At this summer's NBER SI Aging, Kosali Simon introduced new data from all over the world that can be used to study the economics of aging. She just posted her slides online.
Thank you, Kosali. UConn PhD students, start exploring and let me know if anything inspires you.
Your third year paper was accepted for presentation at a conference. Congratulations! But now you've been asked to discuss someone else's paper at that conference. What should you say during those 5-10 minutes? Every single thought you have on the paper? NO!!!
See Chris Blattman's The Discussant's Art, an oldie but goodie.
The most important thing to keep in mind: Your discussion is mostly for the conference participants, not the authors. You want to help the audience better understand and appreciate the presentation they heard. Speak to them!
Of course, you've read the paper and have lots of ideas. Absolutely share these ideas with the author! They can be very valuable and appreciated, even the "you have a typo on p. 18"-type comments. But do this one-on-one with the author. Ideally, meet for coffee during the conference. Otherwise, send the detailed comments over email after the conference.
But the discussion is mostly for the audience. Keep it short but profound. :)
---
Chris Blattman's Tips Copy-Pasted here for convenience:
1. Start by telling people why they should care. It is seldom obvious. What’s the big question, and what’s at stake if the paper gets it right or wrong?
2. Then summarize the paper. Break it down differently than the presenter. Pretend you are explaining it to your grandmother. Or, rather, your adult-attention-deficit-disorder grandmother. Keep it short.
3. Say more with less. Mathematically, everything you say after your best point lowers the average quality of your comment. Pick your three best points, say them briefly, then stop talking.
4. Now, say even less. Those three comments? Write out, in bullets, exactly what you plan to say. Now cross out half. What you think will take eight minutes will take fifteen. Bring it back to eight.
5. Be constructive. A colleague once said to me: “I like it when people find problems with my paper, but I like solutions more.” Finding solutions makes you think (and displays it too).
6. Don’t discuss the small stuff. Write your little comments down, and later give them to the author. Don’t bore the audience with footnotes and trivia.
7. Feel free to entertain. A discussant need not merely list ideas. You can weave in an anecdote, or frame a point with a story. At least speak from a personal point of view, not a monotone benevolent overlord.
8. Have fun, don’t make fun. If you use humor, let it not be at the expense of anyone but yourself.
9. Spell it out for us. Tell us why your comments matter. Say precisely what we learn.
10. Aim for profound. The best discussants rotate my brain 90 degrees. They reframe the problem, or propose a novel idea. I can’t tell you how to be deep. I seldom succeed myself. For me, a few things usually help. I read the paper, walk away for a day or two, then return. I ask myself questions: Do I think about a big question differently now? What convinces me, and what would convince me more? Where should the field be going?
It is tricky to keep up with the econometrics literature on shift-share instruments. But it's important. Here is a review paper written by Borusyak, Hull and Jaravel.
David McKenzie highlights the following: “Identification in the general case, for arbitrary formulas and designs, follows from simple adjustments based on the expected instrument: the average value of the formula across counterfactual sets of shocks, drawn from the specified assignment process. Specifically, OVB is avoided by either adding the expected instrument as a control or by using a recentered instrument which subtracts the expected instrument from the original formula. Controlling for or recentering by the expected instrument is generally necessary for identification with formula instruments, absent auxiliary assumptions on the exogeneity of shock exposure.”
Here is the data. And the official description:
Immigration policy for low-skill immigrants, 1783-2010, for the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States.
