Teaching Sociology http://tso.sagepub.

com/

''That's Not Fair!'': A Simulation Exercise in Social Stratification and Structural Inequality
Catherine L. Coghlan and Denise W. Huggins
Teaching Sociology 2004 32: 177
DOI: 10.1177/0092055X0403200203

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://tso.sagepub.com/content/32/2/177

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Sociological Association

Additional services and information for Teaching Sociology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://tso.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://tso.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://tso.sagepub.com/content/32/2/177.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 2004

What is This?

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
 “THAT’S NOT FAIR!”: A SIMULATION EXERCISE IN SOCIAL
STRATIFICATION AND STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY*

Social stratification may be one of the most difficult topics covered in sociol-
ogy classes. This article describes an interactive learning exercise, using a
modified version of the game Monopoly, intended to stress the structural na-
ture of social inequality and to stimulate student reflection and class discus-
sion on social stratification in the United States. The primary focus of this
exercise is to help students experience different levels of social stratification
and to challenge the idea that individual talents or aspirations are enough to
overcome structural barriers to upward class mobility. Student reactions to
the experience suggest that it is an effective tool for demonstrating the struc-
tural nature of social inequality in the United States and for stimulating discus-
sion on social inequality and related topics. This exercise has worked well in
introductory sociology, social problems, and social inequality classes.

CATHERINE L. COGHLAN DENISE W. HUGGINS

Texas Christian University University of Arkansas

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION MAY be one of the ditions. This article describes an interactive
most difficult topics covered in sociology learning exercise intended to stress the
classes. The information presented to stu- structural nature of social inequality and to
dents on this topic challenges what many of stimulate student reflection and class discus-
them perceive as the essence of American- sion on social stratification in the United
ism, the ethos of individualism. Students States.
who are products of a culture that deifies
and reifies individualism often have diffi- LITERATURE REVIEW
culty examining social stratification from a
sociological rather than an individualistic Interactive learning techniques have been
perspective (Bohmer and Briggs 1991; helpful in allowing instructors to overcome
Davis 1992; Eells 1987; McCammon 1999). student resistance to examining the struc-
Teaching about the structural nature of so- tural nature of social stratification and social
cial stratification is especially challenging as inequality (Davis 1992; Groves, Warren,
most students are taught from a very early and Witschger 1996; Hilligoss 1992; Jessup
age that success or failure in life is largely 2001; McCammon 1999; McGrane 1993;
dependent upon individual characteristics Sernau 1995; M. Wright 2000). Hilligoss
and attributes and not structural social con- (1992) found that an introductory course
taught using interactive teaching methods
*The authors would like to thank Morrison performed better than an introductory
Wong and the anonymous reviewers for their course she taught using a traditional lecture
time and recommendations for improving the format. The interactive class had a lower
manuscript. Please address all correspondence no-show rate (4.5% compared to 20%), a
to Catherine L. Coghlan, Institutional Research,
better retention rate (77% compared to
Texas Christian University, TCU Box 297020,
56%), and a lower number of average ab-
Fort Worth, TX 76129;
e-mail: [email protected]. sences (4.7 compared to 7.2) than the tradi-
Editor’s note: The reviewers were, in tional lecture-format class. In addition, Hil-
alphabetical order, Michael Jessup, Mary E. ligoss noted that students in the interactive
Kelly, and Scott Sernau. class were more likely than students in the

Teaching Sociology, Vol. 32, 2004 (April:177-187) 177

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
178 TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
traditional class to perceive of themselves as ance at the behavior of two-minute group
active participants in the learning process. members from those with more generous
Interactive methods using simulation exer- time allocations.
cises such as the one to be described here Groves et al. (1996) introduced a simula-
have met with mixed results (Dorn 1989). tion that emphasized the structural nature of
Brezina (1996:219) suggests that simulated social inequality and the importance of so-
exercises are “likely to have only a limited cial networks in getting ahead. This exer-
impact on student views of inequality.” In cise involved dividing the class into two
his review of simulation games, Dorn found groups, the majority (75% of the class) and
that the most common problems associated the minority (25% of the class). The major-
with these types of games are that they are ity group received more resources (more
difficult to grade, sometimes evoke intense and longer strings) than the minority group.
emotions—such as frustration, anger, or Students were then instructed to build a
depression—are not value-free, and may network. Once they completed the network,
oversimplify the real-world conditions that the class examined how many people and
they are supposed to illustrate. Despite the which people had connections to a theoreti-
criticisms and these potential problems, cal job placed somewhere within the net-
Dorn (1989:8) also found work. In this exercise, Groves et al. re-
ported that students began to recognize the
a substantial amount of consistent research structural determinants of stratification,
[showing] that simulation games do increase experienced feelings of empathy for minori-
students’ interest and motivation, that they can ties, and appreciated the clarity which the
be effective in changing some attitudes, and
exercise brought to the concepts and social
that they are at least as effective as more con-
ventional pedagogy in teaching cognitive
processes being studied.
learning. Giuffre and Paxton (1997) outline a simi-
lar exercise in which they divided the class
A number of simulation exercises for in- into two equal-size groups. The two groups
troducing the topic of social stratification were then labeled minority and majority. As
have appeared in this journal over the years. in the Groves et al. (1996) exercise, the
Eells (1987) devised an exercise in which majority group received more resources
she used the allocation of time to represent (three as opposed to two strings) and had
different class levels and the advantages and more mobility (long as opposed to short
disadvantages inherent at each level. In strings). Having more and longer strings
Eells’s activity, students were divided into allowed majority students to make more
four groups and given two, four, six, or ten connections, build larger networks, and
minutes to complete a regularly scheduled have more flexibility in constructing their
quiz. The minute allocations corresponded networks. After the students constructed
with four social classes—the higher the time their networks, access to a theoretical job
allocation, the higher the social class. The through direct connections was assessed by
exercise prompted discussions about per- giving the job to an equal number of the
sonal ability and structural constraints as minority and majority. Students discovered
many students (except for the ten-minute that despite attempts to equalize the number
group) complained about the unfairness of and equally dividing the source of the job
the exercise, arguing that determination and between the minority and majority students,
personal ability were not enough to over- majority group members had more opportu-
come the structural barriers that had been nities to learn of the job than did the minor-
placed upon them. Eells asked how the stu- ity. Giuffre and Paxton’s modification of
dents felt during the exercise and received the Groves et al. exercise places greater
responses ranging from anger and frustra- emphasis on the structural nature of inequal-
tion within the two-minute group to annoy- ity because of the equal number of minority

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
THAT’S NOT FAIR: AN INEQUALITY EXERCISE 179
and majority students in the exercise. described below, which focuses on eco-
McCammon (1999) developed an interac- nomic inequality.
tive budget exercise to emphasize the struc- Each of the activities described above
tural and relational nature of social inequal- approaches the topic of social stratification
ity to students. Her intent was to help stu- from a slightly different perspective. The
dents understand the relational nature of simulation presented below focuses more on
social stratification and social inequality, the economic elements of class, but the way
that “the rich are rich because the poor are it is structured can promote discussions that
poor” (E. Wright 2001:99). In this exer- include several dimensions. This activity is
cise, McCammon divided students into five one more tool that can be added to a grow-
groups, with each group representing a dif- ing repertoire of interactive learning tech-
ferent economic level ranging from below niques for teaching students about social
poverty level to upper middle class. In the stratification.
first phase of the activity, each group was
given a monthly income and asked to create THE ACTIVITY
a budget based upon that income. In the
second phase of the activity, students re- This simulation exercise has been used in
mained in their same economic groups and introductory sociology classes of varying
were asked to develop a national budget, length and size. The exercise has also been
approaching that task from the perspective used over several semesters at a large pri-
of the economic group to which they were vate university, a mid-sized state university,
previously assigned. McCammon reminded and a large state university. In addition to
students that any new programs developed introductory sociology classes, this exercise
could only be funded by cutting other areas has been used in social problems classes and
of the budget or raising taxes. This exercise a social inequality class. A modified version
reinforced the relational nature of social of this game has also been used in deviance
stratification. Students from the lower eco- and criminal justice classes. Modifications
nomic groups developed more programs for in the “deviance” version include creating
the poor and working class while taxing the legal and illegal opportunity cards (with
rich or cutting the defense budget. Those in consequences) for players to acquire addi-
the upper classes were more likely to de- tional income in the game, specific guide-
velop a national budget that favored them. lines on the exchange of loans and gifts
Jessup (2001) presents an activity for ex- among players, and instructions for the sale
ploring social stratification using a modified of property by individual players (Huggins
game of Monopoly. In this activity, Jessup and Coghlan 2003).
stratified the game by ethnicity and gender, In most cases, students have responded
basing the amount of money received by favorably to the simulation as it is described
different players or teams on a formula de- here. Occasionally students have com-
rived from the median household incomes plained that the game lasted too long or was
for four different groups: non-Hispanic not representative of real life. However,
Whites, Hispanics, Afro-Americans, and even these students have expressed that the
female householders with no husband pre- exercise was beneficial in illustrating the
sent. Jessup divided the students into teams structural nature of social inequality. We
representing each group. He found that the have not observed any substantial differ-
simulation helped to generate discussion ences in the effectiveness of the simulation
about social inequality and what could be exercise across class or university type. The
done to alleviate it. Jessup’s version of the factors which seem to influence the effec-
game, which he calls Sociopoly, is useful in tiveness of the simulation most are the time
stressing the intersection of class, race, and allotted for the activity and student prepar-
gender and is different from the version edness (having read the assigned readings).

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
180 TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
The ideal length of the class is 75 min- Table 1. Percent Share of Household Income by
utes. If the exercise is used in a 50-minute Quintile
class, it may be necessary to shorten the Quintile Percent Share
time allotted for the game or to delay dis-
Highest 49.7
cussion of the exercise to the next class pe- Fourth 23.0
riod. At the beginning of class, students are Third 14.9
assigned to groups by numbering off so that Second 8.9
there are six or seven students per group Lowest 3.6
(depending on the size of the class). The Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Money In-
ideal group size is six, five players and one come in the United States 2000, p. 8.
observer. The groups are instructed to de-
cide who will be the observer (or observers illustrate how wealth influences “life
if there are seven group members). The chances.” The player in the highest bracket
observer then leaves the room with the in- receives all the railroads, Boardwalk, and
structor. The observer for each group is Park Place, while the player in the second-
given one Monopoly game and instructions highest income bracket receives Pennsyl-
on how to set up the game. Observers are vania Avenue and Oriental Avenue. The
also given guidelines for making observa- players in the three lowest quintiles receive
tions (see Appendix A for the Observer’s no property. The set-up for the activity is
Instructions). outlined in Table 2.
Each group has one Monopoly game and The property distributed to designate
five players who represent each of the five wealth here was not done using a formula,
income quintiles reported in the Census as was income, primarily because of the
Bureau’s annual report, Money Income in time required to calculate the entire amount
the United States. The amount of money of available wealth in the Monopoly game
that each player starts with represents the (i.e. money, property, houses, and hotels).
proportion of the aggregate income that the Despite this limitation, students do recog-
group he or she represents holds in the nize the advantage that those who enter the
United States (see Table 1). In a regular game with wealth have over the other play-
game of Monopoly, each player would start ers and how wealth or lack of wealth in the
with $1,500. Thus the aggregate starting game shapes their respective “life chances.”
income for the game is $7,500 (5 players X The 1995 Current Population Report by the
$1,500 each). To arrive at the starting fig- U.S. Census Bureau (the most current re-
ure for each player in the version presented port) breaks the wealth distribution in the
here, the percentage of aggregate income United States into quintiles (see Table 3)
for each quintile was multiplied by $7,500. and would be a useful guide for those who
For example, for the lowest starting quintile might wish to focus more on the role of
the starting cash amount is $270 ($7,500 X wealth and to modify the starting assets
3.6%). accordingly.
At the beginning of the game, players are Instructors might also find it interesting to
given packets that are prepared ahead of note that the current version of Monopoly,
time by the instructor and contain the ap- which emphasizes wealth accumulation and
propriate token, cash, and property. These the idea that anyone can get rich, debuted
packets are distributed to the players by the during The Depression but is commonly
observer. The tokens for each level were thought to have been inspired by “The
selected as rough indicators of the status of Landlord’s Game,” a game invented by
each group. The players in the top two in- Lizzie Magie, a Quaker, in 1904 to gain
come brackets receive property that repre- support for the single-tax movement (a tax
sents their wealth. The limitation of wealth proposal that would have based taxes on
(property assets) to the top two players is land ownership). The purpose of the origi-
intended to reflect the inequitable distribu- nal game was to demonstrate that, under the
tion of wealth in the United States and to current laws, land ownership (the founda-

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
THAT’S NOT FAIR: AN INEQUALITY EXERCISE 181
Table 2. Stratification Monopoly Set-Up

Token Starting Starting Number of denominations for each total Pass

Cash Property Assets 500s 100s 50s 20s 10s 5s 1s GO
Horse $3,728 Boardwalk,
Park Place, All 6 2 6 6 7 6 8 $500
Railroads
(Value: $1,550)
Hat $1,725 Pennsylvania
Avenue, Orien- 2 4 2 7 6 4 5 $230
tal Avenue
(Value: $420)
Car $1,118 None 1 2 4 7 5 5 3 $150

Dog $667 None 0 3 3 7 3 4 7 $89

Iron $270 None 0 1 1 3 4 3 5 $36

tion of wealth) benefited the few (landlords) passes GO. In this modified version of the
rather than the many (tenants) (Bellis 2003). game, the amount each player receives for
Players are not informed ahead of time of passing GO is determined by multiplying
the economic status of each token. Once the aggregate income for five players (5 X
each player has received the material related $200 = $1,000) by the proportion received
to status, he or she is asked to count and by each quintile. These amounts are also
record starting assets, adding together the indicated in Table 2 above (for convenience
cash received and the face value of any and because of a limited number of bills in
property included in the packet. The face each denomination, the salaries for the
value of the property is found on the Mo- horse and car have been rounded up to $500
nopoly board (to save time, the instructor from $497 and to $150 from $149 respec-
can post the total starting assets on the tively). The amount that a player receives
board for each token). After players have for passing GO applies to any Chance or
learned of their starting class positions by Community Chest card drawn that directs
counting their assets, the instructor writes the player to proceed to or pass GO.
the amount that each player will receive for In this simulation, the money amounts
passing GO on the board. In an ordinary awarded or demanded (except for pay re-
game of Monopoly, each player receives ceived for passing GO) by the Community
$200 from the bank each time he or she Chest and Chance cards are not modified.
Instead, the surprise income and expenses
Table 3. Median Net Worth of Households by are used as analogies for real-life events in
Monthly Household Income Quintile: 1995 the ensuing class discussion. In the real
world, unexpected expenses such as medical
Monthly Household Median Net Worth bills or car repairs comprise a higher per-
Income Quintile (dollars) centage of the low-income family budget
Highest Quintile 116,232 than the high-income family budget, thus
Fourth Quintile 52,860 creating more difficulty for lower-income
Third Quintile 35,949 families than for higher-income families.
Second Quintile 21,966
These cards also provide an opportunity to
Lowest Quintile 5,000
talk about issues such as regressive taxes as
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Household Net an element of structural inequality and the
Worth and Asset Ownership: 1995, p. ix.
disproportionate amount of taxes that low-

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
182 TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
income families and individuals pay for metaphor for immigration status and how
basic goods such as clothing and gasoline. not knowing the “rules of the game” can
The observer’s task is to record players’ keep someone from upward social mobility.
reactions to their positions in the social During the game, the instructor rotates
structure and to make note of how the play- from group to group observing the interac-
ers interact with each other, particularly tions and making note of comments or ac-
stereotypical responses, helping behaviors, tions that may be helpful in illustrating so-
and so forth. Other than initially handing ciological concepts. Stereotypical comments
out the player packets, observers are asked about different social classes are fairly com-
not to participate in the player interactions mon. For example, during one game when
or to give advice on how the game could or the iron (the token representing the lowest
should be played. Players are given the fol- class) went out of the game, the player
lowing rules and guidelines by the instruc- asked what should be done with the token.
tor: Another player responded, “Oh let’s just
1. Each token receives a certain amount of put you in jail, because that’s where you are
pay for passing GO; going to end up anyway.” In a different
2. the player with the Horse token is the game at different times, two players repre-
banker; senting the opposite ends of the spectrum
3. stay in the game as long as you can; asked someone to move their tokens for
and them. When the horse (the token represent-
4. accumulate as much as you can. ing the highest class level) asked for assis-
No other rules are given to the players in tance it was given with no questions asked.
order to provide each group the flexibility When the iron asked for assistance the
to define their own “culture.” This includes player was accused of being lazy.
no guidance on buying property, what to do Depending upon time constraints, we al-
when someone cannot pay, whether to have low 30 to 45 minutes for the actual game.
money in Free Parking, and so on (in the This is usually enough time for one or more
official Monopoly rules, Free Parking is players to go out of the game. At the end of
defined as a free resting place; however, it the time period allotted, students are told to
is customary to collect money from fines stop the game and count their assets. They
and fees in the center of the game board. then compare their starting assets with their
Free Parking then becomes akin to winning ending assets. Immediately following the
the lottery for the person who lands on the end of the exercise, players are asked to
space). Because most students have had reflect on their experience using a list of
some experience with Monopoly, establish- questions to guide the reflection (see Ap-
ing the rules and norms of the game usually pendix B for a sample reflection sheet).
occurs within the first few rounds without Prior to the class period in which the simu-
too many problems. The “official” Monop- lation is used, students are assigned read-
oly rules are available for consultation if the ings on social stratification, inequality, and
students want them. The lack of guidance class mobility (a list of recommended read-
here has created some interesting scenarios. ings in addition to course texts is available
Some players who are familiar with the in Appendix C). The reflection activity asks
official rules of Monopoly, especially those students to relate their experiences in the
who have drawn a lower economic status game to the assigned readings for the class.
token, have reported feelings of frustration
when other students receiving the higher EFFECTIVENESS OF
economic status tokens do not take full ad- THE SIMULATION
vantage of their opportunities. Lack of
awareness of how to play official Monopoly One of the key components of a simulation
is later used in the class discussion as a exercise is the debriefing process (Dorn

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
THAT’S NOT FAIR: AN INEQUALITY EXERCISE 183
1989). Debriefing through class discussion tural conditions and move up, most stay in
is a critical part of the activity (a list of the strata in which they started. This activ-
possible discussion questions can be found ity also leads to discussion of the strong
in Appendix D). We begin the debriefing emphasis on individualism in the U.S. cul-
process by first examining the concept of ture. After the discussion on class mobility,
class mobility. To illustrate the nature of students are asked to talk about their experi-
class mobility, a chart is compiled on the ences in the exercise with the class. The
board representing the starting and ending observers are asked to speak first, followed
assets of each player. Since each group uses by players at each level. Ideally, this discus-
the same tokens and each token in each sion immediately follows the activity and a
group starts with the same amount, the brief period of individual reflection and
starting assets for each group are recorded usually lasts for 30-40 minutes. In 50-
in the first column. The chart is then filled minute classes, it may be necessary to delay
out with the ending assets for each group the discussion to the next class period. A
member. Once completed, the class exam- slight disadvantage in delaying the discus-
ines the chart for evidence of class mobility. sion to the next class period is that the emo-
For the purposes of this exercise, evidence tions experienced during the activity will
of upward class mobility is defined as at- have diminished by the time the activity is
taining assets that equal or exceed the start- discussed. This disadvantage may be miti-
ing assets of the next-highest class. Down- gated somewhat by allowing time for stu-
ward class mobility is defined as dropping dents to write down some of their initial
below the starting assets of the next-lowest thoughts and feelings on the experience be-
class. Table 4 below is an example of a fore leaving the classroom.
completed chart. The outlined figures indi-
cate instances of upward or downward mo- DISCUSSION
bility.
What the students usually discover is that The primary focus of this exercise is to help
class mobility is not as common as they students experience different levels of social
may have been led to believe. In most cases stratification and to challenge the idea that
there are one or two people out of 25 or 30 individual talents or aspirations are enough
who have achieved upward mobility. There to overcome structural barriers to upward
are also players who experience downward class mobility. At the beginning of the dis-
mobility. This visual display helps to stimu- cussion, students are given a handout from
late discussion on the structural reality of the latest U.S. Census Bureau report on
social inequality and how even though some Money Income in the United States and are
individuals do manage to overcome struc- told how the initial amounts of money and

Table 4. Class Mobility as Indicated by Starting and Ending Assets1

Starting
Token Assets Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
Horse $5,278 $7,368 $7,147 $5,658 $7,075 $7,143 $6,467

Hat $2,145 $2,287 $2,495 $1,646 $1,873 $1,813 $2,146

Car $1,118 $719 $2,233 $1,432 $1,252 $1,298 $1,226

Dog $667 $756 $108 $509 $1,925 $0 $1,117

Iron $270 $305 $0 $36 $540 $139 $306

1
These data are combined from two classes for illustrative purposes.

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
184 TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
the amount for passing GO were allocated. student assigned to the lowest status ob-
In this simulation the handout was “Table served, “I felt like this game was like life
C: Selected Measures of Household Income because at many times your social status is
Dispersion: 1967 to 2000” from Money passed on to the next generation. It may be
Income in the United States 2000 (p. 8). difficult for a poor class person to ever dig
Some in the class have difficulty realizing themselves out of their role of the under
that the allocations are based upon the ac- class.” A student who drew a working-class
tual allocation of income for each quintile in position (the dog) tried to get by on hopes
the United States. Situations that arise in the and dreams of a better life: “At first when I
game, such as drawing a Chance card that found that my position or status was as a
requires the player to pay a large sum or dog, I knew I was part of the working class,
landing on a player’s property and being but not entirely poor. I had hope...The
required to pay a high rent, are used as strategy I used was hope and also to buy as
analogies for life situations such as encoun- many properties so people could pay me. I
tering unexpected medical bills or other also try to see if I can pass go as much and
expenses that can create havoc for a budget to get free parking.”
and prevent people from getting ahead. Not This exercise is particularly conducive to
knowing the rules of the game is used as an examination from a conflict perspective.
analogy to discuss the difficulties that may One student noted, “If we looked at this
be encountered by immigrants who may not from a conflict point of view the power
know the “rules” of the culture. struggle was between the very top and the
In their written reflections, some students very bottom, we in the middle just played.”
in the lower status groups expressed frustra- Another student assigned to the middle-class
tion upon learning of their position: “I was status noted, “Initially, I wasn’t too happy
dealt a sucky hand;” “When I found out with my position in the social structure be-
that I only got $36 when passing go and the cause I was jipped [sic] out of $50.00 every
horse got $500, I felt like the system let me time I passed go. However, when I realized
down, everyone should get the same amount that so many others were getting way less
for achieving the same thing;” “When the than me, I realized that I had no reason to
game began I realized I was at the bottom complain, but should count my blessings
of the social structure. It was disappointing instead.” Comments like these open the
to have no money when the horse had door for a more in-depth discussion of the
LOTS!” Players on the other end of the relational nature of social stratification and
economic spectrum often felt happy, but how social structures and institutions are
some also experienced guilt at having come legitimated.
into their wealth by chance: “I was happy Although the primary purpose of this ex-
that I had the most $ and assets in the be- ercise is to introduce the complex and often
ginning. I felt bad for the others because I controversial topic of social stratification to
got it by luck.” Another student that was in sociology students, the activity can serve as
the top income bracket observed, “How a reference point for other sociological dis-
wealthy you are really does matter with cussions as well, such as socialization, cul-
your standings in society and how much ture, stereotypes, labeling, and deviance.
respect you get. The richer you are the This activity is well suited for an introduc-
more you can do and get away with.” tory class and can be used in other courses
Also addressed in the discussion is the (i.e., social problems and social inequality).
idea of class as an ascribed status. Interest- It can also be updated periodically by using
ingly, some students, when asked to relate the most recent annual U.S. Census Bureau
the exercise to the readings on stratification, report of Money Income in the United States
suggested that the type of stratification ex- to adjust the quintile allocations for starting
perienced was caste rather than class. One assets and salary for passing GO so that

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
THAT’S NOT FAIR: AN INEQUALITY EXERCISE 185
they coincide with the current distribution gift, loan, or some other type of arrangement?
of income in the United States. With some
What do players do once they are no longer able
modifications, it is also an effective tool for
to stay in the game? Do they continue to be an
exploring deviance and other criminal jus- active part of the group? Do they withdraw? Do
tice topics. This activity is generally well- they try to disrupt the game?
received, and on formal and informal
course evaluations it is often listed as one of In what order did the players drop out of the game
the best things about the class. Like other and at what time in the game?
simulation activities, the challenge for the
How did the other players react to the loss of a
instructor is to ensure that the discussion player?
following the activity helps students to re-
late their experience in the game to the real- Who seems to be “in charge” of the game?
world situations and sociological concepts it
is intended to represent. Done well, the Other observations:
activity and ensuing discussion open the
Consider the readings for today’s class. How can
door to the idea that the social structure, you relate these observations to those readings?
despite individual characteristics, plays a What theoretical approach would you use to de-
large role in determining just how far an scribe what you have seen here? Why?
individual may go in life.
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX A
Group: _____________________
Observer’s Instructions Token: _____________________
Starting Assets: ______________
Note the initial reactions of the players to their Ending Assets: _______________
positions in the “social structure” as evidenced by Please write a brief summary of your reaction to
their assigned tokens and starting cash value. this exercise. Consider the following questions in
your answer. What were your initial feelings and
Horse reaction to your position in the “social structure?”
Did you make it to the end of the time limit or
Hat were you forced out prior to the end of the time
limit? Did you ask for help, or were you asked for
Car help? If so, what was your response? How did
you respond when you left the game or when
Dog others left the game? If you left the game before
the end of the time limit, what did you do when
Iron you were no longer an active player? What strate-
gies did you use to stay in the game as long as
As the game proceeds, observe the interactions of you did? Consider the readings for today’s class.
the group. How are the different players respond- How can you relate this experience to those read-
ing to the circumstances of the game? (refer to ings? What theoretical approach would you use to
them by tokens only—not names) describe what you observed in this game?

What strategies do the different players use to APPENDIX C

stay in the game as long as possible? Recommended Readings

Do any of the players try to steal or cheat? Fischer, Claude S., Michael Hout, Martin Sanchez
Jankowski, Samuel R. Lucas, Ann Swidler, and
Do any of the players ask for loans or try to make Kim Voss. 2001. “Why Inequality?” Pp. 8-14
arrangements with the other players? How do the in Great Divides: Readings in Social Inequality
remaining players react? Are they responsive? in the United States, 2d ed., edited by Thomas
Do they ignore the player? M. Shapiro. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Gans, Herbert J. 2000. “No, Poverty Has Not
Do any of the wealthier players share any of their Disappeared.” Pp. 160-4 in Sociological Foot-
resources with the other players? If yes, is it a prints, Eighth Edition, edited by Leonard Car-

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
186 TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
gan and Jeanne H. Ballantine. Belmont, CA: 8. This simulation stresses the effects of class.
Wadsworth/Thomson. (this reading is available How do race and gender influence one’s
in many introductory sociology readers under position in the social structure?
various titles) 9. What are the strengths and limitations of this
Gilbert, Dennis. 2003. The American Class Struc- simulation? What facets of social inequality
ture in an Age of Growing Inequality. Belmont, does it explain well? What facets does it
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson. ignore? Why?
Mantsios, Gregory. 2000. “Class in America:
Myths and Realities.” Pp. 512-28 in The Social REFERENCES
Construction of Difference and Inequality:
Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality, edited by Bellis, Mary. 2003. “Monopoly, Monopoly: The
Tracy E. Ore. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. History of the Monopoly Board Game.” Re-
Ryan, William. 2001. “The Equality Dilemma: trieved January 26, 2003
Fair Play or Fair Shares?” Pp. 15-20 in Great (http:inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa12
Divides: Readings in Social Inequality in the 1997.htm).
United States, 2d ed., edited by Thomas M. Bohmer, Susanne and Joyce L. Briggs. 1991.
Shapiro. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. "Teaching Privileged Students About Gender,
Turner, Ralph H. “Sponsored and Contest Mobil- Race, and Class Oppression." Teaching Soci-
ity and the School System.” Pp. 73-8 in Great
ology 19:154-63.
Divides: Readings in Social Inequality in the
Brezina, Timothy. 1996. "Teaching Inequality:
United States, 2d ed., edited by Thomas M.
A Simple Counterfactual Exercise." Teaching
Shapiro. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. (for
advanced classes) Sociology 24:218-24.
Wright, Erik Olin. 2001. “A General Framework Davern, Michael E. and Patricia J. Fisher.
for the Analysis of Class.” Pp. 99-113 in Great 2001. Household Net Worth and Asset Owner-
Divides: Readings in Social Inequality in the ship: 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of
United States, 2d ed., edited by Thomas M. the Census. Retrieved May 12, 2003
Shapiro. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. (for (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p70-
advanced classes) 71.pdf).
Davis, Nancy J. 1992. “Teaching About Inequal-
APPENDIX D ity: Student Resistance, Paralysis, and Rage.”
Discussion Questions Teaching Sociology 20:232-8.
Dorn, Dean S. 1989. “Simulation Games: One
1. What factors contributed to upward social More Tool on the Pedagogical Shelf.” Teach-
mobility? to downward social mobility? ing Sociology 17:1-18.
Why? Eells, Laura W. 1987. “So Inequality Is Fair?
2. How did each of the following influence the Demonstrating Structured Inequality in the
outcome of the game? Classroom.” Teaching Sociology 15:73-5.
Skill Giuffre, Katherine and Pamela Paxton. 1997.
Luck “Building Social Networks.” Teaching Sociol-
Structure ogy 25:207-13.
3. Which of the above factors was most impor- Groves, Julian M., Charles Warren, and Jerome
tant in influencing player success and why?
Witschger. 1996. “Reversal of Fortune: A
4. How did the wealth (in the form of property
Simulation Game For Teaching Inequality in
assets) that the horse and the hat started the
the Classroom.” Teaching Sociology 24:364-
game with shape their “life chances?” What
difference did this initial distribution of 71.
wealth make in the game? Hilligoss, Tonya. 1992. “Demystifying
5. How were the different classes affected by ‘Classroom Chemistry’: The Role of the Inter-
the Chance and Community Chest cards? active Learning Model.” Teaching Sociology
What unexpected situations might these 20:12-7.
cards represent in real life? Huggins, Denise W. and Catherine L. Coghlan.
6. Why would an iron or dog bother to play the 2003. “Social Stratification and Life Chances:
game? An Interactive Learning Strategy for Criminal
7. Did it occur to anyone to suggest that the Justice Classes.” Unpublished manuscript.
players pool their resources and redistribute Jessup, Michael M. 2001. “Sociopoly: Life on
the starting assets so that all players started the Boardwalk.” Teaching Sociology 29:102-
on an equitable basis? If no, why not? 9.

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
THAT’S NOT FAIR: AN INEQUALITY EXERCISE 187
McCammon, Lucy. 1999. “Introducing Social Catherine Coghlan is the Assistant Director of
Stratification and Inequality: An Active Learn- Institutional Research at Texas Christian University
ing Technique.” Teaching Sociology 27:44-54. and has taught introductory sociology, social problems,
McGrane, Bernard. 1993. “Zen Sociology: social inequality, and research methods. Her research
Don't Just Do Something, Stand There!” and writing interests include social inequality, the
Teaching Sociology 21:79-84. history of sociology, and pedagogical techniques.
Sernau, Scott. 1995. “Using a Collaborative
Problem-Solving Approach in Teaching Social Denise Huggins is an assistant professor of criminal
Stratification.” Teaching Sociology 23:364-73. justice at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Her
Wright, Erik O. 2001. “A General Framework research interests include women in prison, sexual and
for the Analysis of Class.” Pp. 99-113 in physical abuse experienced by female offenders, cor-
Great Divides: Readings in Social Inequality rectional officers and job satisfaction, and comparative
in the United States, 2d ed., edited by Thomas criminology. She is currently working on a manuscript
M. Shapiro. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. describing the everyday lives of female inmates. Dr.
Wright, Mary. 2000. “Getting More Out of Huggins has also worked with James L. Williams and
Less: The Benefits of Short-Term Experiential Daniel G. Rodeheaver on a study comparing crime and
Learning in Undergraduate Sociology punishment in Russia and the United States as well as a
Courses.” Teaching Sociology 28:116-26. comparative analysis of a large county jail facility.

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014