'm not really involved at the race-neutral part. We had a different expert for that aspect.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:Though, in both cases, Card and Hoxby actually did the race-neutral part, as well.Scott Cunningham:What exactly does the constitution say a admissions committee can use, when drawing up a student cohort?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, so I'm not sure what the constitution has to say on it, but I can say what the history of this of the court challenges have been.Scott Cunningham:Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:So I think, it's Title VI of Civil Rights Act said, "You're not supposed to use race-"Scott Cunningham:Race.Peter Arcidiacono:"... in these types of things." And there are other categories too.Scott Cunningham:Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:But race is the focus of this one. Now, the reason they had that, was because of the history of ill treatment of African Americans.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And this is obviously going in the other direction-Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:... with regard to African Americans receiving preferences in the admissions process.Scott Cunningham:Mm. Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So, but then, the history was that the original decision, the Bakke case, said, "Look, you can't use race in admissions, because of reparations. You can only use it because of the benefits of diversity." So the state can have an interest in diversity. And that was a compromised position to get that swing justice, to sign onto it.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:Since then, there have been a number of cases. I think the ones that are most relevant right now, are the ones that came out of the Michigan cases.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And there was one at the undergraduate level, which they found that you could not use race as part of an explicit point system.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So you can get points for having a good SAT score, points for being a particular race, you add them up together, then you could rank the-Scott Cunningham:I see.Peter Arcidiacono:... applicant.Scott Cunningham:So there were schools that were doing a point system based on individual characteristics, like race. And that was, at that moment, it was unclear whether that would be legal. It was, I guess, or was it something that schools were, potentially, in a legal, bad situation, when they were using it? Or was it just not known?Peter Arcidiacono:I don't think it was clear. And that's where the court ruled. You cannot use it in that way.Scott Cunningham:Got it. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:At the same time, there was a case against Harvard's Law School. And on that one, they said that you could use race, holistically. As an economist, I can express anything as a formula. And then, the question is, whether you see all parts of the formula or not.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:So it gets a little tricky. And I think that, from my perspective, I would've rather had the ruling go in the exact opposite way.[inaudible 00:11:59] on if we're going to find in favor of one or the other.I would prefer a point system to a holistic one, because then, everything's clear.Scott Cunningham:Clear. Yeah. It seemed really precise-Peter Arcidiacono:[inaudible 00:12:09], to hide their data.Scott Cunningham:... Yeah. It seems like lots of times with the law, the imprecision of this language, as though it's a solution to the problem, is really challenging for designing policy.Peter Arcidiacono:I totally agree. Yeah.Scott Cunningham:So, okay. I want to set up the reader a little bit, oh, the listener, to know who you are before we dive into this, because I'm loving this thread, but I want people to know who you are. So before we get more into the case, can you tell me where you grew up, and why you got into economics? Your first, what was the touchstone that brought you into this field?Peter Arcidiacono:So I grew up in the Pacific Northwest. My first set of years were actually in Ellensburg, Washington, which is a town of 13,000. My dad was a math education professor.Scott Cunningham:Oh, okay. What university was he a professor at?Peter Arcidiacono:Central Washington University.Scott Cunningham:Okay. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:And then-Scott Cunningham:Hey, but what'd you say it was? What was it again?Peter Arcidiacono:... It was math education.Scott Cunningham:Math education.Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah. So he was teaching teachers how to teach math.Scott Cunningham:Oh. So you've always been, it's in the family to be interested in education?Peter Arcidiacono:Yes. And-Scott Cunningham:And even this math education part. That's another way of describing an economist that studies education.Peter Arcidiacono:... Right.Scott Cunningham:Math education.Peter Arcidiacono:Well, my parents actually met in linear algebra class, so.Scott Cunningham:Oh, that's romantic.Peter Arcidiacono:And I've got two brothers, and they were both math majors.Scott Cunningham:Oh, wow. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:I was the only non-math major.Scott Cunningham:Okay. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:But I came into college, and started out in chemistry. I think, Econ PhD programs are filled with former, hard science majors.Scott Cunningham:No joke. Yeah, yeah. They hit organic chemistry, and then, they changed their major.Peter Arcidiacono:Right. And I just couldn't stand the lab. It was too social. And one of my good friends, a guy who ended up being the best man at my wedding, was a couple years ahead of me, told me I should take an economics class.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:And it was amazing. I think that just the way of thinking, just worked naturally for me.Scott Cunningham:Well, so when you say way of thinking, the way of thinking that was, can you tell me what your 19 year old self would've been jarred by? What are the specific things, that economic way of thinking, that he was noticing?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, it just fit with a lot of how I operated. So I view economics as a great model of fallen man.Scott Cunningham:Uh-huh.Peter Arcidiacono:Fundamentally, I was the guy who always looked for the loopholes. So responding really well to incentives. I had a keen eye for how I could game the system.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And so, I think a lot about what economics is doing, is the dismal science, right? The reigns on the parade of well-intentioned policies.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:How are people going to get around the policies? Well, that's where I lived, was figuring out how I could game the system.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right. So you were, this idea of that rational choice paradigm, is that what you mean?Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:And that-Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:... that people would just simply, if they have goals, those goals don't just go away with a policy. They might just continue to try to achieve those goals at lowest cost, even then.Peter Arcidiacono:Exactly.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And the other studying thing, which I think, really affected why I ended up doing the research that I did, was, for me, the chemistry classes were just way harder-Scott Cunningham:Uh-huh.Peter Arcidiacono:... than economics classes.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And I'm not trying to say that any classes are easy.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:But there is definitely large differences-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... in every university, and what the expectations are-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... across fields.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And that distorts people's behavior.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So I view it, that most colleges are subsidizing students, to go into low paying fields. And how do they subsidize them to do that? They offer higher grades-Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:... and lower workloads, smaller class sizes. All those things work, so that lots of people come in wanting to major in well-paying fields, and switch in, and switch out.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And they do so because of the incentives the universities provide.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. So you got interested in economics, and that's like, you're describing some sort of price theory, microeconomics. But you've also have made a career out of being such a strong econometrician in this area of structural econometrics and discrete choice modeling. How did you get interested in those topics? What was your first reaction to econometrics?Peter Arcidiacono:I had a very strange econometrics background. So my first year econometrics, was taught by Chuck Manski.Scott Cunningham:Oh.Peter Arcidiacono:The whole year. And so, it was lots of bounds.Scott Cunningham:Uh-huh.Peter Arcidiacono:And then, my second year, it was all John Rust.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So a complete swing, right? So you go from the non-parametrics, what can you identify under the smallest number of assumptions?Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:To what can you identify, if you want an answer something really big.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:You got to make a lot of assumptions to make that.Scott Cunningham:Oh, boy. That's an interesting journey, right there.Peter Arcidiacono:So I actually never had the mostly harmless econometric-Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... at all.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And the econometrics has always been-Scott Cunningham:This was Wisconsin?Peter Arcidiacono:... That's right.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:What year was this?Peter Arcidiacono:In the econometrics, the advances were always more, because I needed to do something to estimate my models.Scott Cunningham:Right. This was mid nineties? This would've been the mid nineties, or late nineties?Peter Arcidiacono:I'd like to say late nineties. Yeah-Scott Cunningham:Late nineties? Okay. Yeah-Peter Arcidiacono:... [inaudible 00:19:10].Scott Cunningham:... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, keep going. Sorry.Peter Arcidiacono:So I was thinking about my own experience, in terms of choosing a college major, and thinking about, Well, people are learning over time. They start out those STEM classes, and figured out, wow, this is a little bit harder than I expected.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And then, moved through.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:So I had a mind, I actually had the idea for my job market paper, my first year. And had this idea of a forward looking model, of how people choose their college major.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And so, then, I go into John Rust's office, because he's my second year econometrics professor, and was describing this problem to him, that people are making decisions today, giving expectations about the future.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And he says, "Yeah, I think I can help you with that." And I was like, "No, you don't understand. This is a really hard problem." And of course, John Rust had written the [inaudible 00:20:13] paper about how to estimate these types of models-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... And he was fantastic with me. [inaudible 00:20:20]. He didn't say idiot. You could at least look at what I do, before you come to my office. He was fantastic with me.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And actually, the funny story about that too, is he's actually the only reason I'm an economics professor, because-Scott Cunningham:Oh, yeah?Peter Arcidiacono:... I only got into one grad school. Got rejected from much worse places in Wisconsin. It was the only place that accepted me.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:And the joke was that that was the year John rusted everybody in. So there were 53 of us to [inaudible 00:20:57].Scott Cunningham:That's awesome.Peter Arcidiacono:17 got PhDs.Scott Cunningham:Wow.Peter Arcidiacono:And if you look at another guy, one of my friends, I just actually found out we were actually at a conference in honor of John Rust, this past weekend.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And it turns out, that was the only place that admitted him, as well. And he's been incredibly successful too.Scott Cunningham:The John Rust fixed effect is filled with stories.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:That's really cool. That's really cool. I'm curious, thinking about what your, I want get to the Harvard and the Chapel Hill. But before we move on, you could imagine, had you gone to Princeton, or MIT, and worked with, or Berkeley, and worked with these, the treatment effects guys, like Imbens, and Angrist, and Card, and Kruger, and O'Reilly, and all these people. It's not just that your knowledge of econometrics would've been slightly different. Even the kinds of questions, that you would be asking, might be different. So I'm curious, what do you think your training and structural, under Manski and Rust, how has that shaped, not just the way you do your work, but even the types of questions that you ask, that you imagine, you might not have asked? For instance, just even thinking, modeling choice-Peter Arcidiacono:[Inaudible 00:22:40].Scott Cunningham:I'm sorry. I don't know. Did I lose you?Peter Arcidiacono:You froze on me.Scott Cunningham:Ah, I froze? Okay-Peter Arcidiacono:You're still frozen.Scott Cunningham:... I'm still frozen? Okay. There. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:Now, you're back. So you're asking about what types of questions.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. What kinds of questions do you think you ended up being really interested in, and working on? Not just the model that you wrote down, but even the actual topics. Because I'm curious, I'm wondering if listeners could really frame their understanding of this structural, versus this causal inference, tradition. Not just in terms of the technical pieces, but like this is practically how, the work a person ends up, that you think you ended up doing, versus if you had got Angrist as an advisor.Peter Arcidiacono:Oh, I think it has shaped me quite a bit. I am certain that if I'd gone to a place like Chicago, I would've probably ended up working with Steve Levitt. I am naturally attracted to some of those topics, that are more of a freakaconomics-type nature. And if you look at it, we actually had competing papers-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... on discrimination in the Weakest Link game show.Scott Cunningham:Uh-huh. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And I've written a couple of sports papers. So I have that in me, to think about those types of things. If I'm-Scott Cunningham:Topics, right? Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:I think that the Manski Rust combination did have a big effect on me, and, in the types of questions that I asked. Which is what structural brings to the table, is thinking about mechanisms.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So when you think about the effect of affirmative action on outcomes, understanding why the effect is what it is, matters.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:How it affects application behaviors. How is affects what majors issues. What would be those counterfactuals? And for that, I think you need some of these structural approaches.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:Now, one of the things about those structural approaches, to say, typically involve making some pretty big assumptions.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And I think that that's where the Manski influences had on me, because I also have papers that use subjective expectations data. And I think that that is actually an incredibly promising area of work.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:It's quite clear that people don't know as much as they should know, when they make important decisions. Certainly, higher education being a prime example of that.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:COVID really makes that clear, you know? How can it be that the people who are unvaccinated, are least likely to wear a mask? Clearly, they're operating under very different beliefs about-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... what's going to happen.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right. Right. Okay. So let's move into this Harvard Chapel Hill project. So setting it up, tell me, what is the first event that happens, that makes this a case against Harvard? Not counting alleged discrimination, but the actual historical event, that leads to a need for an expert witness.Peter Arcidiacono:Well, I think the need for the expert witness came about, because Harvard had to release their data, in the context of the trial.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So in the context of the lawsuit, the claim was there were some smoking guns that suggested the possibility, for example, of Asian American discriminationScott Cunningham:That would not fit this holistic criteria, that you mentioned earlier?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, so, it's an interesting question, right? So you can't have with the holistic criteria, you can take race into account, but the question is whether you could take race into account, in a way that penalizes a group, relative to white applicants?Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:So it might be one thing to say, "We're going to give a bump for African Americans, relative to whites."Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:Maybe another thing to say, "We're going to give a bump for whites, relative to Asian Americans."Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Okay. So they've had a lawsuit brought against Harvard. Harvard's had a lawsuit filed against them. What year is-Peter Arcidiacono:[inaudible 00:27:32]. Sorry, say it again.Scott Cunningham:What year would that have been?Peter Arcidiacono:Oh, man. I think it was back in 2015, or something like that.Scott Cunningham:2015. Did anybody see that coming? Or was this odd, this is just inevitable?Peter Arcidiacono:I think that, they were advertising for plaintiffs, students who had been rejected. So certainly, there was an intent to file such a lawsuit, for sure. And then, they had to weigh what universities to file it against. And they chose Harvard, because of the patterns on what were going on with Asian Americans. And I think UNC had more to do with the, there was some evidence in the record, from past cases, that race-neutral alternatives would work there.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm. Okay. So you get involved. How do you get selected as the expert witness? And what's your job, exactly, in all this?Peter Arcidiacono:So I think I get selected, I've written a couple of survey articles on affirmative action. And I view it that there are lots of nuances. So the fact that I would actually say there are nuances, as opposed to it being always good-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... made it attractive for them, I think.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And back in 2011, there was actually a protest here, at Duke, over one of my studies.Scott Cunningham:Oh, really?Peter Arcidiacono:Yes. So that one, we were actually using Duke data, and confronting a tough fact, which is lots of black students at Duke came in, wanted to major in STEM and economics, but switched out. In exploring why they were switching out at such a higher rate, relative to white applicants.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:So for men, it was very extreme.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:8% of white men switched out of STEM and economics-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... to a non-STEM, non-economics major. Over 50% of black males switched out. And you look at that, you think, that's a problem.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And once you account for the differences in academic background, prior to Duke, all those racial gaps go away. And I think what, the path to the protest to serve in the long run. So I won't get into all details of that, but I think that they didn't believe the fact at first.Scott Cunningham:And what was the fact exactly, that the racial discrimination, the racial bias, the racial differences vanished, once you conditioned on what, exactly?Peter Arcidiacono:I conditioned on academic background.Scott Cunningham:Oh, I see. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:Course and such like that. But I think even the original effect, they were surprised by, which was that the switch out rates were so different.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And at that time-Scott Cunningham:But why is that a protest against you? What does that have to do with you, if you're just documenting facts?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, I think that the negative press headline said, potentially racist study says black students are taking the easy way out. And so-Scott Cunningham:Potentially racist study.Peter Arcidiacono:Potentially racist study. Yes.Scott Cunningham:This study was racist.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. And I think that the issue, it actually makes a lot more sense now, than it did to me at the time. And economists thought this was crazy at the time. It's actually interesting, because I got attacked from people all over the country. It didn't make a major news flash, but within certain circles, it did. And actually, one of the people who wrote about it at the time, was Abraham Kendi. This was before he changed his name. He's not the, he wasn't famous in the same way that he is now. But the fact that I wasn't pointing the finger at the departments, I was pointing the finger, I think it was interpreted as victim blaming. It's their fault that they're switching out because they're not prepared. That's never how I would want to frame it. I would want, to me, this is, the issue is that you're not prepared-Scott Cunningham:You think you framed it?Peter Arcidiacono:No, I don't think so. But the way economists talk about things is different.Scott Cunningham:I know. I think that something, I think we're, a generous view is that we can't, we don't know what we sound like or something. I get into this a lot with my work on sex work, and I've, I work really hard to try to be very factual. And it, the use of words can be so triggering to a group of people. And I can never, I still can't quite articulate what exactly it is, in hindsight, that I, what word I used that was so wrong. But you feel like you would write that paper differently now?Peter Arcidiacono:Knowing that non economists would read it? Yes.Scott Cunningham:What would you do differently?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, I think, you have to be much more, when I say, it counts for the differences in switching behavior.Scott Cunningham:Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:The way other people hear that, is I'm able to explain why every single person switches their major, and has nothing to do with other factors. That's the reductionist claim against economists, as opposed to, on average, this is occurring.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So I did a radio interview at the time, and one of the people on the show was a blogger from Racialicious, who was a regular on the show. And-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... I didn't really know anything about the show, going in.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And she spent, so she got to go first, and she talked about how problematic my study was. And the way she described it, were ways that I did not think was consistent.Scott Cunningham:With what the the study was.Peter Arcidiacono:Right. And so, my response to that, really, by grace-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... was to say, if I thought that was what the paper was saying, I'd be upset too. And then, was able to pivot into, look, we're actually on the same side on this. We want black students at Duke to succeed in the majors that they're interested in. And to that point, we need to identify the barriers that are affecting that, and what resources we can provide, to make it so that that would not be the case.Scott Cunningham:So what are you going to say to your old, let's say you could go back in time, 10 years to that young economist, writing this paper. Without telling him exactly what specifically to say, you can only say a general principle. As you think about writing this, I want you to think about writing it in a different way. What exactly should you be? I guess, what I'm getting at, is how would you pause, what is, what pedagogically should we be communicating to young economists, about language and audience, that we haven't been doing historically, so that we are not unnecessarily tripping people up and creating confusion?Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah. Yeah. I think it's really tricky, because on a lot of things, it's just very hard to have a discussion where the emotions are not involved.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:So when you speak about things related to race, and you talk about things in a very matter of factual way-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... that can be heard as you don't care.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:You are not interested in fixing the problem at all. You're just explaining away why we don't need to do anything.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And that's how, there's actually this marriage book, I really like, which is, again, I'm going to say this, it's going to come across as stereotyping. This is obviously distributions overlap, but it's called Men Are Like Waffles, Women Are Like Spaghetti. And the ideas is that men compartmentalize everything. So we're talking about this specific issue, not seeing how it relates to the broader picture.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:The advice, the marriage advice I always give now, is don't try to solve your wife's problems. That's always a mistake.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And, but that's effectively, as economists, exactly what we do. We are working in the little waffle box.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:Focused on this particular problem.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And I don't know how to change that with regard to economics papers. I really try to be very nuanced in my language and such.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:Maybe in how you motivate the paper, recognizing the racial inequities and the historical discrimination.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:But there is a sense in which it will not be enough.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. There's this, I can't, I just now drew a blank on the, I teach it all. I can see the slide in my deck, but there's a famous computer scientist. And he says, this principal about writing code, and he says, "Be conservative in what you do, and be liberal in what you accept from others." And it's this principle of code writing, which I guess is like, he's basically saying, "When you write code, it needs to be, the noise to signal ratio needs to be very, very low. You need to be very clear in what it's doing, in a very efficient choice to minimize this, these unnecessary errors." But when you're receiving the code, either from your earlier part of the code, or for some other foreign source, you have to change your viewpoint in that sense, because really, the goal, when you're on the receiving end of the code, it seems like your goal is to be this antenna.Scott Cunningham:And this antenna is trying to extract information from any meaningful information from the noise. And so, you have to have, as a listener, a certain amount of grace that tolerates that this other person may make mistakes, doesn't say it all right, goes really, really to great lengths to try to, you go to great lengths, to try to figure out exactly what the message is, and what it isn't. And it does seem like, successful communication is a, about a sender who is being clear, and a receiver that is being charitable in what they're going to allow the sender to say, unless the goal is conflict.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:If the goal is conflict, then obviously, you don't do that. What you do with conflict, is you find the most bad, then, it's just bad faith. It's just like, trap a person, win the debate. And sometimes, many of us don't realize who we're talking to. We don't know if we're talking to a good faith or a bad faith person. But there's limits, I think, to what an economist or anyone can do, if the person they're talking to really is not interested in connecting.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. And it's interesting, because I think when I either speak publicly, or even giving seminars to economics audiences, the first part is building trust.Scott Cunningham:Totally.Peter Arcidiacono:We have the same goals.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:We may have different views about how to get there. And I've got some information that may change your mind on this.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And the issue is whether they can hear the information I say, or if it's going to be ruled out because I'm a bad person.Scott Cunningham:Right. Well, let me ask you something. So these tests for, okay, so you correct me where my thinking is wrong. Testing for racial discrimination in admissions. I could imagine econometrics one, I get the data set from Harvard, and I run a regression of admit onto a race dummy.Peter Arcidiacono:Right.Scott Cunningham:And then, I interpret the statistical significance on the race dummy. And then, I add in more observables. In what sense is this, philosophically, what we are trying to do in the United States, legally, to detect for whatever it is that's violating the constitution. And in what sense is it a big fat failure, that's not what we're trying to do? Can you elaborate that as a multivariate regression-Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah. So I think, how to interpret that beginning coefficient, I don't think that coefficient has much of an interpretation, particularly in admissions, because of who applies. And that was, one of the papers that we published on this, is about Harvard's recruiting practices.Scott Cunningham:... Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:And Harvard, they recruit a lot of people. And particularly, African Americans, who simply have no chance of admission. And so, you could make it. And that could be part of the reason, right, would be, we want to appear as though when you do just that one regression with that one variable-Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:... through affecting my applicant pool, I can always make it so that coefficient-Scott Cunningham:So what happening? So if I've got a university, just in real simple sense, let's say a university, if they're white, they span their, they basically task to the university, to whoever, and they say, "Get a pool of white applicants, use this rule. Get a pool of black applicants, use this rule." And it's just very, very different rules.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:Okay. If I then run a regression, how in the world am I going to detect racial preference in admission, when racial preference was used in the drawing up of the application in the first place?Peter Arcidiacono:So I think that's where, I think one of the principles that, it's not randomization for sure.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:But one of the key principles, is how do you think about selection on observables versus unobservables?Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right, right.Peter Arcidiacono:And so, if you can account, in the case we just described, if it was differences in test scores alone, once you account for test scores, then you could see how they were treated differently. Conditional on those test scores.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And typically, the way that works, is that when you add controls, the coefficient on the discriminated group typically goes down, because there was, because of history discrimination, that there was going to be differences in those things. That was why you had the program in the first place.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:But what's interesting in the case of Asian Americans, is it tends to go in the opposite direction. Right? So they're stronger on a lot of the observables.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:You add controls, it looks like the coefficients becomes more negative. For African Americans-Scott Cunningham:The coefficient, as in, the, so if I did a regression of admit onto an Asian dummy, nothing else, it'll be positive?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, it depends. So it would be positive if you had nothing else, and you excluded legacies-Scott Cunningham:Legacies.Peter Arcidiacono:... and athletes.Scott Cunningham:Okay. So I dropped the legacy and the athletes. I regress admit onto an Asian dummy. Asians are more likely to... So when does the, so what-Peter Arcidiacono:When it's slightly positive and insignificant.Scott Cunningham:... Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:As soon as you add anything related to academic background-Scott Cunningham:So then, I put in high school GPA and zip code, and I start trying to get at these measures of underlying academic performance, observable. And that's when it flips?Peter Arcidiacono:Oh yeah. Yeah. This is something I just did not appreciate before the Harvard case, is how incredibly well Asian Americans are doing academically.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:If you did admissions based solely on academics, over half would be Asian American. That is a stunning number. All groups would go down, and Asian Americans would be the only group that went up.Scott Cunningham:Okay. Say that again. I didn't quite follow. So what will astound me? What would it?Peter Arcidiacono:So Asian Americans, they're in the low twenties, in terms of their share of admits, or something like that.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:When you look at typical applicants.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:If you had admissions based solely on academics-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... with some combination of test scores and grades-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... they would be over half of Harvard's.Scott Cunningham:I see. Got it. They're just, it's just such an incredibly selective group. Selective, in terms of the measures of probable performance and success, and all these things. They are, as a group, high... What's the right word? How do you, this is one of these things, we're using the languages, is really careful. I was going to say, I know economists, we have models that say high type, low type. And obviously, it's like, what's the right way to start talking about these young people? These are young people at the beginning of their, everybody comes at a difference. So what's the right, what's the loving, charitable, honest way of talking about people with these underlying differences?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, I think that, what happened to them before college, was such, that on average, you see tremendous differences-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... in the skills that have been accumulated-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... prior to college.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. So there appears to be, one way you could describe it, is to say, there appears to be differences in human capital.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. But I think human capital, I guess-Scott Cunningham:Unobservable human capital appears to be different, but it's like showing up on these observable dimensions.Peter Arcidiacono:... That's right.Scott Cunningham:Got it.Peter Arcidiacono:And for me, that doesn't, in any way, point the finger, and say there's something wrong-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... with the groups that aren't doing well on that.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. No.Peter Arcidiacono:And in fact, there's some people who argue, look, the differences in test scores, the reason African American score worse on the tests, is because of stereotype threat.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And that idea is that everybody expects them to do poorly. And so, they do poorly.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:To me, that's giving the K through 12 education system a pass. There are real differences-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... in the K through 12 education experience-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... for African Americans.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:That's what we need to fix.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:We can't shy away from the real issue. And that's actually one of my big concerns with places like the UC system, saying, "We don't want standardized tests anymore." We're just going to ignore that there's a serious deficiency.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:Not that the people are deficient, that the educational system was deficient-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... for these students.Scott Cunningham:It's interesting. It's like, one of the papers I teach a lot, is, I know you're familiar with, is Mark Hoekstra's review of economics and statistics article, on the returns to attending the state flagship school. I've always thought-Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:... that this really interesting study, it feels relevant to what you're working on with Harvard and UNC, because it's about, I feel like when I was in graduate school, I came away from my labor courses, just realizing attending college is crucial. College is an anti-poverty program, as far as I can tell. You could see it in my work on crime, with the, you and I actually have some similar backgrounds. We're both interested in sex ratios and marriage markets.Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:But you could see the incarceration rate of African American men just plummeting, with college attainment, levels of college enrollment. But so, it's like, I graduated thinking, "Oh, well, the returns to college are important." But then, it's like, Mark's paper highlighted that there was this heterogeneity, even there. Even in these, in terms of the flagship school and Harvard.Peter Arcidiacono:Right.Scott Cunningham:And the reason why this stuff is important, I feel like it gets into these complicated things with regards to how we've decided to organize America, because the United States, we purchase goods and services using, goods and services go into the utility function. In many ways, that's the, trying to get utility functions that are virtuous and correlated with a life that's worth living, is the big goal. But we buy those goods and services at market prices, using labor income. And so, then, it always wraps back into this issue about something like Harvard or Chapel Hill, which is, some of these schools have imbalanced returns that affect labor income and quality of life, or might arguably, subjective wellbeing, as it's measured by utility. And I guess I'm just sitting here thinking to myself, if you have a group of people who are just for historical, it's not even historical accident, because they were historically discriminated against in the United States.Scott Cunningham:But at this point, it's a stock. African Americans have come to the table with this different kind of human capital, that's going to end up shaping all of their labor income. It's going to have massive impacts on labor income, where they go to college. It's like, I don't see how you can separate out the fact that there, we've got to decide, collectively, what exactly is the goal for these different groups of people that live here in the United States, and that one of the existing mechanisms for income, is college. And it all wraps back into this whole issue, about what exactly should the composition of the student body be, given these ridiculously imbalanced returns to each of these individual schools?Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. But I think that some of those things could be balanced more, if we were doing the things that were actually successful in changing the human capital-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... upfront. And so, one of the most, it was really disappointing, in my mind, when, after Floyd, I think KIPP Charter schools decided that their motto was no longer appropriate. Be nice, work hard. And I say that, mainly because no excuse charter schools, which no excuse, that's something that you can't really say quite the same way now.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:These schools were incredibly successful at closing the achievement gap.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:They were actually very successful.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:We could be doing that. That's where the resources ought to go.Scott Cunningham:Right, right.Peter Arcidiacono:Instead, what you see in California now, is they're getting rid of advanced classes. There's two ways to deal with an achievement gap, right? You can bring the people who aren't doing as well, up.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:Or you could bring the people who are doing well, down. The getting rid of the advanced classes, is not bringing, in my mind, those students up.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And if anything, it's providing huge advantages to people of means, because you cripple the public education system, take the path out for them to develop that human capital.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And then, the people with resources send their kids to private schools, so that stuff isn't going to go on.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And that's where I think a lot of the discussion, we can talk about affirmative action at Harvard. At the end of the day, that's really about appearances. The people are going to Harvard are all, most of them are coming from an incredibly rich backgrounds.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:Regardless of what race. There are differences across the races. But that's where the action is.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And that's what we typically focus on in education. But where we really need to be doing more, is for the lower income kids.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And COVIDs is going, we're starting to see that that's going to be a train wreck. Our education for this kids who went to-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... public schools.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There's certain elasticities, that I think COVID highlights, which is that there's a, there are groups of students who, probably, their ability to substitute to the best case scenario in a very difficult situation, was really, they had a very high, they were able to do it. It may not have been, it wasn't a perfect substitute. They were able to continue to do it. And I think for some groups of students, it was a train wreck.Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Just their ability to make those substitutions to whatever was required, could be anything ranging from the access to physical resources, like computing, computers, and wifi that's stable, and all these things, to, just simply, the way your brain works. Just being able to be present. I definitely think that COVID cut a mark through the students, that, it did in our family, completely cut a mark through students in weird jagged way, for sure.Peter Arcidiacono:But within your family, you're able to substitute in ways that other families cannot.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And that's the catch. And I think that, I don't work a lot in the K through 12 space, so this is a non-expert opinion on that. But if my read on the studies, is if you find positive effects of, say, charter schools, Catholic schools, smaller class size, if you're going to find positive effects for anyone, it's going to be inner city African Americans. And I think that the reason that you see that, is the way family substitutes, that they're not, their families are not in as good of a position to substitute-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... the way my family is. My kid has a bad teacher, we're going to do the bad effects.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:So you're going to think, "Oh, the teacher's fine." But no, we even did the effects of that teacher, in ways that other families cannot.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right. So what do you think is the smoking gun evidence, that that Harvard University has to... What's the smoking gun fact, that's evidence for, that's the most damning evidence for racial discrimination in admissions, that-Peter Arcidiacono:So racial discrimination against Asian Americans, I think that there's a, there's so many damning facts. Well, I'll start with the first one, which is Harvard's own internal offices. They have their own internal research teams. They estimated models of admissions, and consistently found a penalty against Asian Americans.Scott Cunningham:... Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:You could look at that. You'll hear people say, "Well, those are simplistic models." The fit of those models was incredibly high.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:I think. So they were explaining-Scott Cunningham:I think people underestimate the shoe leather sophistication that goes on in these admissions office, with developing their own internal models.Peter Arcidiacono:... Well, and what was striking, is Harvard's defense of this was, "Well, we really didn't understand the model."Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:Well, what was interesting, is that those models also had whether or not you were low income, in it.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:And they were confident that those models, the same model, showed that they were giving a bump to low income students.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:It's like, you're going to interpret the coefficient one way when it's the result you like, and another way, when it's the result you don't like.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. So their own models showed, so what was the penalty? What was it? It was a dummy, a coefficient on a binary indicator for Asian American, or Asian?Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. That's right.Scott Cunningham:How big was it?Peter Arcidiacono:And then, also, it even had stuff on the personal rating. You can see, there was charts from their office that shows, what do you know, Asian Americans on all of Harvard's ratings, are scoring either much better than whites-Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:... or the same as whites, even on the alumni personal rating. So Harvard has these alumni interview, the students, and even on that, Asian Americans are doing similarly to whites.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And then, you see their own personal rating, based, not on meeting with the applicants. They do much, much worse.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Well, so what does Harvard have to prove?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, I think typically, in something like discrimination cases, well, what they have to prove, probably depends on the judge, I suppose-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... is the catch. What they were able to say at trial, were things like, "Well, the teachers must be giving them poor ratings. We don't think that Asian Americans are deficient on personal qualities, but maybe the teachers are scoring them poorly." How that is an excuse. I don't-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. I don't see what they're trying to... This is, I guess, where it's frustrating, because I'm struggling to know exactly what the objective function for Harvard is, in their own stated goals. What is their objective function? To create a particular kind of cohort? What is the cohort?Peter Arcidiacono:... Well, I think you'd get a lot of gobbledygook when it comes to that-Scott Cunningham:That's what I was wondering. Yeah. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:... Yeah. So, but I think it is also interesting to think about the counterfactual of, if this case was not associated with affirmative action at all-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... would it have played out the same way? And to me, I think the answer is no. Honestly, I don't think Card even takes the case.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:I think it would've been a much better... Your worse look for Harvard than it was. I think that it was a bad look for Harvard as it was, but because of who brought the case, and because of its ties to affirmative action, that gets back to that waffle analogy, right? If you look at it in the context of the waffle, there's just simply no argument in my mind, for the way they're treating Asian Americans.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:It's a clear cut discrimination case.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:And if you just put it in a different context, it would just be completely unacceptable. Imagine Trump Towers having a discrimination suit brought against them by black applicants. And the defense being, "Look, it's not that we're discriminating against black applicants. They just happen to score poorly in our likability rating."Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:That would be outrageous.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:There would be protests. This is because it's tied to that third rail of affirmative action.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:But to me, the judge could have ruled, "Look, you can have affirmative action, but you got to stop discriminating against Asian Americans relative to whites.Scott Cunningham:So then, if you could fill up half of Har... So is this what the thing is? Harvard, as a university, collectively, however this ends up being decided, collectively, they have a preference over their student composition.Peter Arcidiacono:Right.Scott Cunningham:And that preference is discriminatory.Peter Arcidiacono:Their preference, I think, lines up with Kendi's in some sense. They would like to have their class look like the population.Scott Cunningham:They would like to have it look like, that they would like 13% African American, whatever percent, what is it, Asian American is what, five, is single digit?Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. And they would like to have a balanced portfolio of Americans.Peter Arcidiacono:And, but even that, I think, is giving Harvard too much credit, in the sense that, what we choose to balance on, we choose to balance on skin color.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:You're not balancing on income.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:You're not balancing on parental education.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:A whole bunch of other things you could've balanced on. Why-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. There's like an infinite number of character. Every person is a bundle of, just almost an infinite number of characteristics. And it's not practically... Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... If you really want a representative class, then you do a lottery among high school graduates.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly.Peter Arcidiacono:That would be the only way.Scott Cunningham:That would be the only way, the only way it would be to have a randomized student body. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:Do you feel like ask this about, was by somebody from a class at Duke, about how would you make the admissions process more equitable?Scott Cunningham:Uh-huh.Peter Arcidiacono:And I'm like, it's a selective admissions process. I don't even know what that-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... means. Even a process where you did the lottery, why is that equitable, because you've got the winners and the losers? The lottery. We're not equalizing outcomes for everybody. We're equalizing X anti.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. It's like, this is all this comp, this is this deep collective choice, social preferences questions about... And it's weird. I guess we're talking about this at Harvard, because we believe that Harvard University will literally change a kid's life, more than going to University of Tennessee, Knoxville, or something like that. Right? That's why we're having this conversation.Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah. I think that that's the perception, that it will literally change their kids' lives.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:I'm not totally convinced that of there being massive gains-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... relative to the counterfactual for-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... at that level.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:I think, when you're at the margin of going to college or not-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... that's the big margin.Scott Cunningham:That's the big margin. Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:College quality effects, I think get undone a little bit by college major effects.Scott Cunningham:Right, right, right.Peter A
I first met Peter Arcidiacano, professor of economics at Duke University, while I was a PhD student at the University of Georgia and I have followed his work since from a distance. I originally followed Peters work because he'd written several articles about sex from a two-sided matching perspective. I was struck by the fact that we both saw thinking about sexual relationships in terms of a matching problem. Two sided matching perspectives focus on the assignment mechanisms that bring people together, and when it comes to sexual relationships, the relative supply of possible partners and competition for those partners will in equilibrium result in pairings, some of which may become the most life sustaining and defining partnerships of those peoples lives. Peter's work was gratifying to read, and I have often looked up to him for his successful merging of theory and econometrics to study topics I cared about. The economic way of thinking is not about topics, nor is it is not about data, even though economists tend to have particular topics they study intensely and use data usually to do so. The economic way of thinking does though typically involve careful study of allocation mechanisms, such as prices and markets, that bring the productive capacity of communities into existence. These things are important as they animate humans to work together, produce output that manages the production itself, and increasingly towards the end of history, left surplus for humans to enjoy. Who ends up in what activities doing what types of specialized work ultimately shapes that which is made, how much and how it is distributed. The allocations end up not only shaping our lives, but our children's lives. Starting conditions can cast a long shadow lasting centuries even causing certain groups to creep ahead as more and more of the surplus mounts and accrues to them, while others watch as a shrinking part of the growing pie flows to them.In the United States, in the 21st century, one of the key institutions in all of this assignment of love and commerce has been the university. And within the university system, there are gradations of institutional pedigree and at the top of the pack sits elite institutions whose students seem practically destined to shape and receive the surplus. Given the path dependence in wealth, and how it has interacted with race, it is therefore no wonder that policymakers and economists have for decades sought to refine the rules by which schools can select high school applicants for admission. In many ways, our country's fight over the use of race in selecting students into college is the old debates about capitalism and the self adjusting market system writ large. So it's in this broader context about work, schools, matching and allocation mechanisms that I think of Peter and his scholarship. When I review the range of topics on Peters vita, I see the signature marks of the modern 21st century labor economist. Someone interested in markets and how they work to connect people into productive cooperation. Someone interested in institutions, someone concerned about inequality and discrimination, someone versed both in economic theory and econometrics, someone at home with a bewildering array of numbers in a spreadsheet. To me, it is natural that Peter has pivoted so fluidly between topics like sex, work, discrimination and higher education because in my mind these are all interconnected topics concerning the assignment mechanisms we use in America to organize society and maintain our collective standard of living.I invited Peter on the Mixtape with Scott as part of an ongoing series I call “economists and public policy”. The series focuses on how economics and economists think about and attempt to shape public policy. It includes people with a variety of perspectives, and even some who are critics of economics itself. Previous guests on the podcast in the “economists and public policy” series have been Sandy Darity, Elizabeth Popp Berman, Anna Stansbury, Mark Anderson, Alan Manning, Larry Katz, Jeremy West and Jonathan Meer. Peter has not only produced academic articles in some of economics' most impactful outlets — he has recently served as expert witness in two major discrimination cases, one of which put him on the opposite side of the stand as David Card, winner of 2021 Nobel Prize in economics. You can read about the cases here. They involve the broader topic of race and affirmative action at universities. The cases more specifically involve whether Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill admissions criteria show signs of discrimination. One of the things about Peter's involvement as expert witness that I want to highlight, though, is that his expert testimony was, at its core, an example of the role that econometrics can play in the shaping of public policy. It is more and more the case that economics' role in the shaping of public policy in the 21st century will involve not merely economic theory, but also statistical analysis of complex datasets too, and I think it is worth pausing and noting that the economist shapes public policy oftentimes these days as much through interpreting data as her counterpart did using pure economic theory. I hope you find this discussion with Peter thought provoking and informative about both his work on these cases, but also about the role of economics and econometrics in forming public policy. But I also hope that the interview will give you a deeper insight into Peter and who he is. Scott's Substack as well as The Mixtape with Scott are supported by user subscriptions. Please share this episode to people within and outside economics that you think might be interested. I love doing these interviews and using the substack to do deeper dives into econometrics and the lives of economists and if you find this work valuable, please consider subscribing and supporting it. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.TranscriptScott Cunningham:In this week's episode of Mixtape: the Podcast, I had the pleasure of talking with a professor at Duke University, named Peter Arcidiacono. I can never pronounce it correctly, no matter how many times I try. I first met Peter in graduate school. He was, probably then, an assistant professor at Duke, where he has spent his entire career. I was a PhD student at the University of Georgia. And he had a research paper on a topic that I was also working on, involving marriage markets. He's been an incredibly prolific producer in the area of labor economics and education, as well as affirmative action. And he uses tools in econometrics, that I largely never invested in, structural econometrics and discrete choice modeling. So when I read his work, I usually do it, both, because I'm interested in the paper and the paper topic, but also because I'm hoping that this will be a chance for me to open my mind a little bit more, and pick up on some of that econometric modeling, that I lack.Peter is also an expert witness in a high profile case, right now, involving affirmative action and racial discrimination at Harvard University, and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, both of which have been combined into a single case. As I understand it, it's going for the Supreme court soon. In this interview, we walk through a lot of big and small issues around society's preferences around poverty, inequality, as well as the role that higher education is playing in both. My name is Scott Cunningham, and this is Mixtape: the Podcast.Scott Cunningham:Okay. This is great. I don't know if you remember. So this is an interview with professor of economics at Duke University, Peter Arcidiacono. And we're going to be talking about a range of topics. But just to give the reader and the listener a little bit of background, Peter, could you tell me a little bit about yourself, and what your involvement is with a current case, going before the Supreme court, involving University of North Carolina and Harvard University?Peter Arcidiacono:Certainly. And thanks for having me on. I've been at Duke now, for over 20 years. This was my first job out of grad school, and stayed here ever since. And a lot of my work has been on higher education, both with regard to choice of college major, as well as affirmative action.And one of the really dissatisfying things about working on affirmative action, is that universities hide their data. So you can't really get a good sense of how the programs are working, because you typically don't have the data. And I think that that really matters, because to me, so much of the discussion about affirmative action, is in the binary. Either we have it, or we don't have it. But what it means to have it, is something, as economists, we would think about, that's something we would be optimizing over. And so, there's really a large space between race as a tiebreaker in admissions, and what somebody like Abraham Kennedy would advocate for, which would be more of a quota system.And so, thinking about where you stand on that, to me, I had this opportunity to work on these two cases, two lawsuits. One brought against Harvard, and one against UNC, on the role of race in these admissions processes. And for me, it was an opportunity to look behind the veil, and see how these programs actually operated.My intent was always to, a feeling as though, if I'm going to be an expert on affirmative action, I should know how these processes actually work. So my intent was always to use this for the purposes of research, as well. And we've written a number of papers out of the Harvard case. Four have been accepted now, and we just released a fifth one on racial preferences of both schools. And we'll see what happens with that. So those lawsuits, I testified in trial, at both those cases. My counterpart in the Harvard case was David Card, who recently won the Nobel Prize. I was wondering how I would respond to that. And actually, my response, I got to go up against a Nobel Prize winner.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:So those experiences were somewhat traumatizing. But both experts, David Card and Kevin Hoxby, are pillars in the field, and people who have been very helpful to me, and who I have a great deal of respect for.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:So these cases have now, in both those cases, the side I was on lost at the first round. In the Harvard case, they also lost at the appellate round.Peter Arcidiacono:In UNC, it didn't actually go through the appellate round, because-Scott Cunningham:Oh, so-Peter Arcidiacono:... supreme court merged the cases.Scott Cunningham:... Both the Harvard University case and the Chapel Hill case, were already decided, but not at the Supreme Court level.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:So the decision was appealed. It's now before the Supreme Court.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:I think the Supreme Court scheduled here, arguments in October, and then, we'll see when they release a decision.Scott Cunningham:Okay. So, and these are both cases involving affirmative action and racial discrimination amongst particular groups of people? Is that groups of students, is that right?Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. Though, in the UNC case, there's actually no claim of Asian American discrimination. So that actually, you only see that at Harvard. You don't see that at UNC. That doesn't mean, I think that Asian discrimination is unique to Harvard.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:I think it has to do with the fact of there not being that many Asian Americans in North Carolina.Scott Cunningham:North Carolina, right.Peter Arcidiacono:It's always been a bigger issue at the very top schools.Scott Cunningham:And you were called in, as an expert witness, for the plaintiff in both of those cases.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:Right. So David Card is the expert witness for Harvard, representing Harvard, against an accusation of, well, what exactly is the accusation against both of these institutions, and who brought these accusations against them?Peter Arcidiacono:So the group is called Students for Fair Admissions. And they basically got groups of students to, as their plaintiffs. Though, it's not about those particular students, in terms of remedies. And in Harvard, there's three claims. One, whether or not they're discriminating against Asian American applicants, relative to white applicants.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:Two, whether the size of the preferences given for underrepresented groups, is constitutional.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And three, whether there were race-neutral alternatives that they could have used. So the Supreme Court has said, "If there is a race-neutral alternative, you should use that."Scott Cunningham:Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:I'm not really involved at the race-neutral part. We had a different expert for that aspect.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:Though, in both cases, Card and Hoxby actually did the race-neutral part, as well.Scott Cunningham:What exactly does the constitution say a admissions committee can use, when drawing up a student cohort?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, so I'm not sure what the constitution has to say on it, but I can say what the history of this of the court challenges have been.Scott Cunningham:Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:So I think, it's Title VI of Civil Rights Act said, "You're not supposed to use race-"Scott Cunningham:Race.Peter Arcidiacono:"... in these types of things." And there are other categories too.Scott Cunningham:Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:But race is the focus of this one. Now, the reason they had that, was because of the history of ill treatment of African Americans.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And this is obviously going in the other direction-Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:... with regard to African Americans receiving preferences in the admissions process.Scott Cunningham:Mm. Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So, but then, the history was that the original decision, the Bakke case, said, "Look, you can't use race in admissions, because of reparations. You can only use it because of the benefits of diversity." So the state can have an interest in diversity. And that was a compromised position to get that swing justice, to sign onto it.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:Since then, there have been a number of cases. I think the ones that are most relevant right now, are the ones that came out of the Michigan cases.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And there was one at the undergraduate level, which they found that you could not use race as part of an explicit point system.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So you can get points for having a good SAT score, points for being a particular race, you add them up together, then you could rank the-Scott Cunningham:I see.Peter Arcidiacono:... applicant.Scott Cunningham:So there were schools that were doing a point system based on individual characteristics, like race. And that was, at that moment, it was unclear whether that would be legal. It was, I guess, or was it something that schools were, potentially, in a legal, bad situation, when they were using it? Or was it just not known?Peter Arcidiacono:I don't think it was clear. And that's where the court ruled. You cannot use it in that way.Scott Cunningham:Got it. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:At the same time, there was a case against Harvard's Law School. And on that one, they said that you could use race, holistically. As an economist, I can express anything as a formula. And then, the question is, whether you see all parts of the formula or not.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:So it gets a little tricky. And I think that, from my perspective, I would've rather had the ruling go in the exact opposite way.[inaudible 00:11:59] on if we're going to find in favor of one or the other.I would prefer a point system to a holistic one, because then, everything's clear.Scott Cunningham:Clear. Yeah. It seemed really precise-Peter Arcidiacono:[inaudible 00:12:09], to hide their data.Scott Cunningham:... Yeah. It seems like lots of times with the law, the imprecision of this language, as though it's a solution to the problem, is really challenging for designing policy.Peter Arcidiacono:I totally agree. Yeah.Scott Cunningham:So, okay. I want to set up the reader a little bit, oh, the listener, to know who you are before we dive into this, because I'm loving this thread, but I want people to know who you are. So before we get more into the case, can you tell me where you grew up, and why you got into economics? Your first, what was the touchstone that brought you into this field?Peter Arcidiacono:So I grew up in the Pacific Northwest. My first set of years were actually in Ellensburg, Washington, which is a town of 13,000. My dad was a math education professor.Scott Cunningham:Oh, okay. What university was he a professor at?Peter Arcidiacono:Central Washington University.Scott Cunningham:Okay. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:And then-Scott Cunningham:Hey, but what'd you say it was? What was it again?Peter Arcidiacono:... It was math education.Scott Cunningham:Math education.Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah. So he was teaching teachers how to teach math.Scott Cunningham:Oh. So you've always been, it's in the family to be interested in education?Peter Arcidiacono:Yes. And-Scott Cunningham:And even this math education part. That's another way of describing an economist that studies education.Peter Arcidiacono:... Right.Scott Cunningham:Math education.Peter Arcidiacono:Well, my parents actually met in linear algebra class, so.Scott Cunningham:Oh, that's romantic.Peter Arcidiacono:And I've got two brothers, and they were both math majors.Scott Cunningham:Oh, wow. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:I was the only non-math major.Scott Cunningham:Okay. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:But I came into college, and started out in chemistry. I think, Econ PhD programs are filled with former, hard science majors.Scott Cunningham:No joke. Yeah, yeah. They hit organic chemistry, and then, they changed their major.Peter Arcidiacono:Right. And I just couldn't stand the lab. It was too social. And one of my good friends, a guy who ended up being the best man at my wedding, was a couple years ahead of me, told me I should take an economics class.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:And it was amazing. I think that just the way of thinking, just worked naturally for me.Scott Cunningham:Well, so when you say way of thinking, the way of thinking that was, can you tell me what your 19 year old self would've been jarred by? What are the specific things, that economic way of thinking, that he was noticing?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, it just fit with a lot of how I operated. So I view economics as a great model of fallen man.Scott Cunningham:Uh-huh.Peter Arcidiacono:Fundamentally, I was the guy who always looked for the loopholes. So responding really well to incentives. I had a keen eye for how I could game the system.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And so, I think a lot about what economics is doing, is the dismal science, right? The reigns on the parade of well-intentioned policies.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:How are people going to get around the policies? Well, that's where I lived, was figuring out how I could game the system.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right. So you were, this idea of that rational choice paradigm, is that what you mean?Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:And that-Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:... that people would just simply, if they have goals, those goals don't just go away with a policy. They might just continue to try to achieve those goals at lowest cost, even then.Peter Arcidiacono:Exactly.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And the other studying thing, which I think, really affected why I ended up doing the research that I did, was, for me, the chemistry classes were just way harder-Scott Cunningham:Uh-huh.Peter Arcidiacono:... than economics classes.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And I'm not trying to say that any classes are easy.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:But there is definitely large differences-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... in every university, and what the expectations are-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... across fields.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And that distorts people's behavior.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So I view it, that most colleges are subsidizing students, to go into low paying fields. And how do they subsidize them to do that? They offer higher grades-Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:... and lower workloads, smaller class sizes. All those things work, so that lots of people come in wanting to major in well-paying fields, and switch in, and switch out.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And they do so because of the incentives the universities provide.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. So you got interested in economics, and that's like, you're describing some sort of price theory, microeconomics. But you've also have made a career out of being such a strong econometrician in this area of structural econometrics and discrete choice modeling. How did you get interested in those topics? What was your first reaction to econometrics?Peter Arcidiacono:I had a very strange econometrics background. So my first year econometrics, was taught by Chuck Manski.Scott Cunningham:Oh.Peter Arcidiacono:The whole year. And so, it was lots of bounds.Scott Cunningham:Uh-huh.Peter Arcidiacono:And then, my second year, it was all John Rust.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So a complete swing, right? So you go from the non-parametrics, what can you identify under the smallest number of assumptions?Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:To what can you identify, if you want an answer something really big.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:You got to make a lot of assumptions to make that.Scott Cunningham:Oh, boy. That's an interesting journey, right there.Peter Arcidiacono:So I actually never had the mostly harmless econometric-Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... at all.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And the econometrics has always been-Scott Cunningham:This was Wisconsin?Peter Arcidiacono:... That's right.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:What year was this?Peter Arcidiacono:In the econometrics, the advances were always more, because I needed to do something to estimate my models.Scott Cunningham:Right. This was mid nineties? This would've been the mid nineties, or late nineties?Peter Arcidiacono:I'd like to say late nineties. Yeah-Scott Cunningham:Late nineties? Okay. Yeah-Peter Arcidiacono:... [inaudible 00:19:10].Scott Cunningham:... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, keep going. Sorry.Peter Arcidiacono:So I was thinking about my own experience, in terms of choosing a college major, and thinking about, Well, people are learning over time. They start out those STEM classes, and figured out, wow, this is a little bit harder than I expected.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And then, moved through.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:So I had a mind, I actually had the idea for my job market paper, my first year. And had this idea of a forward looking model, of how people choose their college major.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And so, then, I go into John Rust's office, because he's my second year econometrics professor, and was describing this problem to him, that people are making decisions today, giving expectations about the future.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And he says, "Yeah, I think I can help you with that." And I was like, "No, you don't understand. This is a really hard problem." And of course, John Rust had written the [inaudible 00:20:13] paper about how to estimate these types of models-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... And he was fantastic with me. [inaudible 00:20:20]. He didn't say idiot. You could at least look at what I do, before you come to my office. He was fantastic with me.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And actually, the funny story about that too, is he's actually the only reason I'm an economics professor, because-Scott Cunningham:Oh, yeah?Peter Arcidiacono:... I only got into one grad school. Got rejected from much worse places in Wisconsin. It was the only place that accepted me.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:And the joke was that that was the year John rusted everybody in. So there were 53 of us to [inaudible 00:20:57].Scott Cunningham:That's awesome.Peter Arcidiacono:17 got PhDs.Scott Cunningham:Wow.Peter Arcidiacono:And if you look at another guy, one of my friends, I just actually found out we were actually at a conference in honor of John Rust, this past weekend.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And it turns out, that was the only place that admitted him, as well. And he's been incredibly successful too.Scott Cunningham:The John Rust fixed effect is filled with stories.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:That's really cool. That's really cool. I'm curious, thinking about what your, I want get to the Harvard and the Chapel Hill. But before we move on, you could imagine, had you gone to Princeton, or MIT, and worked with, or Berkeley, and worked with these, the treatment effects guys, like Imbens, and Angrist, and Card, and Kruger, and O'Reilly, and all these people. It's not just that your knowledge of econometrics would've been slightly different. Even the kinds of questions, that you would be asking, might be different. So I'm curious, what do you think your training and structural, under Manski and Rust, how has that shaped, not just the way you do your work, but even the types of questions that you ask, that you imagine, you might not have asked? For instance, just even thinking, modeling choice-Peter Arcidiacono:[Inaudible 00:22:40].Scott Cunningham:I'm sorry. I don't know. Did I lose you?Peter Arcidiacono:You froze on me.Scott Cunningham:Ah, I froze? Okay-Peter Arcidiacono:You're still frozen.Scott Cunningham:... I'm still frozen? Okay. There. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:Now, you're back. So you're asking about what types of questions.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. What kinds of questions do you think you ended up being really interested in, and working on? Not just the model that you wrote down, but even the actual topics. Because I'm curious, I'm wondering if listeners could really frame their understanding of this structural, versus this causal inference, tradition. Not just in terms of the technical pieces, but like this is practically how, the work a person ends up, that you think you ended up doing, versus if you had got Angrist as an advisor.Peter Arcidiacono:Oh, I think it has shaped me quite a bit. I am certain that if I'd gone to a place like Chicago, I would've probably ended up working with Steve Levitt. I am naturally attracted to some of those topics, that are more of a freakaconomics-type nature. And if you look at it, we actually had competing papers-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... on discrimination in the Weakest Link game show.Scott Cunningham:Uh-huh. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And I've written a couple of sports papers. So I have that in me, to think about those types of things. If I'm-Scott Cunningham:Topics, right? Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:I think that the Manski Rust combination did have a big effect on me, and, in the types of questions that I asked. Which is what structural brings to the table, is thinking about mechanisms.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So when you think about the effect of affirmative action on outcomes, understanding why the effect is what it is, matters.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:How it affects application behaviors. How is affects what majors issues. What would be those counterfactuals? And for that, I think you need some of these structural approaches.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:Now, one of the things about those structural approaches, to say, typically involve making some pretty big assumptions.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And I think that that's where the Manski influences had on me, because I also have papers that use subjective expectations data. And I think that that is actually an incredibly promising area of work.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:It's quite clear that people don't know as much as they should know, when they make important decisions. Certainly, higher education being a prime example of that.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:COVID really makes that clear, you know? How can it be that the people who are unvaccinated, are least likely to wear a mask? Clearly, they're operating under very different beliefs about-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... what's going to happen.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right. Right. Okay. So let's move into this Harvard Chapel Hill project. So setting it up, tell me, what is the first event that happens, that makes this a case against Harvard? Not counting alleged discrimination, but the actual historical event, that leads to a need for an expert witness.Peter Arcidiacono:Well, I think the need for the expert witness came about, because Harvard had to release their data, in the context of the trial.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So in the context of the lawsuit, the claim was there were some smoking guns that suggested the possibility, for example, of Asian American discriminationScott Cunningham:That would not fit this holistic criteria, that you mentioned earlier?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, so, it's an interesting question, right? So you can't have with the holistic criteria, you can take race into account, but the question is whether you could take race into account, in a way that penalizes a group, relative to white applicants?Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:So it might be one thing to say, "We're going to give a bump for African Americans, relative to whites."Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:Maybe another thing to say, "We're going to give a bump for whites, relative to Asian Americans."Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Okay. So they've had a lawsuit brought against Harvard. Harvard's had a lawsuit filed against them. What year is-Peter Arcidiacono:[inaudible 00:27:32]. Sorry, say it again.Scott Cunningham:What year would that have been?Peter Arcidiacono:Oh, man. I think it was back in 2015, or something like that.Scott Cunningham:2015. Did anybody see that coming? Or was this odd, this is just inevitable?Peter Arcidiacono:I think that, they were advertising for plaintiffs, students who had been rejected. So certainly, there was an intent to file such a lawsuit, for sure. And then, they had to weigh what universities to file it against. And they chose Harvard, because of the patterns on what were going on with Asian Americans. And I think UNC had more to do with the, there was some evidence in the record, from past cases, that race-neutral alternatives would work there.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm. Okay. So you get involved. How do you get selected as the expert witness? And what's your job, exactly, in all this?Peter Arcidiacono:So I think I get selected, I've written a couple of survey articles on affirmative action. And I view it that there are lots of nuances. So the fact that I would actually say there are nuances, as opposed to it being always good-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... made it attractive for them, I think.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And back in 2011, there was actually a protest here, at Duke, over one of my studies.Scott Cunningham:Oh, really?Peter Arcidiacono:Yes. So that one, we were actually using Duke data, and confronting a tough fact, which is lots of black students at Duke came in, wanted to major in STEM and economics, but switched out. In exploring why they were switching out at such a higher rate, relative to white applicants.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:So for men, it was very extreme.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:8% of white men switched out of STEM and economics-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... to a non-STEM, non-economics major. Over 50% of black males switched out. And you look at that, you think, that's a problem.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And once you account for the differences in academic background, prior to Duke, all those racial gaps go away. And I think what, the path to the protest to serve in the long run. So I won't get into all details of that, but I think that they didn't believe the fact at first.Scott Cunningham:And what was the fact exactly, that the racial discrimination, the racial bias, the racial differences vanished, once you conditioned on what, exactly?Peter Arcidiacono:I conditioned on academic background.Scott Cunningham:Oh, I see. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:Course and such like that. But I think even the original effect, they were surprised by, which was that the switch out rates were so different.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And at that time-Scott Cunningham:But why is that a protest against you? What does that have to do with you, if you're just documenting facts?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, I think that the negative press headline said, potentially racist study says black students are taking the easy way out. And so-Scott Cunningham:Potentially racist study.Peter Arcidiacono:Potentially racist study. Yes.Scott Cunningham:This study was racist.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. And I think that the issue, it actually makes a lot more sense now, than it did to me at the time. And economists thought this was crazy at the time. It's actually interesting, because I got attacked from people all over the country. It didn't make a major news flash, but within certain circles, it did. And actually, one of the people who wrote about it at the time, was Abraham Kendi. This was before he changed his name. He's not the, he wasn't famous in the same way that he is now. But the fact that I wasn't pointing the finger at the departments, I was pointing the finger, I think it was interpreted as victim blaming. It's their fault that they're switching out because they're not prepared. That's never how I would want to frame it. I would want, to me, this is, the issue is that you're not prepared-Scott Cunningham:You think you framed it?Peter Arcidiacono:No, I don't think so. But the way economists talk about things is different.Scott Cunningham:I know. I think that something, I think we're, a generous view is that we can't, we don't know what we sound like or something. I get into this a lot with my work on sex work, and I've, I work really hard to try to be very factual. And it, the use of words can be so triggering to a group of people. And I can never, I still can't quite articulate what exactly it is, in hindsight, that I, what word I used that was so wrong. But you feel like you would write that paper differently now?Peter Arcidiacono:Knowing that non economists would read it? Yes.Scott Cunningham:What would you do differently?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, I think, you have to be much more, when I say, it counts for the differences in switching behavior.Scott Cunningham:Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:The way other people hear that, is I'm able to explain why every single person switches their major, and has nothing to do with other factors. That's the reductionist claim against economists, as opposed to, on average, this is occurring.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:So I did a radio interview at the time, and one of the people on the show was a blogger from Racialicious, who was a regular on the show. And-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... I didn't really know anything about the show, going in.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And she spent, so she got to go first, and she talked about how problematic my study was. And the way she described it, were ways that I did not think was consistent.Scott Cunningham:With what the the study was.Peter Arcidiacono:Right. And so, my response to that, really, by grace-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... was to say, if I thought that was what the paper was saying, I'd be upset too. And then, was able to pivot into, look, we're actually on the same side on this. We want black students at Duke to succeed in the majors that they're interested in. And to that point, we need to identify the barriers that are affecting that, and what resources we can provide, to make it so that that would not be the case.Scott Cunningham:So what are you going to say to your old, let's say you could go back in time, 10 years to that young economist, writing this paper. Without telling him exactly what specifically to say, you can only say a general principle. As you think about writing this, I want you to think about writing it in a different way. What exactly should you be? I guess, what I'm getting at, is how would you pause, what is, what pedagogically should we be communicating to young economists, about language and audience, that we haven't been doing historically, so that we are not unnecessarily tripping people up and creating confusion?Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah. Yeah. I think it's really tricky, because on a lot of things, it's just very hard to have a discussion where the emotions are not involved.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:So when you speak about things related to race, and you talk about things in a very matter of factual way-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... that can be heard as you don't care.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:You are not interested in fixing the problem at all. You're just explaining away why we don't need to do anything.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And that's how, there's actually this marriage book, I really like, which is, again, I'm going to say this, it's going to come across as stereotyping. This is obviously distributions overlap, but it's called Men Are Like Waffles, Women Are Like Spaghetti. And the ideas is that men compartmentalize everything. So we're talking about this specific issue, not seeing how it relates to the broader picture.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:The advice, the marriage advice I always give now, is don't try to solve your wife's problems. That's always a mistake.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And, but that's effectively, as economists, exactly what we do. We are working in the little waffle box.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:Focused on this particular problem.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And I don't know how to change that with regard to economics papers. I really try to be very nuanced in my language and such.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:Maybe in how you motivate the paper, recognizing the racial inequities and the historical discrimination.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:But there is a sense in which it will not be enough.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. There's this, I can't, I just now drew a blank on the, I teach it all. I can see the slide in my deck, but there's a famous computer scientist. And he says, this principal about writing code, and he says, "Be conservative in what you do, and be liberal in what you accept from others." And it's this principle of code writing, which I guess is like, he's basically saying, "When you write code, it needs to be, the noise to signal ratio needs to be very, very low. You need to be very clear in what it's doing, in a very efficient choice to minimize this, these unnecessary errors." But when you're receiving the code, either from your earlier part of the code, or for some other foreign source, you have to change your viewpoint in that sense, because really, the goal, when you're on the receiving end of the code, it seems like your goal is to be this antenna.Scott Cunningham:And this antenna is trying to extract information from any meaningful information from the noise. And so, you have to have, as a listener, a certain amount of grace that tolerates that this other person may make mistakes, doesn't say it all right, goes really, really to great lengths to try to, you go to great lengths, to try to figure out exactly what the message is, and what it isn't. And it does seem like, successful communication is a, about a sender who is being clear, and a receiver that is being charitable in what they're going to allow the sender to say, unless the goal is conflict.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:If the goal is conflict, then obviously, you don't do that. What you do with conflict, is you find the most bad, then, it's just bad faith. It's just like, trap a person, win the debate. And sometimes, many of us don't realize who we're talking to. We don't know if we're talking to a good faith or a bad faith person. But there's limits, I think, to what an economist or anyone can do, if the person they're talking to really is not interested in connecting.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. And it's interesting, because I think when I either speak publicly, or even giving seminars to economics audiences, the first part is building trust.Scott Cunningham:Totally.Peter Arcidiacono:We have the same goals.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:We may have different views about how to get there. And I've got some information that may change your mind on this.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And the issue is whether they can hear the information I say, or if it's going to be ruled out because I'm a bad person.Scott Cunningham:Right. Well, let me ask you something. So these tests for, okay, so you correct me where my thinking is wrong. Testing for racial discrimination in admissions. I could imagine econometrics one, I get the data set from Harvard, and I run a regression of admit onto a race dummy.Peter Arcidiacono:Right.Scott Cunningham:And then, I interpret the statistical significance on the race dummy. And then, I add in more observables. In what sense is this, philosophically, what we are trying to do in the United States, legally, to detect for whatever it is that's violating the constitution. And in what sense is it a big fat failure, that's not what we're trying to do? Can you elaborate that as a multivariate regression-Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah. So I think, how to interpret that beginning coefficient, I don't think that coefficient has much of an interpretation, particularly in admissions, because of who applies. And that was, one of the papers that we published on this, is about Harvard's recruiting practices.Scott Cunningham:... Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:And Harvard, they recruit a lot of people. And particularly, African Americans, who simply have no chance of admission. And so, you could make it. And that could be part of the reason, right, would be, we want to appear as though when you do just that one regression with that one variable-Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:... through affecting my applicant pool, I can always make it so that coefficient-Scott Cunningham:So what happening? So if I've got a university, just in real simple sense, let's say a university, if they're white, they span their, they basically task to the university, to whoever, and they say, "Get a pool of white applicants, use this rule. Get a pool of black applicants, use this rule." And it's just very, very different rules.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right.Scott Cunningham:Okay. If I then run a regression, how in the world am I going to detect racial preference in admission, when racial preference was used in the drawing up of the application in the first place?Peter Arcidiacono:So I think that's where, I think one of the principles that, it's not randomization for sure.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:But one of the key principles, is how do you think about selection on observables versus unobservables?Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right, right.Peter Arcidiacono:And so, if you can account, in the case we just described, if it was differences in test scores alone, once you account for test scores, then you could see how they were treated differently. Conditional on those test scores.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And typically, the way that works, is that when you add controls, the coefficient on the discriminated group typically goes down, because there was, because of history discrimination, that there was going to be differences in those things. That was why you had the program in the first place.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:But what's interesting in the case of Asian Americans, is it tends to go in the opposite direction. Right? So they're stronger on a lot of the observables.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:You add controls, it looks like the coefficients becomes more negative. For African Americans-Scott Cunningham:The coefficient, as in, the, so if I did a regression of admit onto an Asian dummy, nothing else, it'll be positive?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, it depends. So it would be positive if you had nothing else, and you excluded legacies-Scott Cunningham:Legacies.Peter Arcidiacono:... and athletes.Scott Cunningham:Okay. So I dropped the legacy and the athletes. I regress admit onto an Asian dummy. Asians are more likely to... So when does the, so what-Peter Arcidiacono:When it's slightly positive and insignificant.Scott Cunningham:... Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:As soon as you add anything related to academic background-Scott Cunningham:So then, I put in high school GPA and zip code, and I start trying to get at these measures of underlying academic performance, observable. And that's when it flips?Peter Arcidiacono:Oh yeah. Yeah. This is something I just did not appreciate before the Harvard case, is how incredibly well Asian Americans are doing academically.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:If you did admissions based solely on academics, over half would be Asian American. That is a stunning number. All groups would go down, and Asian Americans would be the only group that went up.Scott Cunningham:Okay. Say that again. I didn't quite follow. So what will astound me? What would it?Peter Arcidiacono:So Asian Americans, they're in the low twenties, in terms of their share of admits, or something like that.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:When you look at typical applicants.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:If you had admissions based solely on academics-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... with some combination of test scores and grades-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... they would be over half of Harvard's.Scott Cunningham:I see. Got it. They're just, it's just such an incredibly selective group. Selective, in terms of the measures of probable performance and success, and all these things. They are, as a group, high... What's the right word? How do you, this is one of these things, we're using the languages, is really careful. I was going to say, I know economists, we have models that say high type, low type. And obviously, it's like, what's the right way to start talking about these young people? These are young people at the beginning of their, everybody comes at a difference. So what's the right, what's the loving, charitable, honest way of talking about people with these underlying differences?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, I think that, what happened to them before college, was such, that on average, you see tremendous differences-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... in the skills that have been accumulated-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... prior to college.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. So there appears to be, one way you could describe it, is to say, there appears to be differences in human capital.Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. But I think human capital, I guess-Scott Cunningham:Unobservable human capital appears to be different, but it's like showing up on these observable dimensions.Peter Arcidiacono:... That's right.Scott Cunningham:Got it.Peter Arcidiacono:And for me, that doesn't, in any way, point the finger, and say there's something wrong-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... with the groups that aren't doing well on that.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. No.Peter Arcidiacono:And in fact, there's some people who argue, look, the differences in test scores, the reason African American score worse on the tests, is because of stereotype threat.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And that idea is that everybody expects them to do poorly. And so, they do poorly.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:To me, that's giving the K through 12 education system a pass. There are real differences-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... in the K through 12 education experience-Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:... for African Americans.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:That's what we need to fix.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:We can't shy away from the real issue. And that's actually one of my big concerns with places like the UC system, saying, "We don't want standardized tests anymore." We're just going to ignore that there's a serious deficiency.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:Not that the people are deficient, that the educational system was deficient-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... for these students.Scott Cunningham:It's interesting. It's like, one of the papers I teach a lot, is, I know you're familiar with, is Mark Hoekstra's review of economics and statistics article, on the returns to attending the state flagship school. I've always thought-Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:... that this really interesting study, it feels relevant to what you're working on with Harvard and UNC, because it's about, I feel like when I was in graduate school, I came away from my labor courses, just realizing attending college is crucial. College is an anti-poverty program, as far as I can tell. You could see it in my work on crime, with the, you and I actually have some similar backgrounds. We're both interested in sex ratios and marriage markets.Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:But you could see the incarceration rate of African American men just plummeting, with college attainment, levels of college enrollment. But so, it's like, I graduated thinking, "Oh, well, the returns to college are important." But then, it's like, Mark's paper highlighted that there was this heterogeneity, even there. Even in these, in terms of the flagship school and Harvard.Peter Arcidiacono:Right.Scott Cunningham:And the reason why this stuff is important, I feel like it gets into these complicated things with regards to how we've decided to organize America, because the United States, we purchase goods and services using, goods and services go into the utility function. In many ways, that's the, trying to get utility functions that are virtuous and correlated with a life that's worth living, is the big goal. But we buy those goods and services at market prices, using labor income. And so, then, it always wraps back into this issue about something like Harvard or Chapel Hill, which is, some of these schools have imbalanced returns that affect labor income and quality of life, or might arguably, subjective wellbeing, as it's measured by utility. And I guess I'm just sitting here thinking to myself, if you have a group of people who are just for historical, it's not even historical accident, because they were historically discriminated against in the United States.Scott Cunningham:But at this point, it's a stock. African Americans have come to the table with this different kind of human capital, that's going to end up shaping all of their labor income. It's going to have massive impacts on labor income, where they go to college. It's like, I don't see how you can separate out the fact that there, we've got to decide, collectively, what exactly is the goal for these different groups of people that live here in the United States, and that one of the existing mechanisms for income, is college. And it all wraps back into this whole issue, about what exactly should the composition of the student body be, given these ridiculously imbalanced returns to each of these individual schools?Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. But I think that some of those things could be balanced more, if we were doing the things that were actually successful in changing the human capital-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... upfront. And so, one of the most, it was really disappointing, in my mind, when, after Floyd, I think KIPP Charter schools decided that their motto was no longer appropriate. Be nice, work hard. And I say that, mainly because no excuse charter schools, which no excuse, that's something that you can't really say quite the same way now.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:These schools were incredibly successful at closing the achievement gap.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:They were actually very successful.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:We could be doing that. That's where the resources ought to go.Scott Cunningham:Right, right.Peter Arcidiacono:Instead, what you see in California now, is they're getting rid of advanced classes. There's two ways to deal with an achievement gap, right? You can bring the people who aren't doing as well, up.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:Or you could bring the people who are doing well, down. The getting rid of the advanced classes, is not bringing, in my mind, those students up.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And if anything, it's providing huge advantages to people of means, because you cripple the public education system, take the path out for them to develop that human capital.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And then, the people with resources send their kids to private schools, so that stuff isn't going to go on.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And that's where I think a lot of the discussion, we can talk about affirmative action at Harvard. At the end of the day, that's really about appearances. The people are going to Harvard are all, most of them are coming from an incredibly rich backgrounds.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:Regardless of what race. There are differences across the races. But that's where the action is.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:And that's what we typically focus on in education. But where we really need to be doing more, is for the lower income kids.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:And COVIDs is going, we're starting to see that that's going to be a train wreck. Our education for this kids who went to-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... public schools.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There's certain elasticities, that I think COVID highlights, which is that there's a, there are groups of students who, probably, their ability to substitute to the best case scenario in a very difficult situation, was really, they had a very high, they were able to do it. It may not have been, it wasn't a perfect substitute. They were able to continue to do it. And I think for some groups of students, it was a train wreck.Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Just their ability to make those substitutions to whatever was required, could be anything ranging from the access to physical resources, like computing, computers, and wifi that's stable, and all these things, to, just simply, the way your brain works. Just being able to be present. I definitely think that COVID cut a mark through the students, that, it did in our family, completely cut a mark through students in weird jagged way, for sure.Peter Arcidiacono:But within your family, you're able to substitute in ways that other families cannot.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And that's the catch. And I think that, I don't work a lot in the K through 12 space, so this is a non-expert opinion on that. But if my read on the studies, is if you find positive effects of, say, charter schools, Catholic schools, smaller class size, if you're going to find positive effects for anyone, it's going to be inner city African Americans. And I think that the reason that you see that, is the way family substitutes, that they're not, their families are not in as good of a position to substitute-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... the way my family is. My kid has a bad teacher, we're going to do the bad effects.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:So you're going to think, "Oh, the teacher's fine." But no, we even did the effects of that teacher, in ways that other families cannot.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. Right. So what do you think is the smoking gun evidence, that that Harvard University has to... What's the smoking gun fact, that's evidence for, that's the most damning evidence for racial discrimination in admissions, that-Peter Arcidiacono:So racial discrimination against Asian Americans, I think that there's a, there's so many damning facts. Well, I'll start with the first one, which is Harvard's own internal offices. They have their own internal research teams. They estimated models of admissions, and consistently found a penalty against Asian Americans.Scott Cunningham:... Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:You could look at that. You'll hear people say, "Well, those are simplistic models." The fit of those models was incredibly high.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:I think. So they were explaining-Scott Cunningham:I think people underestimate the shoe leather sophistication that goes on in these admissions office, with developing their own internal models.Peter Arcidiacono:... Well, and what was striking, is Harvard's defense of this was, "Well, we really didn't understand the model."Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:Well, what was interesting, is that those models also had whether or not you were low income, in it.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:And they were confident that those models, the same model, showed that they were giving a bump to low income students.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:It's like, you're going to interpret the coefficient one way when it's the result you like, and another way, when it's the result you don't like.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right. So their own models showed, so what was the penalty? What was it? It was a dummy, a coefficient on a binary indicator for Asian American, or Asian?Peter Arcidiacono:That's right. That's right.Scott Cunningham:How big was it?Peter Arcidiacono:And then, also, it even had stuff on the personal rating. You can see, there was charts from their office that shows, what do you know, Asian Americans on all of Harvard's ratings, are scoring either much better than whites-Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:... or the same as whites, even on the alumni personal rating. So Harvard has these alumni interview, the students, and even on that, Asian Americans are doing similarly to whites.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:And then, you see their own personal rating, based, not on meeting with the applicants. They do much, much worse.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Well, so what does Harvard have to prove?Peter Arcidiacono:Well, I think typically, in something like discrimination cases, well, what they have to prove, probably depends on the judge, I suppose-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... is the catch. What they were able to say at trial, were things like, "Well, the teachers must be giving them poor ratings. We don't think that Asian Americans are deficient on personal qualities, but maybe the teachers are scoring them poorly." How that is an excuse. I don't-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. I don't see what they're trying to... This is, I guess, where it's frustrating, because I'm struggling to know exactly what the objective function for Harvard is, in their own stated goals. What is their objective function? To create a particular kind of cohort? What is the cohort?Peter Arcidiacono:... Well, I think you'd get a lot of gobbledygook when it comes to that-Scott Cunningham:That's what I was wondering. Yeah. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:... Yeah. So, but I think it is also interesting to think about the counterfactual of, if this case was not associated with affirmative action at all-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... would it have played out the same way? And to me, I think the answer is no. Honestly, I don't think Card even takes the case.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:I think it would've been a much better... Your worse look for Harvard than it was. I think that it was a bad look for Harvard as it was, but because of who brought the case, and because of its ties to affirmative action, that gets back to that waffle analogy, right? If you look at it in the context of the waffle, there's just simply no argument in my mind, for the way they're treating Asian Americans.Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:It's a clear cut discrimination case.Scott Cunningham:Mm.Peter Arcidiacono:And if you just put it in a different context, it would just be completely unacceptable. Imagine Trump Towers having a discrimination suit brought against them by black applicants. And the defense being, "Look, it's not that we're discriminating against black applicants. They just happen to score poorly in our likability rating."Scott Cunningham:Mm-hmm.Peter Arcidiacono:That would be outrageous.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:There would be protests. This is because it's tied to that third rail of affirmative action.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:But to me, the judge could have ruled, "Look, you can have affirmative action, but you got to stop discriminating against Asian Americans relative to whites.Scott Cunningham:So then, if you could fill up half of Har... So is this what the thing is? Harvard, as a university, collectively, however this ends up being decided, collectively, they have a preference over their student composition.Peter Arcidiacono:Right.Scott Cunningham:And that preference is discriminatory.Peter Arcidiacono:Their preference, I think, lines up with Kendi's in some sense. They would like to have their class look like the population.Scott Cunningham:They would like to have it look like, that they would like 13% African American, whatever percent, what is it, Asian American is what, five, is single digit?Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. And they would like to have a balanced portfolio of Americans.Peter Arcidiacono:And, but even that, I think, is giving Harvard too much credit, in the sense that, what we choose to balance on, we choose to balance on skin color.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:You're not balancing on income.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:You're not balancing on parental education.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:A whole bunch of other things you could've balanced on. Why-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. There's like an infinite number of character. Every person is a bundle of, just almost an infinite number of characteristics. And it's not practically... Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... If you really want a representative class, then you do a lottery among high school graduates.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly.Peter Arcidiacono:That would be the only way.Scott Cunningham:That would be the only way, the only way it would be to have a randomized student body. Okay.Peter Arcidiacono:Do you feel like ask this about, was by somebody from a class at Duke, about how would you make the admissions process more equitable?Scott Cunningham:Uh-huh.Peter Arcidiacono:And I'm like, it's a selective admissions process. I don't even know what that-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... means. Even a process where you did the lottery, why is that equitable, because you've got the winners and the losers? The lottery. We're not equalizing outcomes for everybody. We're equalizing X anti.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. It's like, this is all this comp, this is this deep collective choice, social preferences questions about... And it's weird. I guess we're talking about this at Harvard, because we believe that Harvard University will literally change a kid's life, more than going to University of Tennessee, Knoxville, or something like that. Right? That's why we're having this conversation.Peter Arcidiacono:Yeah. I think that that's the perception, that it will literally change their kids' lives.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:I'm not totally convinced that of there being massive gains-Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:... relative to the counterfactual for-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... at that level.Scott Cunningham:Right.Peter Arcidiacono:I think, when you're at the margin of going to college or not-Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:... that's the big margin.Scott Cunningham:That's the big margin. Yeah. Yeah.Peter Arcidiacono:College quality effects, I think get undone a little bit by college major effects.Scott Cunningham:Right, right, right.Peter Arcidiacono:So yeah. I think that's a real valid question, about whether it
This week I have the pleasure of introducing Dr. Anna Aizer, professor of economics at Brown University and editor-in-chief at the Journal of Human Resources. I am a long time admirer of Dr. Aizer’s work and have followed her career with curiosity for a long time. Some of her papers imprinted pretty strongly on me. I’ll just briefly mention one.Her 2015 article in the prestigious Quarterly Journal of Economics with Joe Doyle on juvenile incarceration, for instance, has haunted me for many many years. It was the first or second paper I had seen at the time that had used the now popular “leniency design” to examine the causal effect of being incarcerated as a youth on high school completion and other outcomes as well as adult incarceration. Simply comparing those outcomes for those incarcerated and those not incarcerated as a kid will not reveal the causal effect of juvenile incarceration if juvenile incarceration suffers from selection bias on unobservable confounders. So Dr. Aizer with Joe Doyle used a clever approach to overcome that problem in which they found quasi-random variation, disconnected from the unobserved confounder, in juvenile incarceration caused by the random assignment of juvenile judges. As these judges varied in the propensity to sentence kids, they effectively utilized the judges’ own decisions as life changing lotteries which they then used to study the effect of juvenile incarceration on high school and adult incarceration. And the findings were bleak, depressing, enraging, upsetting, sad, all the emotions. They found that indeed being assigned to a more strict judge substantially raised one’s chances of being sentenced as a kid. Using linked administrative data connecting each of those kids to their Chicago Public School data as well as Cook County incarceration data, they then found that being incarcerated significantly increased the effect of committing a criminal offense as an adult, and it decreased the probability of finishing high school. The kids, best they could tell, mostly didn’t return after their juvenile incarceration, but if they did return, they were more likely to be given a emotional and behavioral disorder label in the data. My interpretation was always severe — incarceration had scarred the kids, traumatizing them, and they weren’t the same. The paper would haunt me for various personal reasons as I saw a loved one arrested and spent time in jail on numerous occasions. I would see kids in my local community who had grown up with our kids arrested and think of Dr. Aizer' and Joe Doyle’s study, concluding the most important thing I could do was bail them out. The paper was one of many events in my own life that led me to transition my research to mental illness within corrections and self harm attempts by inmates even. But there’s other personal reasons I wanted to interview Dr. Aizer. Dr. Aizer went to UCLA where she studied with Janet Currie, Adriana Lleras-Muney and Guido Imbens. Recall that when Imbens was denied tenure at Harvard, he went to UCLA. Currie, who had attended Princeton at the same time as Angrist, Imbens’ coauthor on many papers on instrumental variables in the 1990s, was an original economist focused on the family, but unlike Becker and others, brought with her that focused attention to finding variation in data that could plausibly recover causal effects. The story, in other words, of Princeton’s Industrial Relations Section and design based causal inference, going back to Orley Ashenfelter, was spreading through the profession through the placements of scholars at places like UCLA, which is where Dr. Aizer was a student. In this storyline in my head, Dr. Aizer was a type of first generation member of the credibility revolution, and I wanted to talk to her not only for her scholarly work’s influence on me, but also because I wanted to continue tracing Imbens and Angrist’s influence on the profession through UCLA. The interview, though, was warm and interesting throughout. Dr. Aizer is a bright light in the profession working on important questions in the family, poverty and public policy. For anyone interested in the hardships of our communities and neighborhoods, I highly recommend to you her work. Now let me beg for your support. Scott’s Substack and the podcast, Mixtape with Scott, are user supported. If your willingness to pay for the episodes and the explainers (I’m going to write some more I promise!), please consider becoming a subscriber! Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.TranscriptScott Cunningham:In this week's episode of the Mix Tape podcast, I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Anna Aizer, professor of economics at Brown University in Rhode Island and editor in chief of the Journal of Human Resources. I have had a keen interest in Anna Aizer and her career and her work for a couple of reasons. Actually a lot, but here's two. First, she did her PhD at UCLA when Janet Currie was there, as well as when Guido Imbens was there. Imbens taught there after he left Harvard, for those of you that remember that interview I did with him. Recall my overarching conviction that Princeton's industrial relations section, which was where Orley Ashelfeltner, David Card, Alan Kruger, Bob Lalonde, Josh Angrist originated from, as well as Janet Currie.My conviction that this was the ground zero of design based causal inference. And that design based causal inference spread through economics, not really through econometrics, and econometrics textbooks, but really through applied people. She also worked with Adriana Lleras-Muney, who's also at UCLA now, who was a student of Rajeev Dehejia, who wrote a seminal work in economics using propensity score, who was also Josh Angrist’s student at MIT. So you can see, Anna fits my obsession with a sociological mapping out of the spread of causal inference through the applied community.But putting aside Anna as being instrumentally interesting, I am directly interested in her and her work on domestic violence and youth incarceration among other things. I've followed it super closely, teach a lot of these papers all the time, think about them even more. In this episode, we basically walked through her early life in Manhattan to her time at Amherst College, to her first jobs working in nonprofits, in areas of reform and poverty, to graduate school. We talked about her thoughts about domestic violence and poverty and crime along the way, too. And it was just a real honor and a pleasure to get to talk to her. I hope you like it as much as me. My name is Scott Cunningham and this is Mix Tape podcast. Okay. It's really great to introduce my guest this week on the podcast, Anna Aizer. Anna, thank you so much for being on the podcast.Anna Aizer:Pleasure to be here. Thanks so much for inviting me.Scott Cunningham:Before we get started, could you tell us obviously your name and your training and where you work?Anna Aizer:Sure. I'm a professor of economics at Brown University. I did my PhD at UCLA oh many years ago. Before that actually I got a masters in public health. Sorry. I have a strong public health interest and focus in a lot of my work. I'm also currently the co-director of the NBR program on children. That is a program at the NBR that is focused entirely on the economics of children and families. I'm the editor in chief of the Journal of Human Resources.Scott Cunningham:Great. It's so nice to meet in person. I've been a long time reader of your papers because you write about these topics on violence against women. There's not a lot of people in economics that do. And the way that you approach it shares a lot of my own thoughts. I'm going to talk about it later, but it's really nice to meet in person.Anna Aizer:Sure. Nice to meet you, too.Scott Cunningham:Okay. I want to break up the conversation a little bit into your life. First part, just talk about your life growing up. And then the second part, I want to talk about research stuff. So where did you grow up?Anna Aizer:I grew up in New York City.Scott Cunningham:Oh, okay.Anna Aizer:Yeah, I did.Scott Cunningham:Which, borough was it?Anna Aizer:Manhattan.Scott Cunningham:Oh, okay.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Yeah. Upper side. But when I went off to college, I went to rural Massachusetts.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I went to Amherst, which is a very small liberal arts college in the Berkshires. That was a very different experience for me. And believe it or not, I was not an econ major.Scott Cunningham:Oh, you weren't?Anna Aizer:In fact I was not. I only took one econ course my entire four years in college.Scott Cunningham:Oh, wow. Wait, so what'd you major in?Anna Aizer:I majored in American studies with a focus on colonial American history and literature.Scott Cunningham:Mm. On literature. Oh, that's what I majored in, too.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, wow. So early American history. So what, was this was the 1700s or even-Anna Aizer:Yeah. So I did a lot of 17, 1800s, a lot of the New Republic period. My undergraduate thesis was actually on girls schooling in the Early Republic.Scott Cunningham:Oh wow. What was the deal with girls schooling in the Early Republic?Anna Aizer:What was the deal with the girls schooling? Well, it depends. For most of the Northeast, the focused on girls schooling was really this idea that it was a new country, they were going to have to have leaders in this new country, and someone had to educate those leaders. Someone had to educate those little boys to grow up, to go ahead and lead this country. And so the idea was, well, we had to start educating moms so that they could rear boys who could then go on to this great nation.Scott Cunningham:I see. Women's education was an input in male leadership?Anna Aizer:That's correct.Scott Cunningham:Got it. Got it. Wow. Okay. Well, that's interesting. I get that. You start educating women though, I suspect that you get more than just male leaders.Anna Aizer:I think that's right. It was an unintended consequence.Scott Cunningham:Unintended consequence. They didn't think that far ahead. Okay.Anna Aizer:Yeah. That's a very good point to make, because two women who were educated in one of the first schools dedicated to educating women so that they could go on and rear their boys to be strong leaders were Katherine Beecher, who went on to create one of the most important girls schools in Troy, New York. And Harriet Beecher Stowe of course, who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin.Scott Cunningham:They're related?Anna Aizer:Yeah. They are sisters. They are sisters.Scott Cunningham:Oh, they're sisters.Anna Aizer:They were one of the first sets of girls who were educated in this mindset of we need leaders so let's have some educated moms. And they of course had other ideas and they went and formed schools and wrote incredibly important works of fiction that ended up playing a pretty significant role in the Civil War.Scott Cunningham:Wow. Was this the thing over in England too? Or was this just an American deal?Anna Aizer:I don't know the answer to that.Scott Cunningham:Huh. I guess they have a different production function for leaders in England where as we it's very decentralized here or something. Right?Anna Aizer:Right. So you're saying in England they already had their system of you go to Eaten, and then you go to Cambridge or Oxford. Right. I think that's probably right. So we didn't have that here.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. That's right. I mean, you're creating everything from scratch. And with such a reactionary response to England who knows what kinds of revolutionary approaches you're taking to... That's probably pretty revolutionary, right? Say we're going to teach women even though it's in order to produce male leaders, it's still thinking outside the box a little bit.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I suppose that's true. Yeah.Scott Cunningham:That's cool. How come you didn't end up in... So you end up at Amherst. As a kid in Manhattan, what were you doing? You were reading books and stuff? You were a big reader?Anna Aizer:I suppose. Yeah. I suppose so.Scott Cunningham:Is that what drew you to Amherst, a liberal arts college?Anna Aizer:I don't really know. I don't think I actually knew what I wanted until much later in life. I was an American studies major, which at the time I learned a lot. It took me a while to gravitate to economics. Once I did, it was clear that that was really the right path for me.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. One question I want to leave your kid. So your parents let you ride the subway when you were a little kid?Anna Aizer:Oh yes.Scott Cunningham:Oh gosh. I bet that was so cool.Anna Aizer:Oh yes. I grew up in New York City during the '70s and '80s, which was far more dangerous than it was today. But at that time parents had a much more hands off approach to parenting. I think I was eight years old when I started taking public transportation by myself.Scott Cunningham:Oh my gosh. There was latch key parents back then?Anna Aizer:Sure.Scott Cunningham:So you jump on the subway. Where are you going at eight years old in Manhattan?Anna Aizer:You go to school.Scott Cunningham:You're just catching the subway to go to school?Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Oh, that's so cool. I bet you had a great childhood.Anna Aizer:I have to say it was pretty good.Scott Cunningham:Oh man.Anna Aizer:I can't complain.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. I grew up in a small town in Mississippi, but it was the same kind of thing. Well, it was very different than Manhattan, but just being able to have that level of... It's all survivor bias. The other kids that are getting really neglected and abused. But those of us that made it out a lot it's like, all you have is great memories of being able to do whatever.Anna Aizer:Right. Agreed.Scott Cunningham:So you wrote this thesis. At Amherst, did everybody write a thesis? Is that real common?Anna Aizer:Most people did. I think a third of the students wrote a thesis. It was very common.Scott Cunningham:But you're gravitating towards research, though?Anna Aizer:Yeah. So it was clear that I really, really enjoyed that a lot. In fact, more recently in my economic research I have done a lot more historical work than I had done initially. So I think that training has really come in handy.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. What did you like about that project that you wrote your thesis on? What did it make-Anna Aizer:Well, it was really a lot of fun. I focused on two schools in particular. I focused on this school in Lichfield, Connecticut, and another school in Pennsylvania, a Quaker school in Westtown. I focused on those two schools because those two schools, for whatever reason, kept a lot of their records. They have really wonderful-Scott Cunningham:Oh my God. You had their records?Anna Aizer:Yeah. So you have really wonderful archives where you could just go through and read all about what they were thinking about, when they founded the schools, what the curriculum should be like. And even some of the writings of some of the students and teachers.Scott Cunningham:Oh my gosh.Anna Aizer:So it was really just a tremendous amount of fun to read all of that stuff, all that primary materials.Scott Cunningham:Oh my gosh. Wait. Did you actually have the names of the kids? Did you see their-Anna Aizer:Sure. They had all of that.Scott Cunningham:Did you have the census records and stuff?Anna Aizer:Oh, I guess you could. I mean, this was so long ago before people were doing all that cool linking, but yeah, you absolutely could.Scott Cunningham:Oh, that's so neat. I wonder where those kids ended up. What did it make you feel doing that research, that was so original and just being out there in these archives?Anna Aizer:Well, it was just amazing how much you could learn by just peeking into people's lives. It was really exciting. It was really fun. And you just felt like you were discovering something new.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So you liked that. But that's interesting because some people would be like, oh, discovering something new. I don't even care about that. When you were discovering something new, you were like, I like this feeling.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Yeah. I really did.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Anna Aizer:I really did.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. So what happened? So you graduate?Anna Aizer:I graduated. My first job was actually working for an Alternative To Incarceration program in New York City. So I moved back home. You have to remember, this was early mid '90s, and this was the peak in terms of crime rates in the country, and in New York City in particular. And the jails-Scott Cunningham:Before you say this, when you were growing up, did your parents... Was it like people were cognizant... I mean, now you know, oh, it was the peak because it's fallen so much, but what was the conversation like as a kid about crime?Anna Aizer:In the '90s in New York City at this time, that was really the crack cocaine epidemic, so there was a lot of talk about that. That really did dominate a lot of the media at the time. It really was a big concern.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Anna Aizer:As we know, the city and the state, not just in New York, but nationally, really responded with very tough on crime approach, started incarcerating a lot of people. So much so that they were really out of space in the New York City jail. So Rikers Island was at capacity, even upstate prisons were pretty full. The city, not because they were concerned that we were putting too many people in jail, which has... After the fact we know that we did put too many people in jail, that there was a cost to these incredibly high incarceration rates.Anna Aizer:At the time, the concern was that we don't have enough space, so what are we going to do? The city funded an Alternative To Incarceration program for youth. It was called the Court Employment Project. It was really focused on kids between the ages of 16 and 21 who were charged with a felony in New York state Supreme Court. And these were kids who were being charged as adults, treated as adults in the system. New York City has since raised the age of majority, but at that time it was 16. So we were focused on really younger 16 to 21. Well then, most of the kids we were working with were 16 to 18.Scott Cunningham:What kind of felonies are we talking about? Is this the drug felonies? Or is it [inaudible 00:15:51]?Anna Aizer:Yeah. So a lot of it was possession with intent to sell, selling. But also robbery, that was pretty common as well. We were only working with kids that were facing at least six months in adult prison, essentially. That was the rule for our program. Because again, our program was really focused on trying to reduce the number of people who were being detained and incarcerated for long periods of time. So we were only dealing with people who had-Scott Cunningham:Wait, real quick. So you're in your early 20s?Anna Aizer:Yeah. So I would've been about 23.Scott Cunningham:How'd you find this gig? You were just going back to New York City? Or what was the deal?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I knew I wanted to go back home. At that time, jobs were advertised in the paper, so you looked through the help wanted ads and you just sent cover letters and resumes by mail to whatever jobs appealed to you. I was interested in those jobs. I was also interested in working with public defenders, so the Legal Aid Society in New York, I applied for a number of jobs there.Scott Cunningham:Where's this coming from? What's your values exactly at this time? You're concerned about poverty or concerned about something? What's the deal?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think I guess I already was really worried. I was really concerned about low income kids who were really... I felt already were getting derailed at very young ages in a way that I thought would be very hard for them to recover. I think that in that sense was really confirmed when I started working that these were kids who in a split minute their lives were just totally changed. So certainly in the case of things like robberies, these were often group of kids with not much to do, just getting into trouble, and it just getting too far too quick. And before they knew it, they were facing two to six years. I mean, it was just really tragic.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I know. Six months. You think about it, too. You're looking at these six months in the program. You start looking at six months and you think, oh, that's six months. The thing is, those things cascade, because six months with a felony record serving prison becomes de facto a cycle of repeated six months, one year, two years.Anna Aizer:Sure.Scott Cunningham:You just end up... Well, that's going to be a paper that you end up writing, so I'll hold off on that. Okay. So you end up applying, you spray the city with all these resumes. And then this thing. So what is this company? This is a nonprofit?Anna Aizer:Yep. So it's a nonprofit that had a contract with the city. They had a contract with the city. Again, they were funded really because the city could not afford to put any more people on Rikers Island.Scott Cunningham:So it's like a mass incarceration response almost?Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Capacity constraints.Anna Aizer:They were at capacity, so they needed to do something. So what this program was, it was an intensive supervision program. The kids had to come in at least twice a week and meet with a counselor. The counselor would provide counseling services and also check in on them, make sure they were going to school or working or getting their GED. And then they would write up these long reports.Anna Aizer:I only worked in the courts, so I wasn't doing any of the counseling myself. I had no qualifications to do that. I worked in the courts, so my job was to screen kids for eligibility for the program, interview them, see if they were good candidates. Then talk to their families, talk to their lawyers. And then talk to the judge eventually about the program and about what we would be doing and why we thought this person was a good candidate. And then once they were in the program, I would then provide updates or reports back to the judge and the defense attorney to let them know how the individual was doing.Scott Cunningham:And wait. What is the treatment going to be that things are doing?Anna Aizer:Again, so it was really-Scott Cunningham:It's a deferment of you're going to go to jail?Anna Aizer:Yeah. That's exactly right. It was a six month program. If they made it through after six months, they would be sentenced to probation instead of jail time.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. They would refer adjudication type concept.Anna Aizer:Exactly.Scott Cunningham:Right. Yeah.Anna Aizer:Exactly. So that was the idea.Scott Cunningham:But it's non random. And I know you're not-Anna Aizer:It was, yeah.Scott Cunningham:You're not thinking about the future Anna Aizer [inaudible 00:21:17], but it's not random.Anna Aizer:No.Scott Cunningham:What is it conditioned on? Because you're doing all of it, right?Anna Aizer:Right. Right. So you look at a kid's record. You would look at whether or not the kid seem to have support. The downside was if a kid didn't make it through the program they might be sentenced to more time-Scott Cunningham:Really?Anna Aizer:than they would have... Maybe. I mean, the judge would-Scott Cunningham:Why? Because you're getting a new judge or something?Anna Aizer:No, it's the same judge. But the judges say, "Look, I'm going to give you a chance. Instead of sending you away now for six to 18, I'm going to give you an opportunity to prove yourself. Six months, stay out of trouble, complete this program. And then I'm going to send you to probation. But if you don't complete the program, I'm going to sentence you more." In the end, they might not have actually done that. They certainly didn't tie their hands in any way.Scott Cunningham:What do they doing? Why are they doing that? Why is a judge doing that? They're trying to deal with some sort of adverse selection or something? They don't want people to-Anna Aizer:They want to create an incentive for the kid to-Scott Cunningham:They're trying to create an incentive for the kid. Got it. Okay.Anna Aizer:Yeah. They-Scott Cunningham:Like a little scared straight thing?Anna Aizer:A little. I mean, the judges always think that. It's not clear that that works. I don't think that really matters so much in the decision making of young people. I think it's-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Totally. Totally.Anna Aizer:But that certainly was on the mind I think of many of the judges.Scott Cunningham:It's funny though. When I think about this paper that we're going to talk about a little bit, it's like you're already aware of, oh, these judges have a little bit of discretion. They're saying a bunch of stuff that's not in the law. "If you don't do this, I'm going to give you penalize, I'm going to give you really bad grade at the end with another year in prison." Did that cross your mind that you were noticing that judges were... This judge does that and this other judge does not tend to do that, is that something you could have noticed?Anna Aizer:Absolutely.Scott Cunningham:Oh, wow.Anna Aizer:Yeah. So there were many, many judges. So this is Manhattan. This is the main criminal courts in Manhattan, so I had many, many judges, a lot of people. The way it works is once you've been indicted on a felony you come before one of these three judges. They're called conference judges. They try to dispose of the case. Either the case gets dismissed or they take the plea deal. But if that doesn't happen, they reach into a bin, literally a lottery-Scott Cunningham:It's like a bingo ball machine?Anna Aizer:It's a lottery with all these different judges' courtrooms. They pull out a number, and that's the number of the courtroom you get assigned to. You know right then if you get assigned to certain judges, for sure that kid is going to do jail time. And if you get assigned to other judges, for sure that kid is going to get probation.Scott Cunningham:Who knows this? The kids don't.Anna Aizer:The kids don't, but they don't know it.Scott Cunningham:They can't comprehend.Anna Aizer:But their attorney will know it.Scott Cunningham:And then maybe their parents.Anna Aizer:No, I don't think their parents would know.Scott Cunningham:Although, who in a group of kids that maybe their parents aren't as-Anna Aizer:I don't think their parents would know it, either. You would know it because you have to remember that all of the judges for the most part were either defense attorneys or prosecutors before they were judges, and you can tell. The judges who would-Scott Cunningham:Is that the main source of the discretion that you notice?Anna Aizer:I think so. I think so. I think the judges who previously prosecute-Scott Cunningham:I mean, they're such different. It does seem like the prosecutors and the defense attorneys are almost cut from a completely different worldview and set of values.Anna Aizer:I think that's right.Scott Cunningham:I had this friend that was a public defender in Athens and he was like... I think this is what he said. I'm not going to say his name because he probably didn't say this, but I thought he basically said, "I don't like prosecutors because they think they are always guilty."Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:And you could tell. The public defender, they were like, "My whole job is to not do that." I could just imagine that shaping... Either there's a lot of selection into that or that just really... You hear that all the time. There's got to be human capital with that.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I agree. I think they have a different perspective, which is what draws them to either defense work or prosecutorial work. But then you have to remember their jobs are really very different. So the prosecutor he or she is just dealing with the victims, so that's who they're talking to all day. The defense attorney is talking to the defendant and getting to know them and their families. They really just have very different sympathies. And the judges come from one or the other.Scott Cunningham:One or the other.Anna Aizer:So you can see it.Scott Cunningham:So you're a kid, you're young person. What are you feeling over the course of working with this? Tell me a little bit about your growth and the thoughts that you're thinking about.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I really felt like these were kids that just got derailed, that these were kids, they were in a very tough situation. They made a decision and they had no idea what the consequences of that were going to be. Nor should they have. They were 16. It's very hard to know where these things end up. I did feel as though the criminal justice system was way too harsh.Scott Cunningham:You could tell. Because the whole point of this nonprofit you're working on is a response to such an excessive amount of penalization. They literally don't have any room.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. They don't have any room for anybody.Anna Aizer:Yeah. They had no room. That's exactly right.Scott Cunningham:We're doing so much punishment we can't even do it right.Anna Aizer:That's exactly right. In the juvenile and criminal justice system, more generally, there's a disproportionate involvement of Black and Hispanic youth.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Anna Aizer:But they are 100% poor.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right.Anna Aizer:So that's the other thing. And that just seemed incredibly unfair to me.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right.Anna Aizer:And it's not the case that not poor kids don't also mess up. They do.Scott Cunningham:They just can avoid the 10,000... There's 10,000 events from the mess up to the things that these kids are facing in this program that they have many ways of mitigating it.Anna Aizer:Yeah. That's right.Scott Cunningham:There's even in terms of parents spending a ton of money, or just saying you can't hang out with these people. There's a bunch of stuff that poor families just are like... So you're feeling heavyhearted.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:You could have gone in a different direction. You could have not gone to graduate school or gone to get this master's. What's the decision criteria where you're thinking I've got to go in a new direction?Anna Aizer:Yeah. At a certain point I just felt as though I needed more training. I wanted more of a professional degree, so I got a degree in public health where you learned a lot about the health system and financing and the social determinants of health. I felt like I needed, again, more training. I should say, I went from that job, not directly back to graduate school, but I went and I worked in not a homeless shelter, but a service center for homeless people also in New York City. I went from the criminal justice system to the homeless system. I was there for another year. And then I went back to school.Scott Cunningham:To what, two or three years total between Amherst and graduate school?Anna Aizer:That's correct. Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Anna Aizer:That's correct.Scott Cunningham:It's interesting you go to public health because I think a lot of people that don't know anything about anything, they'll be like, well, she's doing criminal justice so I could have seen her going to law school. Now she's going to the homeless thing. Okay, well, maybe she could do social work. What were the things you were thinking of? And how did you end up choosing public health? Because a lot of people don't associate either of those things with public health. They heard the word health.Anna Aizer:Right. So a couple things. One, I thought about law school, but I felt as though lawyers deal with the problem after it's happened.Scott Cunningham:Right.Anna Aizer:And I felt like maybe we should focus more on preventing.Scott Cunningham:Right.Anna Aizer:And the other thing, when I worked with homeless people I really did start to feel like this was a homeless individuals... Homeless families are different. I worked with homeless single adults, and for the most part in New York City at that time, all of the homeless single adults had serious mental health problems.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right.Anna Aizer:I really came to see homelessness as a public health problem.Scott Cunningham:A mental health problem.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:They hit public health. Got it.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Anna Aizer:So that's really how... I could have done social work, but that's not really what I wanted to do.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. But it's funny you say preventative. To me when I hear that I'm thinking, oh, Anna's already starting to think about public policy.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think I was.Scott Cunningham:I wouldn't necessarily think that if you were to tell me you went and got a master's in social work.Anna Aizer:Yeah. No, I think that's [inaudible 00:31:54]-Scott Cunningham:Because that cold be clinical or much more working with the... You would've had that experience and you'd be like, I want to work with these families. But that's not what you thought, so something else is going on. So you're thinking I want to do what?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think I really was interested in policy already then.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. And that makes the masters of public health make a lot of sense.Anna Aizer:Correct. Yeah.Scott Cunningham:I see. So where'd you end up going, Harvard?Anna Aizer:I went to Harvard. Yeah. I got a masters in health policy and administration. And then I moved to DC. I worked for Mathematica policy research for two years, and I learned a lot about policy research.Scott Cunningham:Are you getting a quantitative training at the master's of public health when you went?Anna Aizer:Yeah, so that's where I really took my first micro theory class and my first statistics class. So I took biostatistics and micro theory there. And when I worked at Mathematica, I worked with a lot of economists. So most of the senior researchers at Mathematica were economists by training. That's where I really got exposure to the way economists think about, research and policy evaluation. It was then that I decided I wanted to go back and get a PhD in economics.Scott Cunningham:Okay. So what was it? What's the deal? Why do you like economics at this point?Anna Aizer:The senior researchers at Mathematica were either economists or sociologists or political scientists. I just felt like the economists had a very clear way in which they set up problems. I think that goes back to economic models of decision making.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right.Anna Aizer:And it just struck me that that was just a very good way to conceptualize almost any problem. I also liked the way they thought about data. I think the people that I worked most closely with and came to admire were all economists. So that's how that-Scott Cunningham:And how long were you there? Were you doing public policy stuff at Mathematica?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I was doing a lot of evaluations of Medicaid programs. In particular, Medicaid managed care, moving from a different financing model for Medicaid and evaluating that, and various settings, and writing them policy briefs so that... God. It was either two or three years, I can't really remember, maybe three years. I think I was there three years and then I went back to graduate school.Scott Cunningham:And then you go to UCLA?Anna Aizer:And then I went to UCLA.Scott Cunningham:Am I right that you were working mainly with Janet Curry?Anna Aizer:Yes. So Janet Curry was my-Scott Cunningham:You worked pretty closely with her?Anna Aizer:Yeah. She was my main advisor. The other folks I worked with were Joe Huts and Jeff Grogger.Scott Cunningham:And who?Anna Aizer:Jeff Grogger.Scott Cunningham:Oh, Jeff Grogger?Anna Aizer:None of whom are there anymore.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. Right. I'm just curious. I associate you a lot with... Because I wrote that book on causal inference I'm obsessed with the causal inference stuff in all these weird ways, with all the people. I see Princeton industrial relations section, Card, Angres, et cetera. And then I see Janet Curry. And then I see you at UCLA, and I associate you so much with that methodological approach, especially for some of the papers that I've known really well. Did you get a sense when you were at UCLA, oh, this is causal inference, this is different, this is the credibility revolution? Or was it just really subtle, or this is just how you do empirical work?Anna Aizer:That's a great question. So I should also say that my first year econometrics teacher was Hero Inmans.Scott Cunningham:Was it, really?Anna Aizer:Yeah. Hero [inaudible 00:36:18] UCLA.Scott Cunningham:Oh my gosh. I didn't know that.Anna Aizer:For a short period of time. I was lucky enough that he was there when I was there. So he taught me in my first and my second years. So of course he was very much big part of this. And actually Enrico Moretti was also at UCLA when I was there, so I took courses with him. I think between Janet, Hero, Enrico and Joe Huts, they were really in the thick of it. That was the way it was done.Scott Cunningham:That was the way it was done.Anna Aizer:That was the way it was done.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. What did you learn? What do you think the salient concepts were that had you... This is a make believe, right? But I'm just saying, had you gone to a different school where you didn't have any of those people, what do you think the salient econometric causal inference kind of things were to you that you were like, oh, this is what I notice I keep doing over and over again, or keep thinking about?Anna Aizer:Well, I would say that the method was in service to the question. I feel as though I'm seeing it more these days. People, they find an experiment, a natural experiment, and then they figure out the question. That's not how I remember it. You had the question and then the method was in service to that question. I worry that that's getting a little bit lost these days, that people have the experiment and then they're searching for the question. I think that ends up being less interesting and less important.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. There were certain economists, I think, that were so successful as approaching it that way. It seems like it was cut both ways, because it seems like applied causal inference grew on the back of that kind of natural experiment first, but it almost becomes... To a kid with a hammer, everything's a nail, so it's just like, look through the newspaper, look for a natural experiment. What can I do? How can I do this? How can I [handle 00:38:49]?Scott Cunningham:And it is funny. I don't think it's as satisfying too, just even emotionally. I guess you can find discoveries that way, like you were, but it does feel like you don't end up building up all the human capital with the importance of that question. It's almost like, you're like, well, how can I make this question really important? As opposed to it is important.Anna Aizer:Right.Scott Cunningham:What were you studying? I know what you were studying. At UCLA, what was the question that you were really captivated by?Anna Aizer:So I was really focused on health. You have to remember, I'd done a master's in public health and I just worked at Mathematica, so I was really focused on health. So really all of my dissertation was on health. My main dissertation chapter was actually on Medicaid in California. It was on the importance of enrolling kids early in Medicaids. I don't know if you know much about the Medicaid program, but there are many kids, 60% of kids, who are uninsured are actually eligible for the Medicaid program, but not enrolled in the Medicaid program. And that's partly because-Scott Cunningham:60%?Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Wow.Anna Aizer:We could reduce the number of kids who are uninsured in this country by more than half if you just enrolled all those kids who were eligible for Medicaid in the program.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Anna Aizer:And part of the-Scott Cunningham:We saw that in that Oregon Medicaid experiment.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Oregon was mostly adults. I don't know how these numbers differ for adults and kids. I'm really more focused on kids. It's partly by design because Medicaid is a program. If you show up at the hospital and you don't have insurance and you're eligible for Medicaid, the hospital will enroll you. And most people know that.Scott Cunningham:Oh, is that right?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I mean, because they have every interest. They want to get paid, so they'll enroll you in the Medicaid program, but there's a cost to that. Because what that means is that kids, if parents know that once they go to the hospital their kid will be enrolled in the Medicaid program should they need hospitalization, they don't end up getting them enrolled prior to that. So they miss out on the ambulatory preventative care that might prevent them from being hospitalized to begin with. And that's partly because of the structure of the program, but that's also because the states made it difficult for kids to enroll in the Medicaid program. In California, there was a big change. The application for Medicaid used to be 20 pages long. Imagine that, right? They cut it down to four.Scott Cunningham:What kind of stuff are they asking on those 20 pages?Anna Aizer:Who knows? Who knows what they're asking.Scott Cunningham:Good grief. I mean, they're wanting them on there. Are they screening them out or are they just-Anna Aizer:I think that's partly what they were trying to do, right?Scott Cunningham:Screen them out? Because it's expensive.Anna Aizer:It's expensive.Scott Cunningham:You've got some of these legislators, they're like, this is expensive and I don't even want to do this so add a dozen pages.Anna Aizer:Yeah. So just make it hard. Now, what happened in '97 was the child health insurance program, CHIP. And they said, "If you want CHIP money..." So that's federal money to ensure more kids. "If you want CHIP money, federal money, you are going to have to enroll more kids in the Medicaid program. You have to do outreach." So the states actually were forced, and that's actually what prompted California to go from a 20 page application to a four page application. They also spent about $20 million on advertisement and basically training community based organizations in how to complete a Medicaid application. So they train them. "Here, you can help your clients enroll in Medicaid. For every application that you help that ends up getting onto the Medicaid program we'll give you 50 bucks." And this really mattered. A lot of kids started enrolling in the Medicaid program who otherwise wouldn't, particularly Hispanic and Asian American kids.Scott Cunningham:Is this what your dissertation ends up being about?Anna Aizer:This is what my dissertation is about.Scott Cunningham:On both the shortening and the payment?Anna Aizer:So it was basically once they started doing this you started seeing big increases in the number of kids who were enrolled in the Medicaid program. And you saw declines in hospitalizations for things like asthma. Asthma is a condition for which if you're being seen and treated on an ambulatory basis, you shouldn't end up in the hospital.Scott Cunningham:Oh. Wait. So what's your control group and all this stuff?Anna Aizer:What the state did was they targeted different areas, and provided training to those community based organizations in how to complete a Medicaid application. So they gave me all that data.Scott Cunningham:Get out of here.Anna Aizer:So I had all the data.Scott Cunningham:So you're doing some IB thing? You're doing some-Anna Aizer:Yeah. It was, basically if you live in a neighborhood where a community based organization had already been trained then you were much more likely to be enrolled in the Medicaid program. So you can see that.Scott Cunningham:Oh my gosh. This is so cool. Were you excited when you found that?Anna Aizer:I was super excited.Scott Cunningham:I bet.Anna Aizer:I was super excited. This was so old. I was begging Medicaid to send me this data. Begging, begging, begging. And they weren't really answering. And then one day Janet came in to the office where all the graduate students sit, and she said, "I think I got this fax for you." She handed this 20 page fax that has all the data on what community organization got trained and when.Scott Cunningham:Okay. Anna, I want to ask a meta question real quick. You just said, these days people maybe start with natural experiment first, but originally it was question first. Okay. Not devil's advocate, but just a statement of facts. The one reason they may do that is because when you find these kinds of natural experiments or whatever, it almost just feels almost itself random. You're weren't even really looking for it. You read something in the newspaper, you're like, oh my gosh, they're doing this weird thing. And the risk of going question first is, you could have this incredibly important question, like the Medicaid project payment thing, and you're like, if everybody in my department, like Hero Inmans and Moretti and Curry, who are to answer a question either subtly or not so subtly, or to answer a question is going to require this credible design and we really need you to staple this dissertation together. You're going to have to have a-Anna Aizer:I think that's why you have lots-Scott Cunningham:It seems really risky. It seems really risky.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think you have to have lots of ideas.Scott Cunningham:You have to have lots of ideas.Anna Aizer:I think you have lots of ideas. A good friend of mine in graduate school was Enrico Moretti's RA. He told me that Enrico had tons of ideas. Wes, this was my friend, his RA, would just do some really quick takes on all of these ideas. And if there was something there he'd pursue it. But if there was nothing there he'd drop it.Scott Cunningham:What does that mean, nothing there, something there? What does that mean?Anna Aizer:Either, if you can't find exaggerate variation or the exaggerate variation doesn't actually work, you don't have the first stage, he'd just drop it and move on to something else.Scott Cunningham:That's a skill. That's almost some therapeutic skill to be excited about something and willing to let it go.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think that's right. I think that's actually-Scott Cunningham:You got a lot of ideas?Anna Aizer:I had a lot of ideas. It never worked out.Scott Cunningham:Never worked out. And that's normal.Anna Aizer:I think that's normal.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. That's not a bad thing.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think that's how research should go. In fact, I'm not as good as Enrico, I probably hold on to things for longer than I should.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Boy, where'd you end up publishing that work? I should know this, but I don't know.Anna Aizer:That published in Restat Review Economics Institute.Scott Cunningham:Oh, cool. So what'd you end up finding?Anna Aizer:So what I end up finding is if you pay these organizations to enroll... Well, a couple things. Advertisement, just blanketing the television and radio with information. Sign up for Medicaid, sign up for CHIP, that does not work at all.Scott Cunningham:Doesn't work?Anna Aizer:No.Scott Cunningham:Advertising doesn't work?Anna Aizer:It doesn't work. What works is having these communities organizations help families complete the application. That's incredibly important.Scott Cunningham:That's a supply demand kind of philosophy that you see in drugs, too. Mark Anderson has this paper on meth. They would post these advertisements of people that were addicted to meth. They look horrible. They lose their teeth and all this stuff. It didn't do anything.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you're talking about a group of people. They're like, they need more assistance. They need somebody... You think about that thing you were saying earlier about these kids that are higher income versus lower income. When I said there were 10,000 steps that the higher income people had, it wasn't really like the kids, it was external forces that were investing, going after them.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Right.Scott Cunningham:It seems like incentives need to be targeted to people to go after. For whatever reason it is not enough to just simply have it. You need people going in and helping along the way.Anna Aizer:Right. Agreed. I agree. They need support.Scott Cunningham:They need support.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Okay. So that is amazing. I bet your advisors were so proud of you for that project.Anna Aizer:I don't know.Scott Cunningham:I think so.Anna Aizer:You'd hope so, but that'll be icing on the cake.Scott Cunningham:Right. Exactly. Yeah. I guess that's not super important.Anna Aizer:Yeah, it is. You do always want your advisor... I mean, I had tremendous respect for all my advisors. So yeah, I'd be very pleased if they liked the work that I did. Basically, states did spend this money to enroll kids early, but it paid off because it meant that they were less likely to be hospitalized. In fact, some of these programs can be very much cost effective.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. I had told myself, I was like, well, I'm asking Anna about the juvenile incarceration paper with Joe Doyle. And then I was going to ask her about domestic violence. And I feel like I've got to make a hard choice now, because I don't have a lot of time. So I was thinking, well, let's see how this goes. And then we can fit. So domestic violence. First thing I want to ask is, how did you get interested in that topic? And when did it start? In a way I could almost imagine, oh, you've been thinking about domestic violence forever.Anna Aizer:Yes. So I actually-Scott Cunningham:You've been thinking about women ever since college.Anna Aizer:Yeah. That's true. And made that connection. This was basically my first big project after I started at Brown. After my dissertation I was thinking, okay, what's my next big project going to be? And I think that's a very important decision for junior faculty to think about. After you finish publishing your dissertation you got to think about what's my next big project? Because it takes so long to publish anything in economics, that's really going to matter a lot. That might be the only thing you publish before you're coming up for tenure given how long.Anna Aizer:I was thinking about it, and I just felt like I didn't have a clear question in mind, but just been looking at the numbers it's incredibly prevalent, domestic violence. But it's also shown some pretty encouraging trends. Domestic violence against women has been declining pretty significantly. In the US, I think about... I haven't looked the number up recently, but it was about 1,000 women a year were being killed, and so many more actually are victims of domestic violence. And if you look at victimization surveys, between one and three and one in four women in the US report ever being the victim of domestic violence. It's really prevalent. And it just struck me, this is a big problem and I don't know how to answer it, but we should know more about it given just how prevalent it is. And so that's how I started.Anna Aizer:I have a good friend from high school, and she's a lawyer in New York City. She was working with victims of domestic violence. She's a lawyer by training. She used to say, "These women have nothing. They have no resources. They are so poor." That, to me, just made me think about, okay, I need to start thinking about income and resources and poverty and domestic violence, because clearly that's a big part of this.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. It's so funny. I feel like you and I ended up responding to the bargaining theory papers in the exact same way. That's when I was studying a lot of my stuff on couples and things and bad behavior on the part of the men, I was always thinking about sex ratios in the marriage market. Why I was thinking about that was the ability to exit the partnership could be really, really important. And I was curious. You can talk about people not having resources and not necessarily be thinking in terms of one of these Nash bargaining, like Manser and Brown, and McElroy and Horn, and Shelly Lundberg kinds of ways of thinking. I was curious, were you thinking about those theory papers a lot? Or am I just projecting?Anna Aizer:I had this friend, again, who was working and telling me just how poor many of the women she was working with were. And then once you actually look at the statistics, the survey statistics, it's true that any woman can be a victim of domestic violence, but it is really a poor woman problem. So it's very clear to me that poverty has a lot to do with it. It's because many of these women have no other source of support. They have low levels was in schooling. They have few prospects in the labor market. And they're really stuck. That is ultimately-Scott Cunningham:Stuck as in cannot leave.Anna Aizer:Cannot leave. I mean, they have a very-Scott Cunningham:Because that's the solution. That's one of the most important solutions, which is probably you need to leave the relationship.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Or you need to be able to threaten to leave.Scott Cunningham:You need to be able to threaten to leave. How important do you think the credible threat is? Because my sense is, that's to an economist, because they're like, you should thinking about unions and stuff. They're like, oh, credible threats. That's all you got to, you have to do it. I feel like, I don't know if that really works. I actually think the truth is you're going to have to leave. And maybe there's some marginal guy. We're talking about the marginal guy, but whatever, that's the info marginal, whatever. The extensive marginal guy, he's got narcissism personality disorder, substance abuse problems.Anna Aizer:Yeah. You may be right.Scott Cunningham:He's got major, major problems. And that stuff is very inelastic to everything.Anna Aizer:Yeah. You may be right. I can't answer this because I don't know for sure. At the same time I remember talking to some folks about this, and their feeling was that it's all a continuum of a bad relationship. Violence may be one extreme, but relationships have ebbs and flows. They can be better at some points and worse at others. So they did feel as though a relationship didn't always have to be violent, that you could have relationships that were violent at one point but then were no longer. Of course, you also have relationships in which that's not the case, and the only solution is to leave. But there could very well be relationships where you can have better and worse periods.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. The reason why I bring it up is because I feel like these days you hear a lot about mental health. Well, you hear about mental health period, but in domestic violence there'll be also an emerging story of the narcissist personality disorder. I've been always lately thinking, I've been like, I wonder if this is true. Anecdotally, what you see a lot is how manipulative... And that's like a very judgemental way of putting it, but I don't know how else to say it. How manipulative one of the person can be towards the other where they're like, "Well, if you loved me..." They get all this trepped up stories about love. What love becoming almost this story.Scott Cunningham:I've wondered for those people that can't or won't... It's actually won't, right? They can leave. I mean, there are some people they will be literally harmed if they leave, so I'm not talking about those people. But I mean, the person that literally you're watching an equilibrium where they don't leave, I've wondered lately if it's like, the victim is all tangled up with loyalty and love.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Sure.Scott Cunningham:And it is taken advantage of by a person that no one can tell them not to love this person. That's nobody's business.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it is a really complicated thing.Scott Cunningham:It is so complicated. It is so complicated. Finding the policies that provide resources to a person. Some of that might be a person that's at those earlier ebbs too, those earlier ebbs in the bad relationship. And you're like, well, some people may not be ready to leave yet.Anna Aizer:I mean, this a thing where I do think the right policy response is providing resources to women, but also probably interventions aimed at the assailant is probably going to be just as effective. Sorry. My phone is ringing.Scott Cunningham:That's okay.Anna Aizer:Hello. Sorry about that. I thought it might be my kids.Scott Cunningham:I wonder about these battery courts. Have you heard about these [inaudible 01:00:05] courts?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I mean, they're-Scott Cunningham:I wonder what you know about those?Anna Aizer:Yeah. Not a lot, I would say.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. These issues of poverty and mental health and all of these things interacting in order to get healing and healthy meaningful lives to all everyone is... I do think this is something that economists can offer, but it's not something that... I wouldn't say there's a ton of people. You're one of a small number of people working on domestic violence, it seems like.Anna Aizer:It's a very hard thing to study. Data's very difficult to come by for obvious reasons, for a good reason. I mean, this is data that needs to be protected. Glenn Ludwig and the crime lab in Chicago, they're doing work around violence reduction more generally. And probably many of those principles and findings probably relate to domestic violence as well, changing the behavior of young people so that they are less quick to react and less quick to react in a violent way. When they do, we would probably have some pretty important spillover to domestic violence as well, I think.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah, yeah.Anna Aizer:I think there are ways to reduce violence more generally that would probably apply to the setting of domestic violence.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. It's funny, circling back to that judge who threatens with higher penalties. I think economists, when they think about violence and things like that, you're an exception for thinking about outside options and stuff like that, but the shadow of Gary Becker's deterrence hypothesis, it can just be this straight jacket for a lot of people, because they just only think in terms of relative price changes on the punishment margins. When you talk to psychologists, or you read that psychology literature about narcissism or borderline personality disorder or substance abuse, you're talking about a group of people that are, for variety of reasons, have really low discount rates or just have beliefs that things don't apply to them. Or in no uncertain terms, the elasticities of violent behavior with respect to some unknown punishment that you don't even know if it's going to real, it just seems like, we don't really know, but [inaudible 01:03:06] really big.Anna Aizer:Yeah. So there was this criminologist named Mark Kleiman. Do you know that name?Scott Cunningham:Oh yeah. Mark Kleiman. Yeah. Yeah.Anna Aizer:I mean his big thing was, it should be swift, sure and short. That's how we should do punishment. He felt as though that would be far preferable to the system in which there's uncertainty. But if it doesn't work out, you're going to spend a lot of time in jail. He thought that was a fair model.Scott Cunningham:The thing is, though, swift certain and did you say short?Anna Aizer:Short.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Well, with prison sentences lingering on your record it is by definition never short.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:You face these labor market scarrings and you can't get housing, you can't get jobs and that does not go away. So even if the prison sentence is short, the person... I just feel like this is the tension around violence in the country, which is punishment has so many margins where it is permanent. It's got so many margins. And just being in a cage is only one of them.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I mean, particularly for young people, jail is incredibly scarring.Scott Cunningham:Incredibly scarring. Incredibly scarring. We've been studying suicide attempts in the jail and we-Anna Aizer:Yes, that's right.Scott Cunningham:We walked the jail for this one particular jail. I have never in my life seen anything like that. I've been working on this project for four years. I hadn't walked to the jail. I don't know. It's not the first thing that came to my mind. The team finally walked the jail. I spent the whole day there. The jails have so much mental illness in it. They just are in... It's not even cages. A cage has... Air gets in. It's a sealed box. It's like Houdini's box. They stay there, and for a variety of regulatory reasons and so forth, they stay in there. Can't have a lot of materials if they are at risk. If they've come in with psychosis because of substance abuse or underlying mental illness stuff, they might get moved into certain types of physical quarters. I just can't even imagine, just in an hour, let alone... And that's just jail. That's not even prison. It's just absolutely a trauma box.Scott Cunningham:Unfortunately, we didn't get to talk about your paper with Joe Doyle on the juvenile incarceration. But every time I teach that juvenile incarceration paper, where kids were incarcerated as a young person, and then end up not going back. It's not even the future prison part, it's the not going back to high school.Anna Aizer:Oh, of course.Scott Cunningham:And then when they go back, they're labeled with a behavioral emotional disorder. It's really like anybody that's had any exposure to a kid involved in corrections, you're like, oh, I know exactly what that is. They were traumatized. You don't even have to come up with some exotic economic theory. They were traumatized. That's why they come back to school with a behavioral emotional disorder. It is [inaudible 01:06:59].Anna Aizer:Yep. That's good.Scott Cunningham:That paper is one of the most important papers I have personally ever read. I teach it nonstop. And I've even cried teaching it in class. I get so emotional when I get to that part, because, I don't know about you, but it seems like it's really hard not to come away with... A lot of papers you read, you're like, well, we're not really sure exactly all to make of it. But when I read that paper that you wrote, I just think, especially when you think about the leniency design, I just think these kids probably didn't need to go to prison.Anna Aizer:Oh yeah.Scott Cunningham:Honestly, what else are you going to say? They end up committing more crimes. And they are not going back to school. How was this the policy goal? What was it like writing that paper when you started to realize what was going on?Anna Aizer:Again, when I worked in this Alternative to Incarceration program we had kids come into the program who had spent some time in jail. And we had kids who had spent very little time, maybe just a night. The kids who had spent even just three weeks in jail, they always did worse in the program. Always. It was a known fact. The program knew it. And the question was, well, are these kids somehow different? There was a reason why they were in jail and these other kids weren't. Is that why they do worse in the program? Maybe they're in jail because their family didn't show up for them in court. They couldn't make bail.Anna Aizer:Or was it something about spending three weeks in jail that just made it impossible for them to complete the program? This was a big question that was on everybody's mind. We talked about this quite a bit at the program, and we didn't know the answer. When I finally figured out how to do it, working with Joe, I wanted to know the answer to a question that I had been thinking about for over a decade.Scott Cunningham:Gosh. Were you emotionally upset when you started to see coefficients get really big?Anna Aizer:It really was not surprising. It really wasn't, because these are kids who are only marginally attached to school. These are not the kids who were going to school, doing well in school. These are kids who were not really that attached to school for whatever reason. So you take them out even for a month, they're not going to go back. I mean, it's obvious. We saw that in the program. What they ended up doing was moving a lot of kids from school to GED because they had not been involved in school, they were not involved in school. It just was much more likely that they would be able to complete a GED than actually go back to high school and finish.Scott Cunningham:Your paper, it like hit home for personal reasons. We had an event happen. I wrote a professor. I was like, this thing had happened. Anna and Joe find this result. I feel hopeless. There's this kid in town and I raised money for him. Basically, I was like, you just got to do everything in your power to not let them spend an extra minute in jail. And all this scared straight stuff. Parents get into it, too. They're exhausted. They're like, "Well, he's got to learn his lesson." Nobody learns a damn thing in jail. They don't learn a lesson. Because y
This week I have the pleasure of introducing Dr. Anna Aizer, professor of economics at Brown University and editor-in-chief at the Journal of Human Resources. I am a long time admirer of Dr. Aizer's work and have followed her career with curiosity for a long time. Some of her papers imprinted pretty strongly on me. I'll just briefly mention one.Her 2015 article in the prestigious Quarterly Journal of Economics with Joe Doyle on juvenile incarceration, for instance, has haunted me for many many years. It was the first or second paper I had seen at the time that had used the now popular “leniency design” to examine the causal effect of being incarcerated as a youth on high school completion and other outcomes as well as adult incarceration. Simply comparing those outcomes for those incarcerated and those not incarcerated as a kid will not reveal the causal effect of juvenile incarceration if juvenile incarceration suffers from selection bias on unobservable confounders. So Dr. Aizer with Joe Doyle used a clever approach to overcome that problem in which they found quasi-random variation, disconnected from the unobserved confounder, in juvenile incarceration caused by the random assignment of juvenile judges. As these judges varied in the propensity to sentence kids, they effectively utilized the judges' own decisions as life changing lotteries which they then used to study the effect of juvenile incarceration on high school and adult incarceration. And the findings were bleak, depressing, enraging, upsetting, sad, all the emotions. They found that indeed being assigned to a more strict judge substantially raised one's chances of being sentenced as a kid. Using linked administrative data connecting each of those kids to their Chicago Public School data as well as Cook County incarceration data, they then found that being incarcerated significantly increased the effect of committing a criminal offense as an adult, and it decreased the probability of finishing high school. The kids, best they could tell, mostly didn't return after their juvenile incarceration, but if they did return, they were more likely to be given a emotional and behavioral disorder label in the data. My interpretation was always severe — incarceration had scarred the kids, traumatizing them, and they weren't the same. The paper would haunt me for various personal reasons as I saw a loved one arrested and spent time in jail on numerous occasions. I would see kids in my local community who had grown up with our kids arrested and think of Dr. Aizer' and Joe Doyle's study, concluding the most important thing I could do was bail them out. The paper was one of many events in my own life that led me to transition my research to mental illness within corrections and self harm attempts by inmates even. But there's other personal reasons I wanted to interview Dr. Aizer. Dr. Aizer went to UCLA where she studied with Janet Currie, Adriana Lleras-Muney and Guido Imbens. Recall that when Imbens was denied tenure at Harvard, he went to UCLA. Currie, who had attended Princeton at the same time as Angrist, Imbens' coauthor on many papers on instrumental variables in the 1990s, was an original economist focused on the family, but unlike Becker and others, brought with her that focused attention to finding variation in data that could plausibly recover causal effects. The story, in other words, of Princeton's Industrial Relations Section and design based causal inference, going back to Orley Ashenfelter, was spreading through the profession through the placements of scholars at places like UCLA, which is where Dr. Aizer was a student. In this storyline in my head, Dr. Aizer was a type of first generation member of the credibility revolution, and I wanted to talk to her not only for her scholarly work's influence on me, but also because I wanted to continue tracing Imbens and Angrist's influence on the profession through UCLA. The interview, though, was warm and interesting throughout. Dr. Aizer is a bright light in the profession working on important questions in the family, poverty and public policy. For anyone interested in the hardships of our communities and neighborhoods, I highly recommend to you her work. Now let me beg for your support. Scott's Substack and the podcast, Mixtape with Scott, are user supported. If your willingness to pay for the episodes and the explainers (I'm going to write some more I promise!), please consider becoming a subscriber! Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.TranscriptScott Cunningham:In this week's episode of the Mix Tape podcast, I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Anna Aizer, professor of economics at Brown University in Rhode Island and editor in chief of the Journal of Human Resources. I have had a keen interest in Anna Aizer and her career and her work for a couple of reasons. Actually a lot, but here's two. First, she did her PhD at UCLA when Janet Currie was there, as well as when Guido Imbens was there. Imbens taught there after he left Harvard, for those of you that remember that interview I did with him. Recall my overarching conviction that Princeton's industrial relations section, which was where Orley Ashelfeltner, David Card, Alan Kruger, Bob Lalonde, Josh Angrist originated from, as well as Janet Currie.My conviction that this was the ground zero of design based causal inference. And that design based causal inference spread through economics, not really through econometrics, and econometrics textbooks, but really through applied people. She also worked with Adriana Lleras-Muney, who's also at UCLA now, who was a student of Rajeev Dehejia, who wrote a seminal work in economics using propensity score, who was also Josh Angrist's student at MIT. So you can see, Anna fits my obsession with a sociological mapping out of the spread of causal inference through the applied community.But putting aside Anna as being instrumentally interesting, I am directly interested in her and her work on domestic violence and youth incarceration among other things. I've followed it super closely, teach a lot of these papers all the time, think about them even more. In this episode, we basically walked through her early life in Manhattan to her time at Amherst College, to her first jobs working in nonprofits, in areas of reform and poverty, to graduate school. We talked about her thoughts about domestic violence and poverty and crime along the way, too. And it was just a real honor and a pleasure to get to talk to her. I hope you like it as much as me. My name is Scott Cunningham and this is Mix Tape podcast. Okay. It's really great to introduce my guest this week on the podcast, Anna Aizer. Anna, thank you so much for being on the podcast.Anna Aizer:Pleasure to be here. Thanks so much for inviting me.Scott Cunningham:Before we get started, could you tell us obviously your name and your training and where you work?Anna Aizer:Sure. I'm a professor of economics at Brown University. I did my PhD at UCLA oh many years ago. Before that actually I got a masters in public health. Sorry. I have a strong public health interest and focus in a lot of my work. I'm also currently the co-director of the NBR program on children. That is a program at the NBR that is focused entirely on the economics of children and families. I'm the editor in chief of the Journal of Human Resources.Scott Cunningham:Great. It's so nice to meet in person. I've been a long time reader of your papers because you write about these topics on violence against women. There's not a lot of people in economics that do. And the way that you approach it shares a lot of my own thoughts. I'm going to talk about it later, but it's really nice to meet in person.Anna Aizer:Sure. Nice to meet you, too.Scott Cunningham:Okay. I want to break up the conversation a little bit into your life. First part, just talk about your life growing up. And then the second part, I want to talk about research stuff. So where did you grow up?Anna Aizer:I grew up in New York City.Scott Cunningham:Oh, okay.Anna Aizer:Yeah, I did.Scott Cunningham:Which, borough was it?Anna Aizer:Manhattan.Scott Cunningham:Oh, okay.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Yeah. Upper side. But when I went off to college, I went to rural Massachusetts.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I went to Amherst, which is a very small liberal arts college in the Berkshires. That was a very different experience for me. And believe it or not, I was not an econ major.Scott Cunningham:Oh, you weren't?Anna Aizer:In fact I was not. I only took one econ course my entire four years in college.Scott Cunningham:Oh, wow. Wait, so what'd you major in?Anna Aizer:I majored in American studies with a focus on colonial American history and literature.Scott Cunningham:Mm. On literature. Oh, that's what I majored in, too.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, wow. So early American history. So what, was this was the 1700s or even-Anna Aizer:Yeah. So I did a lot of 17, 1800s, a lot of the New Republic period. My undergraduate thesis was actually on girls schooling in the Early Republic.Scott Cunningham:Oh wow. What was the deal with girls schooling in the Early Republic?Anna Aizer:What was the deal with the girls schooling? Well, it depends. For most of the Northeast, the focused on girls schooling was really this idea that it was a new country, they were going to have to have leaders in this new country, and someone had to educate those leaders. Someone had to educate those little boys to grow up, to go ahead and lead this country. And so the idea was, well, we had to start educating moms so that they could rear boys who could then go on to this great nation.Scott Cunningham:I see. Women's education was an input in male leadership?Anna Aizer:That's correct.Scott Cunningham:Got it. Got it. Wow. Okay. Well, that's interesting. I get that. You start educating women though, I suspect that you get more than just male leaders.Anna Aizer:I think that's right. It was an unintended consequence.Scott Cunningham:Unintended consequence. They didn't think that far ahead. Okay.Anna Aizer:Yeah. That's a very good point to make, because two women who were educated in one of the first schools dedicated to educating women so that they could go on and rear their boys to be strong leaders were Katherine Beecher, who went on to create one of the most important girls schools in Troy, New York. And Harriet Beecher Stowe of course, who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin.Scott Cunningham:They're related?Anna Aizer:Yeah. They are sisters. They are sisters.Scott Cunningham:Oh, they're sisters.Anna Aizer:They were one of the first sets of girls who were educated in this mindset of we need leaders so let's have some educated moms. And they of course had other ideas and they went and formed schools and wrote incredibly important works of fiction that ended up playing a pretty significant role in the Civil War.Scott Cunningham:Wow. Was this the thing over in England too? Or was this just an American deal?Anna Aizer:I don't know the answer to that.Scott Cunningham:Huh. I guess they have a different production function for leaders in England where as we it's very decentralized here or something. Right?Anna Aizer:Right. So you're saying in England they already had their system of you go to Eaten, and then you go to Cambridge or Oxford. Right. I think that's probably right. So we didn't have that here.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. That's right. I mean, you're creating everything from scratch. And with such a reactionary response to England who knows what kinds of revolutionary approaches you're taking to... That's probably pretty revolutionary, right? Say we're going to teach women even though it's in order to produce male leaders, it's still thinking outside the box a little bit.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I suppose that's true. Yeah.Scott Cunningham:That's cool. How come you didn't end up in... So you end up at Amherst. As a kid in Manhattan, what were you doing? You were reading books and stuff? You were a big reader?Anna Aizer:I suppose. Yeah. I suppose so.Scott Cunningham:Is that what drew you to Amherst, a liberal arts college?Anna Aizer:I don't really know. I don't think I actually knew what I wanted until much later in life. I was an American studies major, which at the time I learned a lot. It took me a while to gravitate to economics. Once I did, it was clear that that was really the right path for me.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. One question I want to leave your kid. So your parents let you ride the subway when you were a little kid?Anna Aizer:Oh yes.Scott Cunningham:Oh gosh. I bet that was so cool.Anna Aizer:Oh yes. I grew up in New York City during the '70s and '80s, which was far more dangerous than it was today. But at that time parents had a much more hands off approach to parenting. I think I was eight years old when I started taking public transportation by myself.Scott Cunningham:Oh my gosh. There was latch key parents back then?Anna Aizer:Sure.Scott Cunningham:So you jump on the subway. Where are you going at eight years old in Manhattan?Anna Aizer:You go to school.Scott Cunningham:You're just catching the subway to go to school?Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Oh, that's so cool. I bet you had a great childhood.Anna Aizer:I have to say it was pretty good.Scott Cunningham:Oh man.Anna Aizer:I can't complain.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. I grew up in a small town in Mississippi, but it was the same kind of thing. Well, it was very different than Manhattan, but just being able to have that level of... It's all survivor bias. The other kids that are getting really neglected and abused. But those of us that made it out a lot it's like, all you have is great memories of being able to do whatever.Anna Aizer:Right. Agreed.Scott Cunningham:So you wrote this thesis. At Amherst, did everybody write a thesis? Is that real common?Anna Aizer:Most people did. I think a third of the students wrote a thesis. It was very common.Scott Cunningham:But you're gravitating towards research, though?Anna Aizer:Yeah. So it was clear that I really, really enjoyed that a lot. In fact, more recently in my economic research I have done a lot more historical work than I had done initially. So I think that training has really come in handy.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. What did you like about that project that you wrote your thesis on? What did it make-Anna Aizer:Well, it was really a lot of fun. I focused on two schools in particular. I focused on this school in Lichfield, Connecticut, and another school in Pennsylvania, a Quaker school in Westtown. I focused on those two schools because those two schools, for whatever reason, kept a lot of their records. They have really wonderful-Scott Cunningham:Oh my God. You had their records?Anna Aizer:Yeah. So you have really wonderful archives where you could just go through and read all about what they were thinking about, when they founded the schools, what the curriculum should be like. And even some of the writings of some of the students and teachers.Scott Cunningham:Oh my gosh.Anna Aizer:So it was really just a tremendous amount of fun to read all of that stuff, all that primary materials.Scott Cunningham:Oh my gosh. Wait. Did you actually have the names of the kids? Did you see their-Anna Aizer:Sure. They had all of that.Scott Cunningham:Did you have the census records and stuff?Anna Aizer:Oh, I guess you could. I mean, this was so long ago before people were doing all that cool linking, but yeah, you absolutely could.Scott Cunningham:Oh, that's so neat. I wonder where those kids ended up. What did it make you feel doing that research, that was so original and just being out there in these archives?Anna Aizer:Well, it was just amazing how much you could learn by just peeking into people's lives. It was really exciting. It was really fun. And you just felt like you were discovering something new.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So you liked that. But that's interesting because some people would be like, oh, discovering something new. I don't even care about that. When you were discovering something new, you were like, I like this feeling.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Yeah. I really did.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Anna Aizer:I really did.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. So what happened? So you graduate?Anna Aizer:I graduated. My first job was actually working for an Alternative To Incarceration program in New York City. So I moved back home. You have to remember, this was early mid '90s, and this was the peak in terms of crime rates in the country, and in New York City in particular. And the jails-Scott Cunningham:Before you say this, when you were growing up, did your parents... Was it like people were cognizant... I mean, now you know, oh, it was the peak because it's fallen so much, but what was the conversation like as a kid about crime?Anna Aizer:In the '90s in New York City at this time, that was really the crack cocaine epidemic, so there was a lot of talk about that. That really did dominate a lot of the media at the time. It really was a big concern.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah.Anna Aizer:As we know, the city and the state, not just in New York, but nationally, really responded with very tough on crime approach, started incarcerating a lot of people. So much so that they were really out of space in the New York City jail. So Rikers Island was at capacity, even upstate prisons were pretty full. The city, not because they were concerned that we were putting too many people in jail, which has... After the fact we know that we did put too many people in jail, that there was a cost to these incredibly high incarceration rates.Anna Aizer:At the time, the concern was that we don't have enough space, so what are we going to do? The city funded an Alternative To Incarceration program for youth. It was called the Court Employment Project. It was really focused on kids between the ages of 16 and 21 who were charged with a felony in New York state Supreme Court. And these were kids who were being charged as adults, treated as adults in the system. New York City has since raised the age of majority, but at that time it was 16. So we were focused on really younger 16 to 21. Well then, most of the kids we were working with were 16 to 18.Scott Cunningham:What kind of felonies are we talking about? Is this the drug felonies? Or is it [inaudible 00:15:51]?Anna Aizer:Yeah. So a lot of it was possession with intent to sell, selling. But also robbery, that was pretty common as well. We were only working with kids that were facing at least six months in adult prison, essentially. That was the rule for our program. Because again, our program was really focused on trying to reduce the number of people who were being detained and incarcerated for long periods of time. So we were only dealing with people who had-Scott Cunningham:Wait, real quick. So you're in your early 20s?Anna Aizer:Yeah. So I would've been about 23.Scott Cunningham:How'd you find this gig? You were just going back to New York City? Or what was the deal?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I knew I wanted to go back home. At that time, jobs were advertised in the paper, so you looked through the help wanted ads and you just sent cover letters and resumes by mail to whatever jobs appealed to you. I was interested in those jobs. I was also interested in working with public defenders, so the Legal Aid Society in New York, I applied for a number of jobs there.Scott Cunningham:Where's this coming from? What's your values exactly at this time? You're concerned about poverty or concerned about something? What's the deal?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think I guess I already was really worried. I was really concerned about low income kids who were really... I felt already were getting derailed at very young ages in a way that I thought would be very hard for them to recover. I think that in that sense was really confirmed when I started working that these were kids who in a split minute their lives were just totally changed. So certainly in the case of things like robberies, these were often group of kids with not much to do, just getting into trouble, and it just getting too far too quick. And before they knew it, they were facing two to six years. I mean, it was just really tragic.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I know. Six months. You think about it, too. You're looking at these six months in the program. You start looking at six months and you think, oh, that's six months. The thing is, those things cascade, because six months with a felony record serving prison becomes de facto a cycle of repeated six months, one year, two years.Anna Aizer:Sure.Scott Cunningham:You just end up... Well, that's going to be a paper that you end up writing, so I'll hold off on that. Okay. So you end up applying, you spray the city with all these resumes. And then this thing. So what is this company? This is a nonprofit?Anna Aizer:Yep. So it's a nonprofit that had a contract with the city. They had a contract with the city. Again, they were funded really because the city could not afford to put any more people on Rikers Island.Scott Cunningham:So it's like a mass incarceration response almost?Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Capacity constraints.Anna Aizer:They were at capacity, so they needed to do something. So what this program was, it was an intensive supervision program. The kids had to come in at least twice a week and meet with a counselor. The counselor would provide counseling services and also check in on them, make sure they were going to school or working or getting their GED. And then they would write up these long reports.Anna Aizer:I only worked in the courts, so I wasn't doing any of the counseling myself. I had no qualifications to do that. I worked in the courts, so my job was to screen kids for eligibility for the program, interview them, see if they were good candidates. Then talk to their families, talk to their lawyers. And then talk to the judge eventually about the program and about what we would be doing and why we thought this person was a good candidate. And then once they were in the program, I would then provide updates or reports back to the judge and the defense attorney to let them know how the individual was doing.Scott Cunningham:And wait. What is the treatment going to be that things are doing?Anna Aizer:Again, so it was really-Scott Cunningham:It's a deferment of you're going to go to jail?Anna Aizer:Yeah. That's exactly right. It was a six month program. If they made it through after six months, they would be sentenced to probation instead of jail time.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. They would refer adjudication type concept.Anna Aizer:Exactly.Scott Cunningham:Right. Yeah.Anna Aizer:Exactly. So that was the idea.Scott Cunningham:But it's non random. And I know you're not-Anna Aizer:It was, yeah.Scott Cunningham:You're not thinking about the future Anna Aizer [inaudible 00:21:17], but it's not random.Anna Aizer:No.Scott Cunningham:What is it conditioned on? Because you're doing all of it, right?Anna Aizer:Right. Right. So you look at a kid's record. You would look at whether or not the kid seem to have support. The downside was if a kid didn't make it through the program they might be sentenced to more time-Scott Cunningham:Really?Anna Aizer:than they would have... Maybe. I mean, the judge would-Scott Cunningham:Why? Because you're getting a new judge or something?Anna Aizer:No, it's the same judge. But the judges say, "Look, I'm going to give you a chance. Instead of sending you away now for six to 18, I'm going to give you an opportunity to prove yourself. Six months, stay out of trouble, complete this program. And then I'm going to send you to probation. But if you don't complete the program, I'm going to sentence you more." In the end, they might not have actually done that. They certainly didn't tie their hands in any way.Scott Cunningham:What do they doing? Why are they doing that? Why is a judge doing that? They're trying to deal with some sort of adverse selection or something? They don't want people to-Anna Aizer:They want to create an incentive for the kid to-Scott Cunningham:They're trying to create an incentive for the kid. Got it. Okay.Anna Aizer:Yeah. They-Scott Cunningham:Like a little scared straight thing?Anna Aizer:A little. I mean, the judges always think that. It's not clear that that works. I don't think that really matters so much in the decision making of young people. I think it's-Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Totally. Totally.Anna Aizer:But that certainly was on the mind I think of many of the judges.Scott Cunningham:It's funny though. When I think about this paper that we're going to talk about a little bit, it's like you're already aware of, oh, these judges have a little bit of discretion. They're saying a bunch of stuff that's not in the law. "If you don't do this, I'm going to give you penalize, I'm going to give you really bad grade at the end with another year in prison." Did that cross your mind that you were noticing that judges were... This judge does that and this other judge does not tend to do that, is that something you could have noticed?Anna Aizer:Absolutely.Scott Cunningham:Oh, wow.Anna Aizer:Yeah. So there were many, many judges. So this is Manhattan. This is the main criminal courts in Manhattan, so I had many, many judges, a lot of people. The way it works is once you've been indicted on a felony you come before one of these three judges. They're called conference judges. They try to dispose of the case. Either the case gets dismissed or they take the plea deal. But if that doesn't happen, they reach into a bin, literally a lottery-Scott Cunningham:It's like a bingo ball machine?Anna Aizer:It's a lottery with all these different judges' courtrooms. They pull out a number, and that's the number of the courtroom you get assigned to. You know right then if you get assigned to certain judges, for sure that kid is going to do jail time. And if you get assigned to other judges, for sure that kid is going to get probation.Scott Cunningham:Who knows this? The kids don't.Anna Aizer:The kids don't, but they don't know it.Scott Cunningham:They can't comprehend.Anna Aizer:But their attorney will know it.Scott Cunningham:And then maybe their parents.Anna Aizer:No, I don't think their parents would know.Scott Cunningham:Although, who in a group of kids that maybe their parents aren't as-Anna Aizer:I don't think their parents would know it, either. You would know it because you have to remember that all of the judges for the most part were either defense attorneys or prosecutors before they were judges, and you can tell. The judges who would-Scott Cunningham:Is that the main source of the discretion that you notice?Anna Aizer:I think so. I think so. I think the judges who previously prosecute-Scott Cunningham:I mean, they're such different. It does seem like the prosecutors and the defense attorneys are almost cut from a completely different worldview and set of values.Anna Aizer:I think that's right.Scott Cunningham:I had this friend that was a public defender in Athens and he was like... I think this is what he said. I'm not going to say his name because he probably didn't say this, but I thought he basically said, "I don't like prosecutors because they think they are always guilty."Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:And you could tell. The public defender, they were like, "My whole job is to not do that." I could just imagine that shaping... Either there's a lot of selection into that or that just really... You hear that all the time. There's got to be human capital with that.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I agree. I think they have a different perspective, which is what draws them to either defense work or prosecutorial work. But then you have to remember their jobs are really very different. So the prosecutor he or she is just dealing with the victims, so that's who they're talking to all day. The defense attorney is talking to the defendant and getting to know them and their families. They really just have very different sympathies. And the judges come from one or the other.Scott Cunningham:One or the other.Anna Aizer:So you can see it.Scott Cunningham:So you're a kid, you're young person. What are you feeling over the course of working with this? Tell me a little bit about your growth and the thoughts that you're thinking about.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I really felt like these were kids that just got derailed, that these were kids, they were in a very tough situation. They made a decision and they had no idea what the consequences of that were going to be. Nor should they have. They were 16. It's very hard to know where these things end up. I did feel as though the criminal justice system was way too harsh.Scott Cunningham:You could tell. Because the whole point of this nonprofit you're working on is a response to such an excessive amount of penalization. They literally don't have any room.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. They don't have any room for anybody.Anna Aizer:Yeah. They had no room. That's exactly right.Scott Cunningham:We're doing so much punishment we can't even do it right.Anna Aizer:That's exactly right. In the juvenile and criminal justice system, more generally, there's a disproportionate involvement of Black and Hispanic youth.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Anna Aizer:But they are 100% poor.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right.Anna Aizer:So that's the other thing. And that just seemed incredibly unfair to me.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right.Anna Aizer:And it's not the case that not poor kids don't also mess up. They do.Scott Cunningham:They just can avoid the 10,000... There's 10,000 events from the mess up to the things that these kids are facing in this program that they have many ways of mitigating it.Anna Aizer:Yeah. That's right.Scott Cunningham:There's even in terms of parents spending a ton of money, or just saying you can't hang out with these people. There's a bunch of stuff that poor families just are like... So you're feeling heavyhearted.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:You could have gone in a different direction. You could have not gone to graduate school or gone to get this master's. What's the decision criteria where you're thinking I've got to go in a new direction?Anna Aizer:Yeah. At a certain point I just felt as though I needed more training. I wanted more of a professional degree, so I got a degree in public health where you learned a lot about the health system and financing and the social determinants of health. I felt like I needed, again, more training. I should say, I went from that job, not directly back to graduate school, but I went and I worked in not a homeless shelter, but a service center for homeless people also in New York City. I went from the criminal justice system to the homeless system. I was there for another year. And then I went back to school.Scott Cunningham:To what, two or three years total between Amherst and graduate school?Anna Aizer:That's correct. Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Anna Aizer:That's correct.Scott Cunningham:It's interesting you go to public health because I think a lot of people that don't know anything about anything, they'll be like, well, she's doing criminal justice so I could have seen her going to law school. Now she's going to the homeless thing. Okay, well, maybe she could do social work. What were the things you were thinking of? And how did you end up choosing public health? Because a lot of people don't associate either of those things with public health. They heard the word health.Anna Aizer:Right. So a couple things. One, I thought about law school, but I felt as though lawyers deal with the problem after it's happened.Scott Cunningham:Right.Anna Aizer:And I felt like maybe we should focus more on preventing.Scott Cunningham:Right.Anna Aizer:And the other thing, when I worked with homeless people I really did start to feel like this was a homeless individuals... Homeless families are different. I worked with homeless single adults, and for the most part in New York City at that time, all of the homeless single adults had serious mental health problems.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right.Anna Aizer:I really came to see homelessness as a public health problem.Scott Cunningham:A mental health problem.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:They hit public health. Got it.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Right. Right.Anna Aizer:So that's really how... I could have done social work, but that's not really what I wanted to do.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. But it's funny you say preventative. To me when I hear that I'm thinking, oh, Anna's already starting to think about public policy.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think I was.Scott Cunningham:I wouldn't necessarily think that if you were to tell me you went and got a master's in social work.Anna Aizer:Yeah. No, I think that's [inaudible 00:31:54]-Scott Cunningham:Because that cold be clinical or much more working with the... You would've had that experience and you'd be like, I want to work with these families. But that's not what you thought, so something else is going on. So you're thinking I want to do what?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think I really was interested in policy already then.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. And that makes the masters of public health make a lot of sense.Anna Aizer:Correct. Yeah.Scott Cunningham:I see. So where'd you end up going, Harvard?Anna Aizer:I went to Harvard. Yeah. I got a masters in health policy and administration. And then I moved to DC. I worked for Mathematica policy research for two years, and I learned a lot about policy research.Scott Cunningham:Are you getting a quantitative training at the master's of public health when you went?Anna Aizer:Yeah, so that's where I really took my first micro theory class and my first statistics class. So I took biostatistics and micro theory there. And when I worked at Mathematica, I worked with a lot of economists. So most of the senior researchers at Mathematica were economists by training. That's where I really got exposure to the way economists think about, research and policy evaluation. It was then that I decided I wanted to go back and get a PhD in economics.Scott Cunningham:Okay. So what was it? What's the deal? Why do you like economics at this point?Anna Aizer:The senior researchers at Mathematica were either economists or sociologists or political scientists. I just felt like the economists had a very clear way in which they set up problems. I think that goes back to economic models of decision making.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Right.Anna Aizer:And it just struck me that that was just a very good way to conceptualize almost any problem. I also liked the way they thought about data. I think the people that I worked most closely with and came to admire were all economists. So that's how that-Scott Cunningham:And how long were you there? Were you doing public policy stuff at Mathematica?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I was doing a lot of evaluations of Medicaid programs. In particular, Medicaid managed care, moving from a different financing model for Medicaid and evaluating that, and various settings, and writing them policy briefs so that... God. It was either two or three years, I can't really remember, maybe three years. I think I was there three years and then I went back to graduate school.Scott Cunningham:And then you go to UCLA?Anna Aizer:And then I went to UCLA.Scott Cunningham:Am I right that you were working mainly with Janet Curry?Anna Aizer:Yes. So Janet Curry was my-Scott Cunningham:You worked pretty closely with her?Anna Aizer:Yeah. She was my main advisor. The other folks I worked with were Joe Huts and Jeff Grogger.Scott Cunningham:And who?Anna Aizer:Jeff Grogger.Scott Cunningham:Oh, Jeff Grogger?Anna Aizer:None of whom are there anymore.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. Right. I'm just curious. I associate you a lot with... Because I wrote that book on causal inference I'm obsessed with the causal inference stuff in all these weird ways, with all the people. I see Princeton industrial relations section, Card, Angres, et cetera. And then I see Janet Curry. And then I see you at UCLA, and I associate you so much with that methodological approach, especially for some of the papers that I've known really well. Did you get a sense when you were at UCLA, oh, this is causal inference, this is different, this is the credibility revolution? Or was it just really subtle, or this is just how you do empirical work?Anna Aizer:That's a great question. So I should also say that my first year econometrics teacher was Hero Inmans.Scott Cunningham:Was it, really?Anna Aizer:Yeah. Hero [inaudible 00:36:18] UCLA.Scott Cunningham:Oh my gosh. I didn't know that.Anna Aizer:For a short period of time. I was lucky enough that he was there when I was there. So he taught me in my first and my second years. So of course he was very much big part of this. And actually Enrico Moretti was also at UCLA when I was there, so I took courses with him. I think between Janet, Hero, Enrico and Joe Huts, they were really in the thick of it. That was the way it was done.Scott Cunningham:That was the way it was done.Anna Aizer:That was the way it was done.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. What did you learn? What do you think the salient concepts were that had you... This is a make believe, right? But I'm just saying, had you gone to a different school where you didn't have any of those people, what do you think the salient econometric causal inference kind of things were to you that you were like, oh, this is what I notice I keep doing over and over again, or keep thinking about?Anna Aizer:Well, I would say that the method was in service to the question. I feel as though I'm seeing it more these days. People, they find an experiment, a natural experiment, and then they figure out the question. That's not how I remember it. You had the question and then the method was in service to that question. I worry that that's getting a little bit lost these days, that people have the experiment and then they're searching for the question. I think that ends up being less interesting and less important.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. There were certain economists, I think, that were so successful as approaching it that way. It seems like it was cut both ways, because it seems like applied causal inference grew on the back of that kind of natural experiment first, but it almost becomes... To a kid with a hammer, everything's a nail, so it's just like, look through the newspaper, look for a natural experiment. What can I do? How can I do this? How can I [handle 00:38:49]?Scott Cunningham:And it is funny. I don't think it's as satisfying too, just even emotionally. I guess you can find discoveries that way, like you were, but it does feel like you don't end up building up all the human capital with the importance of that question. It's almost like, you're like, well, how can I make this question really important? As opposed to it is important.Anna Aizer:Right.Scott Cunningham:What were you studying? I know what you were studying. At UCLA, what was the question that you were really captivated by?Anna Aizer:So I was really focused on health. You have to remember, I'd done a master's in public health and I just worked at Mathematica, so I was really focused on health. So really all of my dissertation was on health. My main dissertation chapter was actually on Medicaid in California. It was on the importance of enrolling kids early in Medicaids. I don't know if you know much about the Medicaid program, but there are many kids, 60% of kids, who are uninsured are actually eligible for the Medicaid program, but not enrolled in the Medicaid program. And that's partly because-Scott Cunningham:60%?Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Wow.Anna Aizer:We could reduce the number of kids who are uninsured in this country by more than half if you just enrolled all those kids who were eligible for Medicaid in the program.Scott Cunningham:Yeah.Anna Aizer:And part of the-Scott Cunningham:We saw that in that Oregon Medicaid experiment.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Oregon was mostly adults. I don't know how these numbers differ for adults and kids. I'm really more focused on kids. It's partly by design because Medicaid is a program. If you show up at the hospital and you don't have insurance and you're eligible for Medicaid, the hospital will enroll you. And most people know that.Scott Cunningham:Oh, is that right?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I mean, because they have every interest. They want to get paid, so they'll enroll you in the Medicaid program, but there's a cost to that. Because what that means is that kids, if parents know that once they go to the hospital their kid will be enrolled in the Medicaid program should they need hospitalization, they don't end up getting them enrolled prior to that. So they miss out on the ambulatory preventative care that might prevent them from being hospitalized to begin with. And that's partly because of the structure of the program, but that's also because the states made it difficult for kids to enroll in the Medicaid program. In California, there was a big change. The application for Medicaid used to be 20 pages long. Imagine that, right? They cut it down to four.Scott Cunningham:What kind of stuff are they asking on those 20 pages?Anna Aizer:Who knows? Who knows what they're asking.Scott Cunningham:Good grief. I mean, they're wanting them on there. Are they screening them out or are they just-Anna Aizer:I think that's partly what they were trying to do, right?Scott Cunningham:Screen them out? Because it's expensive.Anna Aizer:It's expensive.Scott Cunningham:You've got some of these legislators, they're like, this is expensive and I don't even want to do this so add a dozen pages.Anna Aizer:Yeah. So just make it hard. Now, what happened in '97 was the child health insurance program, CHIP. And they said, "If you want CHIP money..." So that's federal money to ensure more kids. "If you want CHIP money, federal money, you are going to have to enroll more kids in the Medicaid program. You have to do outreach." So the states actually were forced, and that's actually what prompted California to go from a 20 page application to a four page application. They also spent about $20 million on advertisement and basically training community based organizations in how to complete a Medicaid application. So they train them. "Here, you can help your clients enroll in Medicaid. For every application that you help that ends up getting onto the Medicaid program we'll give you 50 bucks." And this really mattered. A lot of kids started enrolling in the Medicaid program who otherwise wouldn't, particularly Hispanic and Asian American kids.Scott Cunningham:Is this what your dissertation ends up being about?Anna Aizer:This is what my dissertation is about.Scott Cunningham:On both the shortening and the payment?Anna Aizer:So it was basically once they started doing this you started seeing big increases in the number of kids who were enrolled in the Medicaid program. And you saw declines in hospitalizations for things like asthma. Asthma is a condition for which if you're being seen and treated on an ambulatory basis, you shouldn't end up in the hospital.Scott Cunningham:Oh. Wait. So what's your control group and all this stuff?Anna Aizer:What the state did was they targeted different areas, and provided training to those community based organizations in how to complete a Medicaid application. So they gave me all that data.Scott Cunningham:Get out of here.Anna Aizer:So I had all the data.Scott Cunningham:So you're doing some IB thing? You're doing some-Anna Aizer:Yeah. It was, basically if you live in a neighborhood where a community based organization had already been trained then you were much more likely to be enrolled in the Medicaid program. So you can see that.Scott Cunningham:Oh my gosh. This is so cool. Were you excited when you found that?Anna Aizer:I was super excited.Scott Cunningham:I bet.Anna Aizer:I was super excited. This was so old. I was begging Medicaid to send me this data. Begging, begging, begging. And they weren't really answering. And then one day Janet came in to the office where all the graduate students sit, and she said, "I think I got this fax for you." She handed this 20 page fax that has all the data on what community organization got trained and when.Scott Cunningham:Okay. Anna, I want to ask a meta question real quick. You just said, these days people maybe start with natural experiment first, but originally it was question first. Okay. Not devil's advocate, but just a statement of facts. The one reason they may do that is because when you find these kinds of natural experiments or whatever, it almost just feels almost itself random. You're weren't even really looking for it. You read something in the newspaper, you're like, oh my gosh, they're doing this weird thing. And the risk of going question first is, you could have this incredibly important question, like the Medicaid project payment thing, and you're like, if everybody in my department, like Hero Inmans and Moretti and Curry, who are to answer a question either subtly or not so subtly, or to answer a question is going to require this credible design and we really need you to staple this dissertation together. You're going to have to have a-Anna Aizer:I think that's why you have lots-Scott Cunningham:It seems really risky. It seems really risky.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think you have to have lots of ideas.Scott Cunningham:You have to have lots of ideas.Anna Aizer:I think you have lots of ideas. A good friend of mine in graduate school was Enrico Moretti's RA. He told me that Enrico had tons of ideas. Wes, this was my friend, his RA, would just do some really quick takes on all of these ideas. And if there was something there he'd pursue it. But if there was nothing there he'd drop it.Scott Cunningham:What does that mean, nothing there, something there? What does that mean?Anna Aizer:Either, if you can't find exaggerate variation or the exaggerate variation doesn't actually work, you don't have the first stage, he'd just drop it and move on to something else.Scott Cunningham:That's a skill. That's almost some therapeutic skill to be excited about something and willing to let it go.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think that's right. I think that's actually-Scott Cunningham:You got a lot of ideas?Anna Aizer:I had a lot of ideas. It never worked out.Scott Cunningham:Never worked out. And that's normal.Anna Aizer:I think that's normal.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. That's not a bad thing.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I think that's how research should go. In fact, I'm not as good as Enrico, I probably hold on to things for longer than I should.Scott Cunningham:Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Boy, where'd you end up publishing that work? I should know this, but I don't know.Anna Aizer:That published in Restat Review Economics Institute.Scott Cunningham:Oh, cool. So what'd you end up finding?Anna Aizer:So what I end up finding is if you pay these organizations to enroll... Well, a couple things. Advertisement, just blanketing the television and radio with information. Sign up for Medicaid, sign up for CHIP, that does not work at all.Scott Cunningham:Doesn't work?Anna Aizer:No.Scott Cunningham:Advertising doesn't work?Anna Aizer:It doesn't work. What works is having these communities organizations help families complete the application. That's incredibly important.Scott Cunningham:That's a supply demand kind of philosophy that you see in drugs, too. Mark Anderson has this paper on meth. They would post these advertisements of people that were addicted to meth. They look horrible. They lose their teeth and all this stuff. It didn't do anything.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you're talking about a group of people. They're like, they need more assistance. They need somebody... You think about that thing you were saying earlier about these kids that are higher income versus lower income. When I said there were 10,000 steps that the higher income people had, it wasn't really like the kids, it was external forces that were investing, going after them.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Right.Scott Cunningham:It seems like incentives need to be targeted to people to go after. For whatever reason it is not enough to just simply have it. You need people going in and helping along the way.Anna Aizer:Right. Agreed. I agree. They need support.Scott Cunningham:They need support.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:Okay. So that is amazing. I bet your advisors were so proud of you for that project.Anna Aizer:I don't know.Scott Cunningham:I think so.Anna Aizer:You'd hope so, but that'll be icing on the cake.Scott Cunningham:Right. Exactly. Yeah. I guess that's not super important.Anna Aizer:Yeah, it is. You do always want your advisor... I mean, I had tremendous respect for all my advisors. So yeah, I'd be very pleased if they liked the work that I did. Basically, states did spend this money to enroll kids early, but it paid off because it meant that they were less likely to be hospitalized. In fact, some of these programs can be very much cost effective.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. I had told myself, I was like, well, I'm asking Anna about the juvenile incarceration paper with Joe Doyle. And then I was going to ask her about domestic violence. And I feel like I've got to make a hard choice now, because I don't have a lot of time. So I was thinking, well, let's see how this goes. And then we can fit. So domestic violence. First thing I want to ask is, how did you get interested in that topic? And when did it start? In a way I could almost imagine, oh, you've been thinking about domestic violence forever.Anna Aizer:Yes. So I actually-Scott Cunningham:You've been thinking about women ever since college.Anna Aizer:Yeah. That's true. And made that connection. This was basically my first big project after I started at Brown. After my dissertation I was thinking, okay, what's my next big project going to be? And I think that's a very important decision for junior faculty to think about. After you finish publishing your dissertation you got to think about what's my next big project? Because it takes so long to publish anything in economics, that's really going to matter a lot. That might be the only thing you publish before you're coming up for tenure given how long.Anna Aizer:I was thinking about it, and I just felt like I didn't have a clear question in mind, but just been looking at the numbers it's incredibly prevalent, domestic violence. But it's also shown some pretty encouraging trends. Domestic violence against women has been declining pretty significantly. In the US, I think about... I haven't looked the number up recently, but it was about 1,000 women a year were being killed, and so many more actually are victims of domestic violence. And if you look at victimization surveys, between one and three and one in four women in the US report ever being the victim of domestic violence. It's really prevalent. And it just struck me, this is a big problem and I don't know how to answer it, but we should know more about it given just how prevalent it is. And so that's how I started.Anna Aizer:I have a good friend from high school, and she's a lawyer in New York City. She was working with victims of domestic violence. She's a lawyer by training. She used to say, "These women have nothing. They have no resources. They are so poor." That, to me, just made me think about, okay, I need to start thinking about income and resources and poverty and domestic violence, because clearly that's a big part of this.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah. It's so funny. I feel like you and I ended up responding to the bargaining theory papers in the exact same way. That's when I was studying a lot of my stuff on couples and things and bad behavior on the part of the men, I was always thinking about sex ratios in the marriage market. Why I was thinking about that was the ability to exit the partnership could be really, really important. And I was curious. You can talk about people not having resources and not necessarily be thinking in terms of one of these Nash bargaining, like Manser and Brown, and McElroy and Horn, and Shelly Lundberg kinds of ways of thinking. I was curious, were you thinking about those theory papers a lot? Or am I just projecting?Anna Aizer:I had this friend, again, who was working and telling me just how poor many of the women she was working with were. And then once you actually look at the statistics, the survey statistics, it's true that any woman can be a victim of domestic violence, but it is really a poor woman problem. So it's very clear to me that poverty has a lot to do with it. It's because many of these women have no other source of support. They have low levels was in schooling. They have few prospects in the labor market. And they're really stuck. That is ultimately-Scott Cunningham:Stuck as in cannot leave.Anna Aizer:Cannot leave. I mean, they have a very-Scott Cunningham:Because that's the solution. That's one of the most important solutions, which is probably you need to leave the relationship.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Or you need to be able to threaten to leave.Scott Cunningham:You need to be able to threaten to leave. How important do you think the credible threat is? Because my sense is, that's to an economist, because they're like, you should thinking about unions and stuff. They're like, oh, credible threats. That's all you got to, you have to do it. I feel like, I don't know if that really works. I actually think the truth is you're going to have to leave. And maybe there's some marginal guy. We're talking about the marginal guy, but whatever, that's the info marginal, whatever. The extensive marginal guy, he's got narcissism personality disorder, substance abuse problems.Anna Aizer:Yeah. You may be right.Scott Cunningham:He's got major, major problems. And that stuff is very inelastic to everything.Anna Aizer:Yeah. You may be right. I can't answer this because I don't know for sure. At the same time I remember talking to some folks about this, and their feeling was that it's all a continuum of a bad relationship. Violence may be one extreme, but relationships have ebbs and flows. They can be better at some points and worse at others. So they did feel as though a relationship didn't always have to be violent, that you could have relationships that were violent at one point but then were no longer. Of course, you also have relationships in which that's not the case, and the only solution is to leave. But there could very well be relationships where you can have better and worse periods.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. The reason why I bring it up is because I feel like these days you hear a lot about mental health. Well, you hear about mental health period, but in domestic violence there'll be also an emerging story of the narcissist personality disorder. I've been always lately thinking, I've been like, I wonder if this is true. Anecdotally, what you see a lot is how manipulative... And that's like a very judgemental way of putting it, but I don't know how else to say it. How manipulative one of the person can be towards the other where they're like, "Well, if you loved me..." They get all this trepped up stories about love. What love becoming almost this story.Scott Cunningham:I've wondered for those people that can't or won't... It's actually won't, right? They can leave. I mean, there are some people they will be literally harmed if they leave, so I'm not talking about those people. But I mean, the person that literally you're watching an equilibrium where they don't leave, I've wondered lately if it's like, the victim is all tangled up with loyalty and love.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Sure.Scott Cunningham:And it is taken advantage of by a person that no one can tell them not to love this person. That's nobody's business.Anna Aizer:Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it is a really complicated thing.Scott Cunningham:It is so complicated. It is so complicated. Finding the policies that provide resources to a person. Some of that might be a person that's at those earlier ebbs too, those earlier ebbs in the bad relationship. And you're like, well, some people may not be ready to leave yet.Anna Aizer:I mean, this a thing where I do think the right policy response is providing resources to women, but also probably interventions aimed at the assailant is probably going to be just as effective. Sorry. My phone is ringing.Scott Cunningham:That's okay.Anna Aizer:Hello. Sorry about that. I thought it might be my kids.Scott Cunningham:I wonder about these battery courts. Have you heard about these [inaudible 01:00:05] courts?Anna Aizer:Yeah. I mean, they're-Scott Cunningham:I wonder what you know about those?Anna Aizer:Yeah. Not a lot, I would say.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. These issues of poverty and mental health and all of these things interacting in order to get healing and healthy meaningful lives to all everyone is... I do think this is something that economists can offer, but it's not something that... I wouldn't say there's a ton of people. You're one of a small number of people working on domestic violence, it seems like.Anna Aizer:It's a very hard thing to study. Data's very difficult to come by for obvious reasons, for a good reason. I mean, this is data that needs to be protected. Glenn Ludwig and the crime lab in Chicago, they're doing work around violence reduction more generally. And probably many of those principles and findings probably relate to domestic violence as well, changing the behavior of young people so that they are less quick to react and less quick to react in a violent way. When they do, we would probably have some pretty important spillover to domestic violence as well, I think.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Yeah, yeah.Anna Aizer:I think there are ways to reduce violence more generally that would probably apply to the setting of domestic violence.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. It's funny, circling back to that judge who threatens with higher penalties. I think economists, when they think about violence and things like that, you're an exception for thinking about outside options and stuff like that, but the shadow of Gary Becker's deterrence hypothesis, it can just be this straight jacket for a lot of people, because they just only think in terms of relative price changes on the punishment margins. When you talk to psychologists, or you read that psychology literature about narcissism or borderline personality disorder or substance abuse, you're talking about a group of people that are, for variety of reasons, have really low discount rates or just have beliefs that things don't apply to them. Or in no uncertain terms, the elasticities of violent behavior with respect to some unknown punishment that you don't even know if it's going to real, it just seems like, we don't really know, but [inaudible 01:03:06] really big.Anna Aizer:Yeah. So there was this criminologist named Mark Kleiman. Do you know that name?Scott Cunningham:Oh yeah. Mark Kleiman. Yeah. Yeah.Anna Aizer:I mean his big thing was, it should be swift, sure and short. That's how we should do punishment. He felt as though that would be far preferable to the system in which there's uncertainty. But if it doesn't work out, you're going to spend a lot of time in jail. He thought that was a fair model.Scott Cunningham:The thing is, though, swift certain and did you say short?Anna Aizer:Short.Scott Cunningham:Yeah. Well, with prison sentences lingering on your record it is by definition never short.Anna Aizer:Yeah.Scott Cunningham:You face these labor market scarrings and you can't get housing, you can't get jobs and that does not go away. So even if the prison sentence is short, the person... I just feel like this is the tension around violence in the country, which is punishment has so many margins where it is permanent. It's got so many margins. And just being in a cage is only one of them.Anna Aizer:Yeah. I mean, particularly for young people, jail is incredibly scarring.Scott Cunningham:Incredibly scarring. Incredibly scarring. We've been studying suicide attempts in the jail and we-Anna Aizer:Yes, that's right.Scott Cunningham:We walked the jail for this one particular jail. I have never in my life seen anything like that. I've been working on this project for four years. I hadn't walked to the jail. I don't know. It's not the first thing that came to my mind. The team finally walked the jail. I spent the whole day there. The jails have so much mental illness in it. They just are in... It's not even cages. A cage has... Air gets in. It's a sealed box. It's like Houdini's box. They stay there, and for a variety of regulatory reasons and so forth, they stay in there. Can't have a lot of materials if they are at risk. If they've come in with psychosis because of substance abuse or underlying mental illness stuff, they might get moved into certain types of physical quarters. I just can't even imagine, just in an hour, let alone... And that's just jail. That's not even prison. It's just absolutely a trauma box.Scott Cunningham:Unfortunately, we didn't get to talk about your paper with Joe Doyle on the juvenile incarceration. But every time I teach that juvenile incarceration paper, where kids were incarcerated as a young person, and then end up not going back. It's not even the future prison part, it's the not going back to high school.Anna Aizer:Oh, of course.Scott Cunningham:And then when they go back, they're labeled with a behavioral emotional disorder. It's really like anybody that's had any exposure to a kid involved in corrections, you're like, oh, I know exactly what that is. They were traumatized. You don't even have to come up with some exotic economic theory. They were traumatized. That's why they come back to school with a behavioral emotional disorder. It is [inaudible 01:06:59].Anna Aizer:Yep. That's good.Scott Cunningham:That paper is one of the most important papers I have personally ever read. I teach it nonstop. And I've even cried teaching it in class. I get so emotional when I get to that part, because, I don't know about you, but it seems like it's really hard not to come away with... A lot of papers you read, you're like, well, we're not really sure exactly all to make of it. But when I read that paper that you wrote, I just think, especially when you think about the leniency design, I just think these kids probably didn't need to go to prison.Anna Aizer:Oh yeah.Scott Cunningham:Honestly, what else are you going to say? They end up committing more crimes. And they are not going back to school. How was this the policy goal? What was it like writing that paper when you started to realize what was going on?Anna Aizer:Again, when I worked in this Alternative to Incarceration program we had kids come into the program who had spent some time in jail. And we had kids who had spent very little time, maybe just a night. The kids who had spent even just three weeks in jail, they always did worse in the program. Always. It was a known fact. The program knew it. And the question was, well, are these kids somehow different? There was a reason why they were in jail and these other kids weren't. Is that why they do worse in the program? Maybe they're in jail because their family didn't show up for them in court. They couldn't make bail.Anna Aizer:Or was it something about spending three weeks in jail that just made it impossible for them to complete the program? This was a big question that was on everybody's mind. We talked about this quite a bit at the program, and we didn't know the answer. When I finally figured out how to do it, working with Joe, I wanted to know the answer to a question that I had been thinking about for over a decade.Scott Cunningham:Gosh. Were you emotionally upset when you started to see coefficients get really big?Anna Aizer:It really was not surprising. It really wasn't, because these are kids who are only marginally attached to school. These are not the kids who were going to school, doing well in school. These are kids who were not really that attached to school for whatever reason. So you take them out even for a month, they're not going to go back. I mean, it's obvious. We saw that in the program. What they ended up doing was moving a lot of kids from school to GED because they had not been involved in school, they were not involved in school. It just was much more likely that they would be able to complete a GED than actually go back to high school and finish.Scott Cunningham:Your paper, it like hit home for personal reasons. We had an event happen. I wrote a professor. I was like, this thing had happened. Anna and Joe find this result. I feel hopeless. There's this kid in town and I raised money for him. Basically, I was like, you just got to do everything in your power to not let them spend an extra minute in jail. And all this scared straight stuff. Parents get into it, too. They're exhausted. They're like, "Well, he's got to learn his lesson." Nobody learns a damn thing in jail. They don't learn a lesson. Because you're just so hopeless. You start grasping at straws. And people will tell you that might happen.Scott
Along with two colleagues, MIT Professor of Economics Joshua Angrist won the Nobel Prize in 2021 for their methodological contributions to the analysis of causal relationships - or put another way, using natural experimental methods to measure trends and seeking to understand outcomes than traditional, more familiar research methods. Dr. Angrist and I had a great talk about his important work, as well as the experience of winning the Nobel Prize itself! And I should add, we've known each other since High School - which made the conversation all the more engaging and entertaining. Yeah, we weren't the best students back then...but Josh's story is an inspirational one - from mediocre high school student to Nobel Prize recipient. So we talked about his journey, we reminisced a bit about the old times...but perhaps most important, Josh did an exemplary job breaking down his work into terms even I could understand. So enjoy our conversation, and I'll see you soon with a new episode of So Important: The Interview Podcast! A couple cool links: Here's Josh's Nobel Prize lecture, and here's some background on this very impressive individual. Thank you, Josh!
Meet economist Joshua Angrist who believes that to be a good labour economist, you should have had some real-life job experience. In conversation with our podcast host Adam Smith, Angrist tells us about his disinterest in school and how as a teenager he was more interested in earning money and maintaining his car. His later surprising and instant connection with economics led him to dedicate his life to his research: “I never stop thinking about my work.”Angrist was awarded the 2021 prize in economic sciences and speaks about how the award has affected his life; “It was wonderful to win the Nobel Prize, but I am the same guy I was on October 10th.” See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Episode 7 of Mixtape: the Podcast. I interview Josh Angrist, winner of the 2021 Nobel Prize in economics, Ford professor of economics at MIT, and director of the MIT Blueprint Labs. In this interview, we discuss a range of topics such as being bored and aimless as a young man, his time in the Israeli army as a paratrooper, his time at the 1980s Princeton Industrial Labor Relations group, his collaborations with fellow Nobel laureate Guido Imbens and the late Alan Krueger, as well as the econometric contributions he made to our understanding of causal inference and instrumental variables for which the Nobel Committee awarded him the prize. A pioneer in many ways who through his scholarship, mentoring, and proselytizing of causal inference and applied methodology, Josh Angrist is arguably one of the most important figures in empirical microeconomics of the last 50 years and a delightful person to interview.
Episode 7 of Mixtape: the Podcast. I interview Josh Angrist, winner of the 2021 Nobel Prize in economics, Ford professor of economics at MIT, and director of the MIT Blueprint Labs. In this interview, we discuss a range of topics such as being bored and aimless as a young man, his time in the Israeli army as a paratrooper, his time at the 1980s Princeton Industrial Labor Relations group, his collaborations with fellow Nobel laureate Guido Imbens and the late Alan Krueger, as well as the econometric contributions he made to our understanding of causal inference and instrumental variables for which the Nobel Committee awarded him the prize. A pioneer in many ways who through his scholarship, mentoring, and proselytizing of causal inference and applied methodology, Josh Angrist is arguably one of the most important figures in empirical microeconomics of the last 50 years and a delightful person to interview. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
Key Insights:Paul Feyerabend was right—science is whatever scientists do: anything goes. But what healthy sciences that survive and flourish and good scientists do is put first and foremost discovering what actually is and making theories to understand reality. So Kuhn and Popper are also right.Economics has not been much of a science. But this Card, Angrist, Imbens—and Krueger—Nobel Prize marks a very big possible improvement in this respect.Keep at it! Keep doing your work no matter the brickbats, and you may, someday, look back and recognize that you have changed the world.Pets are good: they drive you to “become the person your dog thinks you already are”.Hexapodia!References:The London Economist has an excellent interview with two of our three Nobel Prize winners this year—David Card and Josh Angrist. If you want to know why we economists respect them so much and are cheering their Nobel Prizes so loudly, follow the link: Joshua Angrist, Ryan Avent, David Card, & Rachana Shanbhogue : A Real-World Revolution in Economics: ‘THIS YEAR’s Nobel prize celebrates the “credibility revolution” that has transformed economics since the 1990s. Today most notable new work is not theoretical but based on analysis of real-world data.... How their work has brought economics closer to real life…This is, I think, the best single thing to read about the Card, Angrist, Imbens Economics Nobel Prize: Noah Smith: The Econ Nobel We Were All Waiting for: ‘To predict who will win the Econ Nobel... list the most influential people in the field who haven’t won it yet.... Assume... micro theorists won’t win... two years in a row.... The ones whose influence is the oldest are the most likely to win.... For years, this method led lots of people—including me—to predict a Nobel for David Card. His 1994 paper with Alan Krueger on the minimum wage was a thunderbolt.... Since then, Card has been at the forefront of empirical labor.... Angrist and Imbens’ impact... though also high... came later.... I wouldn’t have been surprised had they won the prize in later years. But Card was clearly overdue. Perhaps the reason it took this long was that Card’s conclusions in his famous minimum wage paper were so hard for many in the field to swallow.… At the time, Card and Krueger’s finding seemed revolutionary and heretical. In fact, other researchers had probably been finding the same thing, but were afraid to publish their results, simply because of their terror of offending the orthodoxy... Tim Noah: Tragedy Kept Alan Krueger From Claiming a Nobel Prize, but He’s Not Forgotten: ‘Paying tribute to the late economist who, with David Card, changed America’s mind about the minimum wage… Get full access to Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality at braddelong.substack.com/subscribe
In today's episode for 14th October 2021, we see why Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens were awarded the Nobel Prize in economics
The winners for the the Nobel Prize in Economics for this year are…*drumroll*…US-based economists David Card, Joshua D. Angrist and Guido W. Imbens. In today's episode for 13th October 2021, we'll focus on David Card's work today and hopefully talk about the other two tomorrow. And with that introduction out of the way, let's get to the story, shall we?
Cuáles son las principales contribuciones de Card, Angrist e Imbens. Análisis del economista Luciano Magnífico
El Nobel de Economía reconoció los análisis del mercado laboral de David Card y de las relaciones causales de Joshua Angrist y Guido Imbens, que han revolucionado la investigación empírica. Card fue distinguido "por sus contribuciones empíricas a la economía laboral" y Angrist y Imbens "por sus contribuciones metodológicas al análisis de las relaciones causales", según el fallo de la Real Academia de las Ciencias Sueca. El presidente de Colpensiones, Juan Miguel Villa, quien estudió con los galardonados, habló sobre el vínculo que existe entre el salario mínimo y el desempleo. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
durée : 00:02:37 - Histoires économiques - par : Sophie Fay - Le prix de la Banque de Suède, l'équivalent du Nobel en économie, a été attribué hier à trois économistes, inconnus du grand public : David Card, Joshua Angrist et Guido Imbens. On les découvre. Pourquoi ont-ils été distingués ?
El fallo del Nobel de Economía se hizo público el lunes en pleno debate en España a cuenta de la subida del Salario Mínimo Interprofesional. Uno de los trabajos que han sustentado las teorías de David Card acerca del tipo de conclusiones sobre causa y efecto que pueden extraerse de experimentos naturales se hizo, precisamente, en torno a un alza del salario mínimo. Junto a Card, Joshua D. Angrist y Guido W. Imbens han sido galardonados con el Premio de Ciencias Económicas del Banco de Suecia en memoria de Alfred Nobel. Libertad González, doctora en Economía por la Universidad de North Western y profesora asociada de la Pompeu Fabra nos ayuda a entender las aportaciones de estos tres economistas. +++MÚSICA: SINTO News Corporate. Pixabay Music
Guest: Professor Vimal Ranchhod Professor Vimal Ranchhod will join John to discuss the impactful work of the winners of The Nobel Prize of Economics. He will elaborate on the strides made by the work of David Card, Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens and the innovative conclusions that they have drawn by observation of the cause and effect of real-world economic actions. Professor Vimal Ranchhod is a Professor in the School of Economics at the University of Cape Town, and the Deputy Director of the Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU). He works on labour markets, education, poverty and inequality, and discrimination. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Il Premio Nobel all'Economia 2021 a Angrist, Card e Imbens, cosa premia esattamente? Michele Boldrin, Andrea Moro, Sandro Brusco e Alberto Bisin - la vecchia redazione di noiseFromAmerika - si confrontano con le motivazioni dei colleghi svedesi che hanno deciso il premio Nobel all'Economia 2021.
David Card, Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens have been awarded the 2021 Nobel Prize in economic sciences for contributions to labor economics and analysis of causal relationships, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced on Monday. American economists Paul Milgrom and Robert Wilson were awarded last year's economics prize for their work on auction theory.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Los tres economistas compartieron el galardón de este año.
Già in passato nella rosa dei favoriti per il Nobel per l'Economia, Joshua Angrist, economista israelo-americano, ha ottenuto in queste ore il prestigioso premio dell'Accademia svedese. Un Nobel condiviso con il collega Guido Imbens per “i contributi metodologici all'analisi delle relazioni causali” e con l'economista canadese David Card “per i contributi empirici all'economia del lavoro”.
Ekonomipriset till Alfred Nobels minne går i år till David Card, Joshua Angrist och Guido Imbens. Card har bland annat forskat om minimilöner, och de övriga två prisas för forskningsmetoder. Joshua Angrist och Guido imbens har arbetat med vad man kallar naturliga experiment. Där en medicinare kan göra experiment med kliniska studier och ge en medicin till en grupp och placebo till en annan, måste samhällsvetarna finna sina jämförbara grupper ute i verkligheten. Angrist och Imbens har bidragit till att visa hur det görs på ett sätt som leder till att man kan dra giltiga slutsatser - om effekten av allt från arbetsmarknadsinsatser till invandring och utbildning. Alla tre pristagarna är verksamma i USA. Vi hör ekots ekonomikommentator Kristian Åström och professorn i nationalekonomi vid Stockholms Universitet Jakob Svensson, som är ledamot i ekonomipriskommittén- Programledare: Camilla Widebeck camilla.widebeck@sverigesradio.se Producent: Björn Gunér bjorn.guner@sverigesradio.se
La pandemia lascia in eredità, tra le altre cose, fiammate nei costi di produzione: tensioni sui prezzi delle materie prime e dell'energia, costi della logistica in aumento, fattori climatici.Gli aumenti delle bollette sono ormai certi (+29,8% l'elettricità, +14,4% il gas), ma a preoccupare sono anche i prezzi all'ingrosso dell'agroalimentare, spinti dal caro delle materie prime: +96% il prezzo del grano duro nazionale, che si è riversata sui prezzi all'ingrosso della semola, cresciuti del 90% rispetto a due anni fa; le quotazioni del grano tenero sono in crescita, tanto che il prezzo all'ingrosso della farina è in rialzo del 19% da prima della pandemia; le impennate degli oli vegetali stanno mantenendo elevati anche in Italia i prezzi all'ingrosso degli oli di semi (+69% su settembre 2019). Dietro la notizia A distanza di circa cinque anni dalla pubblicazione dei noti Panama Papers, quando fu trafugato il server dello studio panamense Mossak-Fonseca, è di questi giorni la pubblicazione di una nuova lista "smaschera evasori", i Pandora Papers. Una stima diffusa dall'Icij rileva che la cifra nascosta potrebbe aggirarsi fra i 5.600 e i 32mila miliardi di dollari. Il Fondo monetario internazionale ha dichiarato che il ricorso a paradisi fiscali costa ai governo l equivalente di 600 miliardi di dollari in tasse perse ogni anno. Nobel per l'economia Il Premio Nobel per l'economia 2021 è stato assegnato al canadese David Card, e agli statunitensi Joshua D. Angrist e Guido W. Imbens. Tutti i tre economisti insigniti del premio insegnano negli Stati Uniti, rispettivamente alla University of California (Card), Mit (Angrist) e Stanford (Imbens). Lo ha annunciato la Royal Swedisch Academy, spiegando che i vincitori «ci hanno fornito nuove informazioni sul mercato del lavoro e hanno mostrato quali conclusioni su causa ed effetto si possono trarre dagli esperimenti naturali. Il loro approccio si è diffuso in altri campi e ha rivoluzionato la ricerca empirica». Ospiti: Giorgio Santambrogio, Vicepresidente Federdistribuzione, Alessandro Plateroti editorialista Sole 24 Ore, Pietro Garibaldi, professore ordinario di Economia Politica all'Università di Torino e Fellow del Collegio Carlo Alberto.
“I saw that my phone was flooded with text messages,” says Joshua Angrist, having slept through the calls from Stockholm. In this brief interview he describes how he therefore called the MIT Press Department to check, and discovered it was true! The conversation turns to his work on the assumed benefits of elite schooling, his working relationship with his co-Laureates and what lies behind his productive collaboration with Guido Imbens.From October 4-11, don't miss our mini-season that will showcase the absolute freshest interviews with the new 2021 Nobel Prize laureates. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Hoy en Día a Día, comenzamos conversando con Rocío San Miguel, presidenta de Control Ciudadano para la Seguridad, la Defensa y la Fuerza Armada Nacional, sobre el artículo de la Revista Semana: “Este artículo tiene muchas imprecisiones… Lo primero a destacar es la cantidad de armamento adquirido por Venezuela de Irán. Se habla de unidades de defensa antiaéreas, misiles, bombas, cohetes y radares”, dijo, y agregó: “De acuerdo al artículo, todo este armamento proviene del vuelo de un Boeing 747 que aterrizó en Venezuela el 21 de julio. Y no es posible transportar tanto cargamento en esta unidad”. El dirigente de Un Nuevo Tiempo y miembro del equipo negociador en México, Stalin González, nos dio su opinión respecto a la observación internacional de las próximas elecciones: “La elección regional no va a resolver todos los problemas que tenemos, y la observación internacional tampoco. Pero sí es un paso importante para rescatar el voto como un proceso de lucha y prepararnos para futuros procesos”. Desde Ischia nos atendió el periodista Guido Gazzoli, para hablarnos sobre las manifestaciones en Italia contra el pasaporte sanitario: “Lo que pasó el sábado pasado es que a estos manifestantes de siempre se les unieron algunos movimientos en contra del cierre de los restaurantes, y generaron extrema violencia”. Con el sociólogo especializado en Medio Oriente, Kevin Ary Levin, conversamos sobre las relaciones de los talibanes con EE.UU: “Afganistán desde hace varios años es un país fuertemente dependiente de la ayuda humanitaria exterior, y actualmente esa ayuda en buena medida se cortó”, dijo, por lo que “Los talibanes necesitan posicionarse en el contexto internacional como una entidad legítima y así llegar a una forma de convivencia con las grandes potencias”. Levin agregó: “EE.UU tiene 3 prioridades con respecto a Afganistán: garantizar la seguridad de sus ciudadanos que no han sido evacuados, defender las minorías y los derechos de la mujer y controlar el daño que genera en su imagen”. También nos atendió Joy Díaz, reportera para el diario radial Texas Standard, para hablarnos sobre la problemática por la ley contra el aborto en Texas: “Lo que sucede es que el aborto es legal en EE.UU y Texas no puede tener una ley que sea contraria al país”, expuso, por lo que “El miércoles, un juez en la ciudad de Austin detuvo la ley sobre el aborto en Texas, pero inmediatamente el viernes se restablece”. Y para cerrar, con el economista Omar Zambrano conversamos sobre los ganadores del Premio Nobel de Economía: “Card, Imbens y Angrist han puesto las bases sólidas de una nueva manera de hacer economía, la cual se aleja de la economía tradicional… Sus contribuciones en la economía empírica son fundamentales”, dijo.
Today we are joined by Misha Angrist, an associate professor of the Practice in the Social Science Research Institute and Senior fellow in the Duke Initiative for Science & Society to talk about the pandemic responses of COVID-19 through the lens of genomics Show notes can be found here.
Dr. Natalie Obergruber ist Assistentin der Geschäftsführung bei EY Strategy and Transactions. Sie erzählt von ihrer Arbeit mit internen Unternehmensdaten für Managemententscheidungen und wir diskutieren deren Analysemöglichkeiten mittels empirischen Methoden. Außerdem diskutieren wir die Bedeutung der Wirtschaftsgeschichte für die Gegenwart. Links zu Episode 2 Mostly Harmless Econometrics von Angrist und Pischke: Die Bibel für quantitative, quasi-experimentelle […]
Carlos Cinelli, PhD candidate em Estatística na UCLA, discute as fronteiras da pesquisa sobre causalidade e a revolução da credibilidade. Além disso, ele fala da experiência de trabalhar com o cientista da computação Judea Pearl, a lenda viva que revolucionou a reflexão sobre causalidade. Artigos citados:Cinelli, Hazlett. Making sense of sensitivity: Extending omitted variable bias. https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rssb.12348Cinelli. Inferência estatística e a prática econômica no Brasil : os (ab)usos dos testes de significância. https://repositorio.unb.br/handle/10482/11230Cinelli, Forney, Pearl. A Crash Course in Good and Bad Controls. https://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r493.pdf Recomendações de livros:Angrist, Pischke. Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion https://amzn.to/2GONZNeMorgan, Winship. Counterfactuals and causal inference. https://amzn.to/3dlRiHRPearl, Mackenzie. Book of Why https://amzn.to/3dmpH9kPearl , Glymour. Causal Inference in Statistics: A Primer https://amzn.to/36SZXAe Peters, Janzing, Schölkopf https://amzn.to/36ZN7jQ Apresentação: Leonardo MonasterioEdição: Felipe Mux Ouça também em https://www.idp.edu.br/podcasts/
Dr. Leamer is a Professor of Economics and Statistics at UCLA who comes on the show to discuss the recent arrival of econometric analyses in medicine. He is a longstanding skeptic of the robustness of conclusions derived from econometrics and has some advice for clinicians puzzling over what to do with these analyses. GUEST: Ed Leamer, PhD, Professor of Economics and Statistics SHOW NOTES: Let's take the Con out of Econometrics - Ed Leamer warns of the science of econometrics in 1983: https://www.international.ucla.edu/media/files/Leamer_article.pdf (https://www.international.ucla.edu/media/files/Leamer_article.pdf) The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics - Angrist and Pischke argue in 2010 that new econometric tools : pseudorandomization, instrumental variables, and natural experiments mark a credibility revolution for the field. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.24.2.3 (https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.24.2.3) Tantalus on the Road to Asymptopia- Ed Leamer responds to Angrist/Pischke : https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.24.2.31 (https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.24.2.31) WATCH ON YOUTUBE: Watch the episode on our YouTube channel SUPPORT THE SHOW https://www.patreon.com/accadandkoka (Make a small donation) on our Patreon page on and join our discussion group or receive a free book. Support this podcast
Noam Angrist is the co-founder of Young 1ove, a Botswana based not-profit organization, providing evidence-based sex education to young people. He also continues working in the world bank as a consultant. He is on the "Forbes 30 under 30" list and also had some other prestigious awards. In this podcast, he will tell how he came up to Young Love, how to build trust with youth and change the world based on data that is already there.Listen, get inspired and join the world-changers.
This week, Hugo will be speaking with Skipper Seabold about the current and looming credibility crisis in data science. Skipper is Director of Data Science at Civis Analytics, a data science technology and solutions company, and also the creator of the statsmodels package for statistical modeling and computing in python. Skipper is also a data scientist with a beard bigger than Hugo's.They’re going to be talking about how data science is facing a credibility crisis that is manifesting itself in different ways in different industries, how and why expectations aren’t met and many stakeholders are disillusioned. You’ll see that if the crisis isn’t prevented, the data science labor market may cease to be a seller’s market and we’ll have big missed opportunities. But this isn’t an episode of Black Mirror so they’ll also discuss how to avoid the crisis, taking detours through the role of randomized control trials in data science, the rise of methods borrowed from econometrics and how to set realistic expectations around what data science can and can’t do.LINKS FROM THE SHOWDATAFRAMED GUEST SUGGESTIONSDataFramed Guest Suggestions (who do you want to hear on DataFramed?)FROM THE INTERVIEWSkipper on TwitterSkipper on GithubWhat's the Science in Data Science? (Video by Skipper Seabold)The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics (By Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, American Economic Association)Project Management for the Unofficial Project Manager: A FranklinCovey Title (By Kory Kogon)Courtyard by Marriott Designing a Hotel Facility with Consumer-Based Marketing Models (Jerry Wind et al., The Institute of Management Sciences)Statsmodels's DocumentationFROM THE SEGMENTSGuidelines for A/B Testing (with Emily Robinson ~15:48 & ~35:20)Guidelines for A/B Testing (By Emily Robinson)10 Guidelines for A/B Testing Slides (By Emily Robinson)Original music and sounds by The Sticks.
As President and Chief Investment Officer. Using their proprietary investment strategy they call ROTAROME. Focused on investing vs. speculating, he much prefers investing over speculating. He is fcused on the business, vs. the stock price, which he considers to be investing, as opposed to speculation, which would be a focus on the stock price. He uses the ROTAROME method of stock analysis as a metric to determine which businesses to focus on and purchase. ROTA measures the business itself and ROME seeks to evaluate and measure the relative "Cheap or Expensive" current price of the stock. They seek a high number in each over a period of time. This is a very interesting method of analysis and interview. We hope you enjoy it.
One of the things I love the most about the stories here on the Terms of Reference Podcast is listening to the always incredible, but retrospectively obvious, paths which have lead all of our Aidpreneurs to their current passions. In fact, as I've documented in the eBook "Making It," this is one of the factors that defines those who have created a sustainable and satisfying career in development and humanitarian aid. My guest for the 131st episode of the Terms of Reference Podcast, Noam Angrist, is no exception to this rule. Noam is the Executive Director of Young1ove, an organization that finds health-related messages that have been shown to create change, through a pile of evidence, and then finds creative, culturally appropriate ways to deliver these messages for youth, by youth. While this model, on the surface, may not seem ground breaking, as you'll hear in just a minute, the results that Noam and the Young1love team are achieving in Botswana through their "No Sugar" program are.
Master Joshway, better known as Josh Angrist, is the Ford Professor of Economics at MIT and a Research Associate in the NBER's programs on Children, Education, and Labor Studies. Josh received his B.A. from Oberlin College, spent time as an undergraduate studying at the London School of Economics and as a Masters student at Hebrew University. He completed his Ph.D. in Economics at Princeton. Angrist's research interests include the effects of school inputs and school organization on student achievement; the impact of education and social programs on the labor market; the effects of immigration, labor market regulation and institutions; and econometric methods for program and policy evaluation. Josh is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, The Econometric Society, and has served on many editorial boards and as a Co-editor of the Journal of Labor Economics. Josh is the author (with Steve Pischke) of Mostly Harmless Economics as well as Mastering 'Metrics. Find out in this episode how Josh went from High School drop-out to Professor of Economics at MIT. Find out: about Master Joshway and Master Steveway - the Kung Fu Economists. how Josh went from working in a mental hospital to working in MIT. where the names Master Joshway and Master SteveFu came from. why Josh is a critic of macroeconomics. the difference between traditional applied micro and applied micro today. Josh’s views on using assumptions in microeconomics. how to design an microeconomics experiment using randomized trials. why Freakonomics is a must read for students or potential students of economics. why being born later in the year is good for your educational attainment. about Josh’s lucky breaks in life. why Josh dropped out of school at 16 and about his army sergeant stripes. about Josh’s hyper Jim Kramer-like teaching style. about an amazing list of economists that have personally influenced Josh. what helps Josh clear his head and keep in shape. and much much more. Visit www.economicrockstar.com/joshangrist to read the shownotes page and to find all the images and links mentioned in this episode.
Joshua Angrist of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology talks to EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the craft of econometrics--how to use economic thinking and statistical methods to make sense of data and uncover causation. Angrist argues that improvements in research design along with various econometric techniques have improved the credibility of measurement in a complex world. Roberts pushes back and the conversation concludes with a discussion of how to assess the reliability of findings in controversial public policy areas.
Joshua Angrist of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology talks to EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the craft of econometrics--how to use economic thinking and statistical methods to make sense of data and uncover causation. Angrist argues that improvements in research design along with various econometric techniques have improved the credibility of measurement in a complex world. Roberts pushes back and the conversation concludes with a discussion of how to assess the reliability of findings in controversial public policy areas.
If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Ivan A. Canay shares a theory of randomization tests under an approximate symmetry assumption. Randomization tests provide a general means of constructing tests that control size in finite samples whenever the distribution of the observed data exhibits symmetry under the null hypothesis. The presenter provides conditions under which their model can be used to construct tests to asymptotically control the probability of a false rejection whenever the distribution of the observed data exhibits approximate symmetry. An important application of this idea is in settings where the data may be grouped into a fixed number of “clusters” with a large number of observations within each cluster. In such settings, the distribution of the observed data satisfies our approximate symmetry requirement under weak assumptions. In particular, their results allow for the clusters to be heterogeneous and also have dependence within and across clusters. The results are used to revisit the analysis of Angrist and Lavy (2009), who examine the impact of a cash award on exam performance for low-achievement students in Israel.
If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Ivan A. Canay shares a theory of randomization tests under an approximate symmetry assumption. Randomization tests provide a general means of constructing tests that control size in finite samples whenever the distribution of the observed data exhibits symmetry under the null hypothesis. The presenter provides conditions under which their model can be used to construct tests to asymptotically control the probability of a false rejection whenever the distribution of the observed data exhibits approximate symmetry. An important application of this idea is in settings where the data may be grouped into a fixed number of “clusters” with a large number of observations within each cluster. In such settings, the distribution of the observed data satisfies our approximate symmetry requirement under weak assumptions. In particular, their results allow for the clusters to be heterogeneous and also have dependence within and across clusters. The results are used to revisit the analysis of Angrist and Lavy (2009), who examine the impact of a cash award on exam performance for low-achievement students in Israel.
Guest: Misha Angrist, Author, Assoc. Professor, Duke Institute for Genomic Sciences Bio and Contact Info Listen (7:03) Presidential bioethics commissions do not have a good record
Guest: Misha Angrist, Author, Assoc. Professor, Duke Institute for Genomic Sciences Bio and Contact Info Listen (7:25) New MA in Bioethics and Science Policy
Duke University geneticist Misha Angrists genome is a public document, thanks to his participation in Harvard's Personal Genome Project. Angrist reflects on the medical and ethical implications of the project in his 2010 book, Here is a Human Being: At the Dawn of Personal Genomics.
Duke University geneticist Misha Angrists genome is a public document, thanks to his participation in Harvard's Personal Genome Project. Angrist reflects on the medical and ethical implications of the project in his 2010 book, Here is a Human Being: At the Dawn of Personal Genomics.
Misha Angrist, PhD Assistant Professor of the Practice Duke University Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy Here is a Human Being: At the Dawn of Personal Genomics Misha Angrist knows the field of personal genomics well. In April 2007, he became the fourth subject in Harvard geneticist George Church's Personal Genome Project. In 2009, he was among the first few people to have his entire genome sequenced. Dr. Angrist will share his experience as chronicled in is book, Here is a Human Being: At the Dawn of Personal Genomics, and present the pros, cons, and potential impact of personal genomics on human health and society. Misha Angrist holds a PhD degree in Genetics from Case Western Reserve University, and was formerly a board-eligible genetic counselor. He received his MFA in Writing and Literature from the Bennington Writing Seminars, is a past winner of the Brenda L. Smart Fiction Prize, and was nominated for the Pushcart Prize. Dr. Angrist was born and raised in Pittsburgh, PA. Don't miss this month's installment of Café Sci! Tim Palucka, Angela Stabryla and Linda Ortenzo, co-organizers Café Scientifique Pittsburgh Monday, June 6, 2011 at 7 pm Carnegie Science Center
Angrist Chiropractic and Wellness Care is an established wellness center in NYC and NJ since 1979. Dr. Angrist is known for his personal approach to treating and coaching his patients, and utilizes a holistic approach that includes manual trigger point therapy, myofascial release, and gentle spinal manipulation. These techniques reduce pain, restore balance and increase flexibility by removing interferences and blockages in the spine, muscular and nervous systems. Once your symptoms and pain have been resolved, Dr. Angrist offers you the opportunity to achieve optimal health and wellness by helping YOU learn how to interrupt the emotional, physical and nutritional patterns that have developed over the years. Once you learn to -let go- of these patterns that manifest in your muscular and nervous system, true health occurs. Want More Health and Technology Info - Contact Dr. Angrist at - info@angristchiro.com For more Health and Chiropractic news, please surf to http://www.ChiropracticRadio.com My Podcast Alley feed! {pca-35ddbc0845765814071fb2d2e8501841}
Angrist Chiropractic and Wellness Care is an established wellness center in NYC and NJ since 1979. Dr. Angrist is known for his personal approach to treating and coaching his patients, and utilizes a holistic approach that includes manual trigger point therapy, myofascial release, and gentle spinal manipulation. These techniques reduce pain, restore balance and increase flexibility by removing interferences and blockages in the spine, muscular and nervous systems. Once your symptoms and pain have been resolved, Dr. Angrist offers you the opportunity to achieve optimal health and wellness by helping YOU learn how to interrupt the emotional, physical and nutritional patterns that have developed over the years. Once you learn to -let go- of these patterns that manifest in your muscular and nervous system, true health occurs. Want More Health and Technology Info - Contact Dr. Angrist at - info@angristchiro.com For more Health and Chiropractic news, please surf to http://www.ChiropracticRadio.com My Podcast Alley feed! {pca-35ddbc0845765814071fb2d2e8501841}
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
