Stratification Monopoly (3-5pgs; 100pts)
Due Friday Oct 5th by 11pm via Canvas
The goal of this assignment is for you to critically reflect on your own views about class and economic mobility using the game of Stratification Monopoly. The game will take place on W 9/26 and F 9/28 in class. Attendance is mandatory those days, and if you miss then we will have to arrange a makeup game day. This paper should be written in Times New Roman 12-point font, double-spaced (2-point line spacing), and standard margins (1 inch) and should be 3-5 pages long. Assignments should be turned in to Canvas by 11pm.
Below are instructions for the paper. Follow the organization listed below and write at least one paragraph in response to each point. An excellent paper will use the readings suggested below to improve their argument.
In this paper, you should summarize the two games that you played. First, in the USA game, what quintile did you fall into? Was the game associated with income inequality alone, wealth inequality alone, or income and wealth inequality? How did this game turn out? Was it possible for those at the bottom two quintiles to move up? How did the middle player do? Top player? What was more important in the game, luck (roll of the dice) or skill? Did a player at the bottom ever show enough skill to maybe move up to 3rdplace or above?
Second, in the Finland game, what quintile did you fall into? Was the game associated with income inequality alone, wealth inequality alone, or income and wealth inequality? How did this game turn out? Was it possible for those at the bottom two quintiles to move up? What was more important in the game, luck or skill? Did a player at the bottom ever show enough skill to maybe move up to 3rd place or above?
Third, write 2-3 paragraphs describing how playing these games affected your views about inequality and upward social mobility, particularly for the disadvantaged. Do you think that upward mobility was easier in the USA or Finland Version? In the game, do you think people care more about absolute mobility (for example, making more money than they did last time they passed go) or relative mobility (passing others in rank during the board game)? In real life, which do you think is more important, relative or absolute mobility? Use “Mobility? What Are You Talking About?” By Reeves and Venator from the Week 4 readings to inform your argument.
Fourth, what is more important for advancing in the game: income or wealth? In what ways can income lead to wealth or wealth lead to income? Think about the connections between them. Use “The Many Ways to Measure Economic Inequality” by Desilver from the Week 4 readings to inform your argument.
Fifth, critique the game or make suggestions on how to improve it. For example, is this a decent simulation of real life (for a 40 minute board game—though obviously such a game cannot perfectly reflect the complexity of human life)? What could be done to make it more realistic?
If you use additional outside sources, you should properly cite them using ASA format (or APA or MLA if you prefer). Outside sources are not required for this assignment, though.
Strat Monopoly Reflection Rubric (graded on a scale of 100 points)
(Due 10/5 at 11pm)
10pts: Summary of the US game (this is descriptive. Fewer points will be given to those who do not answer all of the questions)
10pts: Summary of the Finland game (this is descriptive. Fewer points will be given to those who do not answer all of the questions)
30pts: Reflection on the game and how it shaped your views about inequality and mobility
- 30-25 points: effectively describes how the game shaped their views on inequality and mobility. Makes strong connection to the Reeves and Venator reading
- 24-20 points: Either does an effective job of describing how the game shaped views on inequality and mobility yet fails to make connections to reading OR makes connection to reading but does not effectively describe how the game informs their view
- 19 points and below: Fails to effectively describe how the game connects to views on inequality and mobility and also fails to connect them to the reading.
20pts: Reflection on the differences between income and wealth in shaping mobility
- 20-18 points: effectively discusses the links between income and wealth and makes connections to Desilver reading
- 18-16 points: effectively discusses the links between income and wealth BUT fails to make connections to Desilver reading
- 16-14 points: does not effectively discuss the links between income and wealth BUT does make reference to Desilver reading
- 14 points and below: fails to effectively discuss links between income and wealth AND fails to make connection to Desilver reading
20pts: Critique of the game (more of an opinion section; should provide evidence and logic for your critique, though)
10pts: Grammar and Organization- Do you write with proper sentence structure, spelling, and word agreement? Does the organization of your paper make sense? Did you follow my guidelines?