 How did your time in government change your view of academia? I concluded that academics, including people like me, were, in important respects, clueless. And I did not think that before. I did feel as admiring or even more admiring of basic research by academics that produces knowledge or fresh ideas that can be put to use. But having studied administrative law for more than two decades, I was amazed by how steep my own learning curve was in an area that I thought I knew well. So I had written about, and I don't need to single myself out for a program here. I, like many administrative law professors, write about stuff and just the absence of a sufficiently thick understanding of how things happen. That really surprised me. On the other hand, so that's the not-so-good side of academia, I think. When it works about actual practical things, it's often insufficiently informed. But if anything, as I say, the idea that you can go on the National Bureau of Economic Research website, as I did in government and do now, and find out stuff about what programs are working and what not in a way that has a kind of rigor that outruns anything that you could find in the newspaper or in generating a conversation in government. So that, I felt, I almost feel like it has a purity, almost like a religious purity, some of the work that academics do. And that's one of the things I was, I had a glow. Everyone who leaves the White House, I think, has a glow when they leave. Part of my glow, and this is probably unique, was that I was getting a little more sleep, but also that I got to go back to that stuff, maybe do some empirical work and figure out something that might be true and wasn't known yet.