UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROGRAM

Interview #1061
BATES, DOUGLAS

BATES, DOUGLAS (1949-)
Professor Emeritus of Statistics
At UW:  1980-2011

Interviewed: 	2009 (3 sessions)
Interviewer: 	Robert Lange
Index by: 	Stephen A. Pierce
Length: 	6 hours, 8 minutes

Abstract: In his two October 2009 interviews with Bob Lange, Doug Bates reflects on his three decades of teaching, research, and service at UW-Madison.  He chronicles his growing interest in applied mathematics and computing in the 1960s and 70s, as well as formative experiences and mentors who encouraged his interest in statistics. He then discusses his research in the areas of non-linear systems and statistical computing, relating them to his continuing interest in teaching statistics in new ways.  He offers insights into UW’s comparative position among world universities, the advantages of the city of Madison as an environment for UW, and changes in technology and funding. This interview was conducted for inclusion into the UW-Madison Oral History Program.

Key Words: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Winnipeg; Transcona; Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario; John Coleman; computers; the 1960s; University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA); Donald Watts; Madison WI; University of Wisconsin-Madison; National Science Foundation; statistics department; George Box; Brian Joiner; Norman Draper; Bell Laboratories; Gordon Conference; mixed effects; S (-PLUS); Phillip Certain; Judith Craig; Irving Shain; Donna Shalala; David Ward; John Wiley; Carolyn “Biddy” Martin; technology.

First Interview Session (October 5, 2009; part 1): Digital File

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:00:21	Question: Talk about your birthplace and parents. Answer: Bates was born July 5, 1949 in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. He discussed his father’s training as a plumber and work with an automotive firm during the Depression; and his mother’s training as a nurse and early death.

00:02:10	Question: How did they end up in Saskatchewan? Answer: Both his parents were born there, though he recounted how his grandparents emigrated from England and western Canada. He vividly recalled the “pioneering” farm environment in which his grandparents worked in western Canada.

00:06:32	Question: Any interest in math/education from your parents? Answer: Not formally; he observed that his mother had completed nursing education, but his father, though intelligent and “mathematically gifted,” had to go to work after 10th grade. He explained the story of one uncle who had gone to college and graduate school—with whom he was often compared. He recalled his father’s deep mathematical knowledge of navigation from his military training.

00:12:27	Question: Elementary school? Answer: Bates didn’t have vivid recollections of school, the family having moved to Winnipeg during 4th grade—with the exception of a very supportive 4th grade teacher in Regina.

00:16:20	Question: Jr. High school? Were you perceived as smart? Answer: He noted several aspects of the Canadian educational system in the 1960s. He was always just ahead of the “new math,” so studied “pretty mundane” very traditional math.

00:18:35	Question: Other interests? Answer: He remembered being involved in student government, history, etc. He did well in science, but suffered from old curriculum. While they didn’t have many books, he recalled reading a Time-Life series they received, the first installment of which was a book on math that he loved.

00:21:39	Question: High School? Answer: Transcona Collegiate Institute. He explained the origin of the name Transcona from the Trans-Continental Railway line (where many students would eventually be employed), which resulted in a certain tracking of high school students. One result was that math curriculum was not quite up to standard, though he enjoyed 10th grade.

00:25:09	[no question] He told anecdotes about his proclivity for math in HS—always finishing quizzes first, doing exceptionally well in district and region-wide examinations. He said he would have appreciated being pushed harder in HS. Follow up: Was geometry your favorite math? Answer: Yes; he did well in algebra but thought best in geometry.

00:29:08	Question: Were you recognized in HS as smart? Answer: Yes; but he was disadvan-taged (in college) by being in a “relatively small pond,” unlike his kids’ experience in Madison. This led him to relate a story about discovering natural logarithms from his brother’s slide rule and questioning his teacher, who couldn’t really explain it to him.

00:33:31	Question: You were expected to go to college? Answer: Yes; by this time his brother was encouraged by his employer to get a bachelors’ degree, so the two went to Queen’s Univ. in the same program at the same time. Follow up: Was that nice? Answer: Yes; they took all the introductory classes together, but that could be a disad-vantage because his brother had much more practical experience than he did. But his study skills, natural talent, and sense of the rhythm of the semester were better.

00:37:24	Question: Humanities? Answer: He noted that at that point the whole curriculum was science. Follow up: How long in the engineering program? Answer: 2 years. Once one had to choose a specialty, he chose mathematics in engineering.

00:40:22	Follow up: Were you immediately captivated by working with computers? Answer: Strangely no; he didn’t fine FORTRAN appealing at all, but a drudgery until later in graduate school when he began thinking about it as a creative activity.

00:42:28	Question: Key faculty? Answer: He talked about the head of the department John Coleman being a great math scholar, though his approach to teaching (teaching ideas and critical thinking, not pre-packaged solutions) was unnerving to some, but formative and enjoyable for him.

00:46:48	[no question] He noted that the year he took Coleman’s course was the same year he was first exposed to statistics, which he initially disliked intensely. He quipped that this was a life lesson (common among statisticians) about “never say never.” He explained that this was because (while they could transmit subtle meaning and logic and numeracy) statistics formulas could be “ugly” and calculations awkward or seemingly trivial. 

00:52:57	[no question] Noting that people tend to react strongly to introductory statistics, he talked about how his initial experience had influenced the way he taught. He said he tried to avoid trivial calculations and emphasis on formulas, introduced application and computing tools early, and used plotting to alleviate some of students’ common aversion to statistics. 

00:57:26	Follow up: Do you support the teaching of statistics in departments across UW? Answer: He said that this was one of the things statisticians had to contend with—one which had to be understood in the context that UW’s dept strongly emphasized both theory and applications, supporting numerous joint appointments. Somewhat uniquely, statistics faculty often taught introductory courses for the colleges. 

01:01:48	[no question] The downside of this applicational approach, he noted, was the neglect of broader theoretical context. This context became important when the “Murphy’s Law” realities of research made the data not fit the formulas perfectly, and one had to think through the statistical problems creatively.

01:06:33	[no question] Continuing to reflect on the drawbacks of discipline-specific statistics courses, he talked about how computer technology and disciplinary change were changing the content of textbooks extremely rapidly.

01:08:52	Question: Talk about Queen’s University. Answer: He recalled it being a time of social development. He talked about the historical context of Kingston Ontario and how it was dominated by the university and military academy.

01:12:55	Question: Were you conceiving yourself as an academic? Answer: Yes; he mostly saw himself as a mathematician, but as a professor.

01:14:02	Question: The 1960s? Answer: He didn’t think it was as intense in Canada though there were deep cultural divisions. There was also a lot of youth unemployment, but the government wasn’t as confrontational. 

01:16:46	Question: How aware were you of the US? Answer: He said they were saturated with information about the US, with 80% of the Canadian population concentrated on the US border. He talked about seeing US movies, TV and social trends.

01:20:10	Question: How did you get to UCLA? Answer: He talked about Coleman’s and Cedric Schubert’s influence (Schubert had taught at UC-Irvington), who encouraged him to apply. He was accepted and originally planned to get a PhD at UCLA, but returned to Queen’s after an MA when it became apparent that academic jobs in pure mathematics were scarce and he wanted his research to be practical.

01:25:45	[no question] He talked about the changes that moving from Kingston to Los Angeles represented. He found it attractive but isolating, especially since he met his future wife just before moving to LA.

01:28:11	Question: Intellectual development at UCLA? Answer: Once he realized he didn’t want to be in pure math, and reflecting on conversations with Don Watts, he realized that his years at UCLA weren’t wasted, especially as he applied geometric ideas to his statistical research. He gave some detailed examples of ideas he would not have been able to develop had he not had training in geometry.

01:36:05	Question: Back at Queen’s? Answer: He felt fortunate to have had Don Watts as his PhD advisor at Queen’s, having studied engineering as a student and having linkages with UW-Madison, at that time the “Mecca” for statistics to Queen’s. He also said that his dramatic shift from math to higher-level statistics courses gave him a particular way of looking at statistical problems.

01:40:38	[no question] Continuing to talk about his PhD, he explained why he returned specifically to work with Watts, who was investigating regression analysis (which he explained in some detail). His question was trying to figure out (geometrically) what was non-linear about non-linear regression analysis. He remembered interesting discussions with Watts and being able to work somewhat independently. He reflected on his strengths in computing and math and Watts’ strength in applications.

01:46:20	Follow up: You enjoyed working on your PhD? Answer: Yes; he said that it was one of the few times you got to think very deeply about an issue without external pressures—though he noted how hard it could be when one had a creative block.

01:49:48	Follow up: The defense? Answer: He said it wasn’t bad because by the time he got there he was doing things people hadn’t thought of before, so it wasn’t nit-picky.

01:51:17	[no question] Around the same time as his defense, he said, he visited Madison for the first time, coming to work with Watts, who was on sabbatical at UW in 1977. During this time, the two presented a seminar. So in 1979, when UW had an opening, he was given a job offer without even interviewing.

01:53:50	Question: Why University of Alberta? Answer: He said, being self-effacing, he never thought about applying to a US university, so applied to Canadian universities and was offered a job in math department at Alberta.

01:55:46	[no question] On a side note, he explained how statistics is commonly taught in mathematics departments. UW’s department owes its distinctive identity to George Box’s vision for statistics.

01:57:14	[no question] He explained the context of the University of Alberta, which was developing due to oil resources and located in the northernmost major city in Canada. So when UW called, he quipped, he didn’t feel conflicted about leaving. Though he was conscious of possibly returning to Canada at some point, he and his wife discovered that they truly enjoyed Madison.

02:01:34	[no question] He talked briefly about how his wife had been able to continue her education, get an MS and PhD and be at the forefront of her field here in Madison.

02:03:05	Follow up: Could you not duplicate this in Canada? Answer: Not so much—distances, smaller faculties, etc. prohibited it in western Canada.

02:05:09	End of First Interview Session

Second Interview Session (October 5, 2009; part 2): Digital File

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:00:23	Question: Talk about getting to UW in 1980. Answer: When Bates arrived, he had a split appointment between the statistical consulting service and the dept. The department had a lot of computing, consulting, and physical sciences and engineering. UW had been formative in technometrics and at the Gordon Conferences. Thus he was very optimistic when he came.

00:06:31	[no question] He said the inability of computing facilities at the time to keep up with what he was teaching in statistical computing was a shock to him when he came, having come from a relatively wealthy province at Alberta. He explained that considering the expenditure at that time to install a computer system, UW got “caught” in a Univac system that became “stale” over time.

00:13:08	[no question] Continuing to talk about computing at UW, he observed that, fortu-nately, by 1982 smaller minicomputers was taking place and he was able to get an NSF grant to get a computer for the department, one of the first in the country to have a dedicated computer. This took the dept from behind to ahead in computing.

00:17:29	Follow up: Are relations between statistics and computer science good? Answer: Yes; they’ve always kept a good relationship with those who maintain the lab. He found it helpful to be around computer scientists who were innovative, citing Larry Landweber and others.

00:21:48	Question: What else were you teaching? Answer: He taught introductory courses as well—with few undergraduate majors, service courses were important to the dept. Having done thesis work on non-linear regression analysis, he taught graduate courses on that following Box.

00:25:21	[no question] After a few years, he recalled, his appointment was moved full time into the department, being more of an academic and less of a businessperson. Once a particular project ended in the consulting service, he moved back full-time.

00:27:52	Question: Were you worried about tenure? Answer: He didn’t remember a formal mentoring mechanism in those days, but he worried about tenure.

00:29:23	Follow up: What was your research program? Answer: Bates recalled that, following George Box’ concern with application and theory, his interest in computing and computational methods crossed these boundaries. 

00:33:26	[no question] He talked about his inclination to over-polish papers—he gave a detailed example of a particular theory he had been working on for over 10 years.

00:40:36	[no question] Continuing to talk about his research program, he talked about statistical computing facilities being conducted at Bell Laboratories. He explained the history of Bell Labs, the computer programs S and R, and the reasons for the creation of a free programming language. 

00:48:52	[no question] Continuing to talk about the development of free software, he discussed the “economy” of it, which UW just “got”--the use of research time to create a public-good language.

00:51:40	Follow up: Is this project one of the contributors to the department’s reputation? Answer: Perhaps it helps, though he thought the project just existed of its own. He wondered that a project originally without formal organization now had conferences, etc. He talked about the positives and negatives of the program’s smashing success.

00:57:19	End of Second Interview Session

Third Interview Session (October 12, 2009): Digital File

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:00:23	Question: Talk about getting tenure. Answer: Bates reviewed getting his PhD at Queen’s University with Watts and working at Alberta, and felt fortunate that his work with Watts produced a very high-profile publication presented at the Royal Statistical Society of Britain (one of only 4 annual such papers). This was unusual for a paper coming out of a dissertation.

00:03:14	[no question] He reviewed the UW department’s strong connection with the sciences and engineering, especially chemical kinetics, and talked about presenting this paper to some UW faculty at Gordon Conferences and elsewhere.

00:05:09	[no question] He reviewed how he came at the statistical questions he dealt with in his dissertation from a mathematical perspective, which was different and high-risk (but high-reward). Thus, he’d gained some recognition just out of grad school.

00:06:44	[no question] Once at UW, he observed, he knew it would be strenuous to get tenure, with the expectation of publication and the department’s expectation that he work on an area outside his dissertation to prove that his ideas weren’t just his mentor’s. But he reviewed the fruitful collaboration between himself and Watts, and his desire to continue with it.

00:09:43	[no question] Noting that research was preeminent in tenure discussions (though the triad of teaching-research-service was often cited). He said he enjoyed teaching and consulting, as well as his service trying to update the departments computing, never-theless it was still a stressful time getting tenure. Follow up: A mentor? Answer: Not formally, like now. Follow up: Were you worried? Answer: Only if the department didn’t recommend him—not the divisional committee.

00:14:12	[no question] He added some context to this period of tenure—during it, he’d contracted psoriasis, the treatments for which were hard on his liver. His family was also very young and his wife had just gone back to graduate school.

00:15:26	Question: Post-tenure research? Answer: He said that all of his research was connected with statistical computing and non-linear parameters for statistical models. Around 1986, he said, he began working with Mary Lindstrom as a project assistant on random effects of sampling of analytical units, and she convinced him to work with her on her thesis (mixed effects).

00:19:42	[no question] Continuing to talk about mixed effects research, he felt fortunate again to enter a field that was cutting edge and to be able to develop a system within the S programming language to help investigate it. This, he thought, showed his tendency to stick with one problem rather than dabbling in many. Over 15 years, then, they’d developed new ways of approaching it that could be described in relatively (and deceptively) compact form.

00:24:09	[no question] He described good suggestions that come to a scientist from outside, discussing how an outside suggestion and sheer tenacity had allowed their model to help analyze the wide variability of performance on the WI Knowledge and Concepts Exam.

00:31:02	Follow up: And you’re pretty inclined toward application? Answer: Yes; he reviewed how his switch from mathematics to statistics had to do with math’s lack of application. He cited Box’s statement that “all models are wrong.” At the same time, however, many people wanted “specific numbers” rather than models. He felt fortunate that his work bridged the theory end and practical end of mathematics.

00:37:11	[no question] He noted that one of the big changes in science is the move away from being “finished when you got to the equations” to providing applications.

00:39:09	[no question] He mentioned that it was fun for him to be able to carry around the broad analytical strokes of his questions in his head, though “the devil is in the details.” He explained how programmer’s had to constantly be thinking about cases when everything went wrong.

00:41:26	[no question] He talked again about how to outsiders, “elegance” seemed like a strange thing to talk about in statistics, but it was actually important. He also wished that he had more facility in language for the way it contributed to programming languages. 

00:45:17	[no question] He quipped that one’s energy could also contribute as much to innovation as much as experience. 

00:46:27	Follow up: Do you bounce ideas off colleagues? Answer: Only occasionally. He remarked that he worked more often with colleagues internationally than at UW, and also graduate students. But his research program was very personal.

00:50:10	Follow up: Twice graduate students brought you new directions. Answer: He found it rewarding, though he noted that he didn’t have a lot of graduate students because it was an intense exchange of ideas (which didn’t work with all grad students). He talked about a few students he had who’d contributed especially.

00:54:51	[no question] Continuing to talk about graduate students, he observed that UW continues to be able to attract good students, though the makeup of the student body had changed notably over time to include many more international students. He cited some statistics and pros and cons of these demographic trends.

00:58:32	He suggested that they didn’t have the ability to attract top US students (who often go to the coasts, and tended to shop around. He lamented that it was difficult to keep stipends at competitive rates with other better-funded schools, especially as US schools lose their attractiveness to other places.

01:05:16	Follow up: Where does UW’s statistics stand nationally? Answer: He answered that historically they were top 5, but didn’t know if they still held that rank. He talked about innovative and well-regarded faculty in the department, including joint appointments with other departments and schools. These cutting edge fields combining statistical computing and biostatistical techniques could be growth fields for the department.

01:11:24	[no question] Continuing to talk about the department’s ranking nationally, he wondered if it would be able to continue this considering the resources available and budget cuts (though other universities were being squeezed).

01:14:33	[no question] He discussed the fairly low-overhead administration that UW ran, and how, considering the tax base and size of WI, it played “over its rating.” He talked about how UW’s “peer group” was an unlikely one.

01:19:37	[no question] He expressed how even though UW fell toward the bottom of their “peer group” the Madison atmosphere, cost-of-living, etc. made it worth it to him to work here rather than other higher-rated campuses. This was a common perspective among faculty who stayed at UW.

01:22:56	Question: Talk about being chair. Answer: Bates didn’t consider himself to have political ambition or inspired leadership, but was an “okay craftsman.” He also considered himself to be a uniting force.

01:26:51	Follow up: What issues were you taking on? Answer: He said there were always personnel issues—he detailed how one department member who had psychological issues felt he wasn’t being appropriately recognized and threatened to sue. This occupied a lot of Bates’ time—thus, administrative work was a deep disappointment because he prized his time. 

01:31:50	[no question] Related to his time as an administrator, he did enjoy seeing the university administration work and admired Donna Shalala, who was short of stature but was a talented administrator and brought significant visibility and funds to UW. The downside to this was bringing a lot of attention to herself.

01:37:04	Question: Was salary setting a significant issue for you? Answer: Yes; he said he liked the way UW handled salary, as a merit exercise. His chairmanship was fairly un-controversial, partly because statistics had so many jointly-appointed faculty. This constrained his decision making but did tend to lead to some inequity as well.

01:41:48	Follow up: How are relations with South Hall? Answer: He said he had good relationships with South Hall, mostly with the assistant dean for social sciences Phil Certain. He especially valued Certain’s openness—showing faculty where the money was coming from and how inflexible the budget was. He also spoke highly of Judy Craig and others, noting that while it was an executive office, it was very hard-working and wasn’t unapproachable.

01:50:14	Follow up: Did you get a course release? Answer: Yes; he taught 1 course per semester, which he thought appropriate even if at times administration occupied more than 50% of his time. Follow up: And your research? Answer: He was able to continue, but only by compartmentalizing.

01:51:59	Follow up: Would you accept the chair again? Answer: As a “competent caretaker,” he didn’t find the position appealing, but had high regard for it and would decide based upon the needs of the department.

01:54:55	Question: Other highlights of service? Answer:  He’d not served on any other major committees, because it wasn’t a priority, except where his data analysis abilities were valuable. Committees like the salary committee.

01:57:39	Question: Talk about teaching post-tenure. Answer: He explained how his statistical computing had been valuable to students, which he enjoyed. He also started a course on non-linear modeling and taught a variety of graduate and undergraduate courses. For undergraduates, he’d recently been teaching introductory courses for non-majors, which he enjoyed.

02:03:02	[no question] While he liked continually “evolving” in his intro courses, he talked about some “missteps” that came with this kind of evolution—choosing a textbook he really didn’t like—and also the work it takes to compose courses, have students work with real data, and develop evaluations for large class sizes.

02:07:27	Follow up: How do you prepare exams? Answer: “With great difficulty,” he quipped. He explained how he chose topics, had developed a question database, had moved to machine graded exams (with its pros and cons). He related how he initially thought that developing “distracters” would be hard, but it was actually fun. He talked about the statistical concepts related to evaluating these questions. But the reward of working this hard on machine-graded exams was not having to grade blue books.

02:15:33	Question: How have your students changed? Answer: He said there seemed to be a growing expectation that everything they need to know should be easily accessible, especially with technology, rather than teaching independent thinking skills.

02:22:12	Question: Assess different chancellors. Answer: He started by noting that he wasn’t very conscious of Irv Shain’s chancellorship as a new faculty member. He went on to observe that although Shalala could be polarizing, she revitalized UW.

02:25:04	[no question] Continuing to talk about chancellors, he compared John Wiley and David Ward—established scholars, coming from within UW, long administrative experience, both good at the job. They both were good dealing with faculty, but not with undergraduates.

02:29:52	[no question] He felt that Biddy Martin, coming from the humanities, would bring an element of consensus and communicativeness that had been lacking in previous administrations.

02:33:23	Follow up: You’re not opposed to outsiders being brought in? Answer: No; he thought it was good to have variety. 

02:35:35	Question: Your net observations about UW. Answer: He said he’d enjoyed the opportunity to work at UW, especially that UW was a cutting edge university, but located in Madison, which didn’t feel  like a big city.

02:38:24	[no question] Continuing with some general observations on what change he saw coming, he cited the way communications were changing teaching, learning, and research, especially in terms of the amount of information available.

02:42:38	[no question] Continuing to talk about change, he thought “locality” would be less prevalent in the future. Asked to evaluate this, he discussed times when parochial viewpoints were detrimental to his field; but it was also difficult with such vast amounts of information to build a discerning approach to the discipline. 

02:45:42	[no question] Continuing to discuss important changes at UW, he cited the dwindling readership of the daily newspaper to talk about the importance of getting different opinions and perspectives. This related to his memories of discovering reading, especially during the summer.

02:49:07	[no question] He continued talking about change by discussing wider issues of community, which he exampled by sports’ ability to create community. He wondered if these senses of community would change with the telecommunications revolution

02:53:15	[no question] He said the other thing that would affect UW was sources of funding, which was going to force UW, like other universities, to make critical choices about the direction of research. While he hoped UW would continue to follow public-good research, it would be understandable and easy to follow the designs of the government or business—especially as technology became more affordable and accessible. He wondered how the university would keep up with this profound and exciting change. 

03:05:10	End of Third Interview Session

End of Oral History #1061