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
most difficult topics covered in sociology
classes. The information presented to stu-
dents on this topic challenges what many of
them perceive as the essence of American-
ism, the ethos of individualism. Students
who are products of a culture that deifies
and reifies individualism often have diffi-
culty examining social stratification from a
sociological rather than an individualistic
perspective (Bohmer and Briggs 1991;
Davis 1992; Eells 1987; McCammon 1999).
Teaching about the structural nature of so-
cial stratification is especially challenging as
most students are taught from a very early
age that success or failure in life is largely
dependent upon individual characteristics
and attributes and not structural social con-
*The authors would like to thank Morrison
Wong and the anonymous reviewers for their
time and recommendations for improving the
manuscript. Please address all correspondence
to Catherine L. Coghlan, Institutional Research,
Texas Christian University, TCU Box 297020,
Fort Worth, TX 76129;
e-mail: c.coghlan@tcu.edu.
Editor’s note: The reviewers were, in
alphabetical order, Michael Jessup, Mary E.
Kelly, and Scott Sernau.
ditions. This article describes an interactive
learning exercise intended to stress the
structural nature of social inequality and to
stimulate student reflection and class discus-
sion on social stratification in the United
States.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Interactive learning techniques have been
helpful in allowing instructors to overcome
student resistance to examining the struc-
tural nature of social stratification and social
inequality (Davis 1992; Groves, Warren,
and Witschger 1996; Hilligoss 1992; Jessup
2001; McCammon 1999; McGrane 1993;
Sernau 1995; M. Wright 2000). Hilligoss
(1992) found that an introductory course
taught using interactive teaching methods
performed better than an introductory
course she taught using a traditional lecture
format. The interactive class had a lower
no-show rate (4.5% compared to 20%), a
better retention rate (77% compared to
56%), and a lower number of average ab-
sences (4.7 compared to 7.2) than the tradi-
tional lecture-format class. In addition, Hil-
ligoss noted that students in the interactive
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
traditional class to perceive of themselves as
active participants in the learning process.
Interactive methods using simulation exer-
cises such as the one to be described here
have met with mixed results (Dorn 1989).
Brezina (1996:219) suggests that simulated
exercises are “likely to have only a limited
impact on student views of inequality.” In
his review of simulation games, Dorn found
that the most common problems associated
with these types of games are that they are
difficult to grade, sometimes evoke intense
emotions—such as frustration, anger, or
depression—are not value-free, and may
oversimplify the real-world conditions that
they are supposed to illustrate. Despite the
criticisms and these potential problems,
Dorn (1989:8) also found
a substantial amount of consistent research
[showing] that simulation games do increase
students’ interest and motivation, that they can
be effective in changing some attitudes, and
that they are at least as effective as more con-
ventional pedagogy in teaching cognitive
learning.
A number of simulation exercises for in-
troducing the topic of social stratification
have appeared in this journal over the years.
Eells (1987) devised an exercise in which
she used the allocation of time to represent
different class levels and the advantages and
disadvantages inherent at each level. In
Eells’s activity, students were divided into
four groups and given two, four, six, or ten
minutes to complete a regularly scheduled
quiz. The minute allocations corresponded
with four social classes—the higher the time
allocation, the higher the social class. The
exercise prompted discussions about per-
sonal ability and structural constraints as
many students (except for the ten-minute
group) complained about the unfairness of
the exercise, arguing that determination and
personal ability were not enough to over-
come the structural barriers that had been
placed upon them. Eells asked how the stu-
dents felt during the exercise and received
responses ranging from anger and frustra-
tion within the two-minute group to annoy-
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
ance at the behavior of two-minute group
members from those with more generous
time allocations.
Groves et al. (1996) introduced a simula-
tion that emphasized the structural nature of
social inequality and the importance of so-
cial networks in getting ahead. This exer-
cise involved dividing the class into two
groups, the majority (75% of the class) and
the minority (25% of the class). The major-
ity group received more resources (more
and longer strings) than the minority group.
Students were then instructed to build a
network. Once they completed the network,
the class examined how many people and
which people had connections to a theoreti-
cal job placed somewhere within the net-
work. In this exercise, Groves et al. re-
ported that students began to recognize the
structural determinants of stratification,
experienced feelings of empathy for minori-
ties, and appreciated the clarity which the
exercise brought to the concepts and social
processes being studied.
Giuffre and Paxton (1997) outline a simi-
lar exercise in which they divided the class
into two equal-size groups. The two groups
were then labeled minority and majority. As
in the Groves et al. (1996) exercise, the
majority group received more resources
(three as opposed to two strings) and had
more mobility (long as opposed to short
strings). Having more and longer strings
allowed majority students to make more
connections, build larger networks, and
have more flexibility in constructing their
networks. After the students constructed
their networks, access to a theoretical job
through direct connections was assessed by
giving the job to an equal number of the
minority and majority. Students discovered
that despite attempts to equalize the number
and equally dividing the source of the job
between the minority and majority students,
majority group members had more opportu-
nities to learn of the job than did the minor-
ity. Giuffre and Paxton’s modification of
the Groves et al. exercise places greater
emphasis on the structural nature of inequal-
ity because of the equal number of minority
THAT’S NOT FAIR: AN INEQUALITY EXERCISE
and majority students in the exercise.
McCammon (1999) developed an interac-
tive budget exercise to emphasize the struc-
tural and relational nature of social inequal-
ity to students. Her intent was to help stu-
dents understand the relational nature of
social stratification and social inequality,
that “the rich are rich because the poor are
poor” (E. Wright 2001:99). In this exer-
cise, McCammon divided students into five
groups, with each group representing a dif-
ferent economic level ranging from below
poverty level to upper middle class. In the
first phase of the activity, each group was
given a monthly income and asked to create
a budget based upon that income. In the
second phase of the activity, students re-
mained in their same economic groups and
were asked to develop a national budget,
approaching that task from the perspective
of the economic group to which they were
previously assigned. McCammon reminded
students that any new programs developed
could only be funded by cutting other areas
of the budget or raising taxes. This exercise
reinforced the relational nature of social
stratification. Students from the lower eco-
nomic groups developed more programs for
the poor and working class while taxing the
rich or cutting the defense budget. Those in
the upper classes were more likely to de-
velop a national budget that favored them.
Jessup (2001) presents an activity for ex-
ploring social stratification using a modified
game of Monopoly. In this activity, Jessup
stratified the game by ethnicity and gender,
basing the amount of money received by
different players or teams on a formula de-
rived from the median household incomes
for four different groups: non-Hispanic
Whites, Hispanics, Afro-Americans, and
female householders with no husband pre-
sent. Jessup divided the students into teams
representing each group. He found that the
simulation helped to generate discussion
about social inequality and what could be
done to alleviate it. Jessup’s version of the
game, which he calls Sociopoly, is useful in
stressing the intersection of class, race, and
gender and is different from the version
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
179
described below, which focuses on eco-
nomic inequality.
Each of the activities described above
approaches the topic of social stratification
from a slightly different perspective. The
simulation presented below focuses more on
the economic elements of class, but the way
it is structured can promote discussions that
include several dimensions. This activity is
one more tool that can be added to a grow-
ing repertoire of interactive learning tech-
niques for teaching students about social
stratification.
THE ACTIVITY
This simulation exercise has been used in
introductory sociology classes of varying
length and size. The exercise has also been
used over several semesters at a large pri-
vate university, a mid-sized state university,
and a large state university. In addition to
introductory sociology classes, this exercise
has been used in social problems classes and
a social inequality class. A modified version
of this game has also been used in deviance
and criminal justice classes. Modifications
in the “deviance” version include creating
legal and illegal opportunity cards (with
consequences) for players to acquire addi-
tional income in the game, specific guide-
lines on the exchange of loans and gifts
among players, and instructions for the sale
of property by individual players (Huggins
and Coghlan 2003).
In most cases, students have responded
favorably to the simulation as it is described
here. Occasionally students have com-
plained that the game lasted too long or was
not representative of real life. However,
even these students have expressed that the
exercise was beneficial in illustrating the
structural nature of social inequality. We
have not observed any substantial differ-
ences in the effectiveness of the simulation
exercise across class or university type. The
factors which seem to influence the effec-
tiveness of the simulation most are the time
allotted for the activity and student prepar-
edness (having read the assigned readings).
180
The ideal length of the class is 75 min-
utes. If the exercise is used in a 50-minute
class, it may be necessary to shorten the
time allotted for the game or to delay dis-
cussion of the exercise to the next class pe-
riod. At the beginning of class, students are
assigned to groups by numbering off so that
there are six or seven students per group
(depending on the size of the class). The
ideal group size is six, five players and one
observer. The groups are instructed to de-
cide who will be the observer (or observers
if there are seven group members). The
observer then leaves the room with the in-
structor. The observer for each group is
given one Monopoly game and instructions
on how to set up the game. Observers are
also given guidelines for making observa-
tions (see Appendix A for the Observer’s
Instructions).
Each group has one Monopoly game and
five players who represent each of the five
income quintiles reported in the Census
Bureau’s annual report, Money Income in
the United States. The amount of money
that each player starts with represents the
proportion of the aggregate income that the
group he or she represents holds in the
United States (see Table 1). In a regular
game of Monopoly, each player would start
with $1,500. Thus the aggregate starting
income for the game is $7,500 (5 players X
$1,500 each). To arrive at the starting fig-
ure for each player in the version presented
here, the percentage of aggregate income
for each quintile was multiplied by $7,500.
For example, for the lowest starting quintile
the starting cash amount is $270 ($7,500 X
3.6%).
At the beginning of the game, players are
given packets that are prepared ahead of
time by the instructor and contain the ap-
propriate token, cash, and property. These
packets are distributed to the players by the
observer. The tokens for each level were
selected as rough indicators of the status of
each group. The players in the top two in-
come brackets receive property that repre-
sents their wealth. The limitation of wealth
(property assets) to the top two players is
intended to reflect the inequitable distribu-
tion of wealth in the United States and to
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
Table 1. Percent Share of Household Income by
Quintile
Quintile Percent Share
Highest 49.7
Fourth 23.0
Third 14.9
Second 8.9
Lowest 3.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Money In-
come in the United States 2000, p. 8.
illustrate how wealth influences “life
chances.” The player in the highest bracket
receives all the railroads, Boardwalk, and
Park Place, while the player in the second-
highest income bracket receives Pennsyl-
vania Avenue and Oriental Avenue. The
players in the three lowest quintiles receive
no property. The set-up for the activity is
outlined in Table 2.
The property distributed to designate
wealth here was not done using a formula,
as was income, primarily because of the
time required to calculate the entire amount
of available wealth in the Monopoly game
(i.e. money, property, houses, and hotels).
Despite this limitation, students do recog-
nize the advantage that those who enter the
game with wealth have over the other play-
ers and how wealth or lack of wealth in the
game shapes their respective “life chances.”
The 1995 Current Population Report by the
U.S. Census Bureau (the most current re-
port) breaks the wealth distribution in the
United States into quintiles (see Table 3)
and would be a useful guide for those who
might wish to focus more on the role of
wealth and to modify the starting assets
accordingly.
Instructors might also find it interesting to
note that the current version of Monopoly,
which emphasizes wealth accumulation and
the idea that anyone can get rich, debuted
during The Depression but is commonly
thought to have been inspired by “The
Landlord’s Game,” a game invented by
Lizzie Magie, a Quaker, in 1904 to gain
support for the single-tax movement (a tax
proposal that would have based taxes on
land ownership). The purpose of the origi-
nal game was to demonstrate that, under the
current laws, land ownership (the founda-
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)
rather than the many (tenants) (Bellis 2003).
Players are not informed ahead of time of
the economic status of each token. Once
each player has received the material related
to status, he or she is asked to count and
record starting assets, adding together the
cash received and the face value of any
property included in the packet. The face
value of the property is found on the Mo-
nopoly board (to save time, the instructor
can post the total starting assets on the
board for each token). After players have
learned of their starting class positions by
counting their assets, the instructor writes
the amount that each player will receive for
passing GO on the board. In an ordinary
game of Monopoly, each player receives
$200 from the bank each time he or she
Table 3. Median Net Worth of Households by
Monthly Household Income Quintile: 1995
Monthly Household Median Net Worth
Income Quintile (dollars)
Highest Quintile 116,232
Fourth Quintile 52,860
Third Quintile 35,949
Second Quintile 21,966
Lowest Quintile 5,000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Household Net
Worth and Asset Ownership: 1995, p. ix.
passes GO. In this modified version of the
game, the amount each player receives for
passing GO is determined by multiplying
the aggregate income for five players (5 X
$200 = $1,000) by the proportion received
by each quintile. These amounts are also
indicated in Table 2 above (for convenience
and because of a limited number of bills in
each denomination, the salaries for the
horse and car have been rounded up to $500
from $497 and to $150 from $149 respec-
tively). The amount that a player receives
for passing GO applies to any Chance or
Community Chest card drawn that directs
the player to proceed to or pass GO.
In this simulation, the money amounts
awarded or demanded (except for pay re-
ceived for passing GO) by the Community
Chest and Chance cards are not modified.
Instead, the surprise income and expenses
are used as analogies for real-life events in
the ensuing class discussion. In the real
world, unexpected expenses such as medical
bills or car repairs comprise a higher per-
centage of the low-income family budget
than the high-income family budget, thus
creating more difficulty for lower-income
families than for higher-income families.
These cards also provide an opportunity to
talk about issues such as regressive taxes as
an element of structural inequality and the
disproportionate amount of taxes that low-

Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
182
income families and individuals pay for
basic goods such as clothing and gasoline.
The observer’s task is to record players’
reactions to their positions in the social
structure and to make note of how the play-
ers interact with each other, particularly
stereotypical responses, helping behaviors,
and so forth. Other than initially handing
out the player packets, observers are asked
not to participate in the player interactions
or to give advice on how the game could or
should be played. Players are given the fol-
lowing rules and guidelines by the instruc-
tor:
1. Each token receives a certain amount of
pay for passing GO;
2. the player with the Horse token is the
banker;
3. stay in the game as long as you can;
and
4. accumulate as much as you can.
No other rules are given to the players in
order to provide each group the flexibility
to define their own “culture.” This includes
no guidance on buying property, what to do
when someone cannot pay, whether to have
money in Free Parking, and so on (in the
official Monopoly rules, Free Parking is
defined as a free resting place; however, it
is customary to collect money from fines
and fees in the center of the game board.
Free Parking then becomes akin to winning
the lottery for the person who lands on the
space). Because most students have had
some experience with Monopoly, establish-
ing the rules and norms of the game usually
occurs within the first few rounds without
too many problems. The “official” Monop-
oly rules are available for consultation if the
students want them. The lack of guidance
here has created some interesting scenarios.
Some players who are familiar with the
official rules of Monopoly, especially those
who have drawn a lower economic status
token, have reported feelings of frustration
when other students receiving the higher
economic status tokens do not take full ad-
vantage of their opportunities. Lack of
awareness of how to play official Monopoly
is later used in the class discussion as a
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
metaphor for immigration status and how
not knowing the “rules of the game” can
keep someone from upward social mobility.
During the game, the instructor rotates
from group to group observing the interac-
tions and making note of comments or ac-
tions that may be helpful in illustrating so-
ciological concepts. Stereotypical comments
about different social classes are fairly com-
mon. For example, during one game when
the iron (the token representing the lowest
class) went out of the game, the player
asked what should be done with the token.
Another player responded, “Oh let’s just
put you in jail, because that’s where you are
going to end up anyway.” In a different
game at different times, two players repre-
senting the opposite ends of the spectrum
asked someone to move their tokens for
them. When the horse (the token represent-
ing the highest class level) asked for assis-
tance it was given with no questions asked.
When the iron asked for assistance the
player was accused of being lazy.
Depending upon time constraints, we al-
low 30 to 45 minutes for the actual game.
This is usually enough time for one or more
players to go out of the game. At the end of
the time period allotted, students are told to
stop the game and count their assets. They
then compare their starting assets with their
ending assets. Immediately following the
end of the exercise, players are asked to
reflect on their experience using a list of
questions to guide the reflection (see Ap-
pendix B for a sample reflection sheet).
Prior to the class period in which the simu-
lation is used, students are assigned read-
ings on social stratification, inequality, and
class mobility (a list of recommended read-
ings in addition to course texts is available
in Appendix C). The reflection activity asks
students to relate their experiences in the
game to the assigned readings for the class.
EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE SIMULATION
One of the key components of a simulation
exercise is the debriefing process (Dorn
THAT’S NOT FAIR: AN INEQUALITY EXERCISE
1989). Debriefing through class discussion
is a critical part of the activity (a list of
possible discussion questions can be found
in Appendix D). We begin the debriefing
process by first examining the concept of
class mobility. To illustrate the nature of
class mobility, a chart is compiled on the
board representing the starting and ending
assets of each player. Since each group uses
the same tokens and each token in each
group starts with the same amount, the
starting assets for each group are recorded
in the first column. The chart is then filled
out with the ending assets for each group
member. Once completed, the class exam-
ines the chart for evidence of class mobility.
For the purposes of this exercise, evidence
of upward class mobility is defined as at-
taining assets that equal or exceed the start-
ing assets of the next-highest class. Down-
ward class mobility is defined as dropping
below the starting assets of the next-lowest
class. Table 4 below is an example of a
completed chart. The outlined figures indi-
cate instances of upward or downward mo-
bility.
What the students usually discover is that
class mobility is not as common as they
may have been led to believe. In most cases
there are one or two people out of 25 or 30
who have achieved upward mobility. There
are also players who experience downward
mobility. This visual display helps to stimu-
late discussion on the structural reality of
social inequality and how even though some
individuals do manage to overcome struc-
Table 4. Class Mobility as Indicated by Starting and Ending Assets1
Starting
Token Assets Group 1 Group 2
Horse $5,278 $7,368 $7,147
Hat $2,145 $2,287 $2,495
Car $1,118 $719 $2,233
Dog $667 $756 $108
Iron $270 $305 $0
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
183
tural conditions and move up, most stay in
the strata in which they started. This activ-
ity also leads to discussion of the strong
emphasis on individualism in the U.S. cul-
ture. After the discussion on class mobility,
students are asked to talk about their experi-
ences in the exercise with the class. The
observers are asked to speak first, followed
by players at each level. Ideally, this discus-
sion immediately follows the activity and a
brief period of individual reflection and
usually lasts for 30-40 minutes. In 50-
minute classes, it may be necessary to delay
the discussion to the next class period. A
slight disadvantage in delaying the discus-
sion to the next class period is that the emo-
tions experienced during the activity will
have diminished by the time the activity is
discussed. This disadvantage may be miti-
gated somewhat by allowing time for stu-
dents to write down some of their initial
thoughts and feelings on the experience be-
fore leaving the classroom.
DISCUSSION
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. At the beginning of the dis-
cussion, students are given a handout from
the latest U.S. Census Bureau report on
Money Income in the United States and are
told how the initial amounts of money and
Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
$5,658 $7,075 $7,143 $6,467
$1,646 $1,873 $1,813 $2,146
$1,432 $1,252 $1,298 $1,226
$509 $1,925 $0 $1,117
$36 $540 $139 $306
184
the amount for passing GO were allocated.
In this simulation the handout was “Table
C: Selected Measures of Household Income
Dispersion: 1967 to 2000” from Money
Income in the United States 2000 (p. 8).
Some in the class have difficulty realizing
that the allocations are based upon the ac-
tual allocation of income for each quintile in
the United States. Situations that arise in the
game, such as drawing a Chance card that
requires the player to pay a large sum or
landing on a player’s property and being
required to pay a high rent, are used as
analogies for life situations such as encoun-
tering unexpected medical bills or other
expenses that can create havoc for a budget
and prevent people from getting ahead. Not
knowing the rules of the game is used as an
analogy to discuss the difficulties that may
be encountered by immigrants who may not
know the “rules” of the culture.
In their written reflections, some students
in the lower status groups expressed frustra-
tion upon learning of their position: “I was
dealt a sucky hand;” “When I found out
that I only got $36 when passing go and the
horse got $500, I felt like the system let me
down, everyone should get the same amount
for achieving the same thing;” “When the
game began I realized I was at the bottom
of the social structure. It was disappointing
to have no money when the horse had
LOTS!” Players on the other end of the
economic spectrum often felt happy, but
some also experienced guilt at having come
into their wealth by chance: “I was happy
that I had the most $ and assets in the be-
ginning. I felt bad for the others because I
got it by luck.” Another student that was in
the top income bracket observed, “How
wealthy you are really does matter with
your standings in society and how much
respect you get. The richer you are the
more you can do and get away with.”
Also addressed in the discussion is the
idea of class as an ascribed status. Interest-
ingly, some students, when asked to relate
the exercise to the readings on stratification,
suggested that the type of stratification ex-
perienced was caste rather than class. One
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
student assigned to the lowest status ob-
served, “I felt like this game was like life
because at many times your social status is
passed on to the next generation. It may be
difficult for a poor class person to ever dig
themselves out of their role of the under
class.” A student who drew a working-class
position (the dog) tried to get by on hopes
and dreams of a better life: “At first when I
found that my position or status was as a
dog, I knew I was part of the working class,
but not entirely poor. I had hope...The
strategy I used was hope and also to buy as
many properties so people could pay me. I
also try to see if I can pass go as much and
to get free parking.”
This exercise is particularly conducive to
examination from a conflict perspective.
One student noted, “If we looked at this
from a conflict point of view the power
struggle was between the very top and the
very bottom, we in the middle just played.”
Another student assigned to the middle-class
status noted, “Initially, I wasn’t too happy
with my position in the social structure be-
cause I was jipped [sic] out of $50.00 every
time I passed go. However, when I realized
that so many others were getting way less
than me, I realized that I had no reason to
complain, but should count my blessings
instead.” Comments like these open the
door for a more in-depth discussion of the
relational nature of social stratification and
how social structures and institutions are
legitimated.
Although the primary purpose of this ex-
ercise is to introduce the complex and often
controversial topic of social stratification to
sociology students, the activity can serve as
a reference point for other sociological dis-
cussions as well, such as socialization, cul-
ture, stereotypes, labeling, and deviance.
This activity is well suited for an introduc-
tory class and can be used in other courses
(i.e., social problems and social inequality).
It can also be updated periodically by using
the most recent annual U.S. Census Bureau
report of Money Income in the United States
to adjust the quintile allocations for starting
assets and salary for passing GO so that
THAT’S NOT FAIR: AN INEQUALITY EXERCISE
they coincide with the current distribution
of income in the United States. With some
modifications, it is also an effective tool for
exploring deviance and other criminal jus-
tice topics. This activity is generally well-
received, and on formal and informal
course evaluations it is often listed as one of
the best things about the class. Like other
simulation activities, the challenge for the
instructor is to ensure that the discussion
following the activity helps students to re-
late their experience in the game to the real-
world situations and sociological concepts it
is intended to represent. Done well, the
activity and ensuing discussion open the
door to the idea that the social structure,
despite individual characteristics, plays a
large role in determining just how far an
individual may go in life.
APPENDIX A
Observer’s Instructions
Note the initial reactions of the players to their
positions in the “social structure” as evidenced by
their assigned tokens and starting cash value.
Horse
Hat
Car
Dog
Iron
As the game proceeds, observe the interactions of
the group. How are the different players respond-
ing to the circumstances of the game? (refer to
them by tokens only—not names)
What strategies do the different players use to
stay in the game as long as possible?
Do any of the players try to steal or cheat?
Do any of the players ask for loans or try to make
arrangements with the other players? How do the
remaining players react? Are they responsive?
Do they ignore the player?
Do any of the wealthier players share any of their
resources with the other players? If yes, is it a
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
185
gift, loan, or some other type of arrangement?
What do players do once they are no longer able
to stay in the game? Do they continue to be an
active part of the group? Do they withdraw? Do
they try to disrupt the game?
In what order did the players drop out of the game
and at what time in the game?
How did the other players react to the loss of a
player?
Who seems to be “in charge” of the game?
Other observations:
Consider the readings for today’s class. How can
you relate these observations to those readings?
What theoretical approach would you use to de-
scribe what you have seen here? Why?
APPENDIX B
Group: _____________________
Token: _____________________
Starting Assets: ______________
Ending Assets: _______________
Please write a brief summary of your reaction to
this exercise. Consider the following questions in
your answer. What were your initial feelings and
reaction to your position in the “social structure?”
Did you make it to the end of the time limit or
were you forced out prior to the end of the time
limit? Did you ask for help, or were you asked for
help? If so, what was your response? How did
you respond when you left the game or when
others left the game? If you left the game before
the end of the time limit, what did you do when
you were no longer an active player? What strate-
gies did you use to stay in the game as long as
you did? Consider the readings for today’s class.
How can you relate this experience to those read-
ings? What theoretical approach would you use to
describe what you observed in this game?
APPENDIX C
Recommended Readings
Fischer, Claude S., Michael Hout, Martin Sanchez
Jankowski, Samuel R. Lucas, Ann Swidler, and
Kim Voss. 2001. “Why Inequality?” Pp. 8-14
in Great Divides: Readings in Social Inequality
in the United States, 2d ed., edited by Thomas
M. Shapiro. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Gans, Herbert J. 2000. “No, Poverty Has Not
Disappeared.” Pp. 160-4 in Sociological Foot-
prints, Eighth Edition, edited by Leonard Car-
186
gan and Jeanne H. Ballantine. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson. (this reading is available
in many introductory sociology readers under
various titles)
Gilbert, Dennis. 2003. The American Class Struc-
ture in an Age of Growing Inequality. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.
Mantsios, Gregory. 2000. “Class in America:
Myths and Realities.” Pp. 512-28 in The Social
Construction of Difference and Inequality:
Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality, edited by
Tracy E. Ore. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Ryan, William. 2001. “The Equality Dilemma:
Fair Play or Fair Shares?” Pp. 15-20 in Great
Divides: Readings in Social Inequality in the
United States, 2d ed., edited by Thomas M.
Shapiro. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Turner, Ralph H. “Sponsored and Contest Mobil-
ity and the School System.” Pp. 73-8 in Great
Divides: Readings in Social Inequality in the
United States, 2d ed., edited by Thomas M.
Shapiro. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. (for
advanced classes)
Wright, Erik Olin. 2001. “A General Framework
for the Analysis of Class.” Pp. 99-113 in Great
Divides: Readings in Social Inequality in the
United States, 2d ed., edited by Thomas M.
Shapiro. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. (for
advanced classes)
APPENDIX D
Discussion Questions
1. What factors contributed to upward social
mobility? to downward social mobility?
Why?
2. How did each of the following influence the
outcome of the game?
Skill
Luck
Structure
3. Which of the above factors was most impor-
tant in influencing player success and why?
4. How did the wealth (in the form of property
assets) that the horse and the hat started the
game with shape their “life chances?” What
difference did this initial distribution of
wealth make in the game?
5. How were the different classes affected by
the Chance and Community Chest cards?
What unexpected situations might these
cards represent in real life?
6. Why would an iron or dog bother to play the
game?
7. Did it occur to anyone to suggest that the
players pool their resources and redistribute
the starting assets so that all players started
on an equitable basis? If no, why not?
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
8. This simulation stresses the effects of class.
How do race and gender influence one’s
position in the social structure?
9. What are the strengths and limitations of this
simulation? What facets of social inequality
does it explain well? What facets does it
ignore? Why?
REFERENCES
Bellis, Mary. 2003. “Monopoly, Monopoly: The
History of the Monopoly Board Game.” Re-
trieved January 26, 2003
(http:inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa12
1997.htm).
Bohmer, Susanne and Joyce L. Briggs. 1991.
"Teaching Privileged Students About Gender,
Race, and Class Oppression." Teaching Soci-
ology 19:154-63.
Brezina, Timothy. 1996. "Teaching Inequality:
A Simple Counterfactual Exercise." Teaching
Sociology 24:218-24.
Davern, Michael E. and Patricia J. Fisher.
2001. Household Net Worth and Asset Owner-
ship: 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of
the Census. Retrieved May 12, 2003
(http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p70-
71.pdf).
Davis, Nancy J. 1992. “Teaching About Inequal-
ity: Student Resistance, Paralysis, and Rage.”
Teaching Sociology 20:232-8.
Dorn, Dean S. 1989. “Simulation Games: One
More Tool on the Pedagogical Shelf.” Teach-
ing Sociology 17:1-18.
Eells, Laura W. 1987. “So Inequality Is Fair?
Demonstrating Structured Inequality in the
Classroom.” Teaching Sociology 15:73-5.
Giuffre, Katherine and Pamela Paxton. 1997.
“Building Social Networks.” Teaching Sociol-
ogy 25:207-13.
Groves, Julian M., Charles Warren, and Jerome
Witschger. 1996. “Reversal of Fortune: A
Simulation Game For Teaching Inequality in
the Classroom.” Teaching Sociology 24:364-
71.
Hilligoss, Tonya. 1992. “Demystifying
‘Classroom Chemistry’: The Role of the Inter-
active Learning Model.” Teaching Sociology
20:12-7.
Huggins, Denise W. and Catherine L. Coghlan.
2003. “Social Stratification and Life Chances:
An Interactive Learning Strategy for Criminal
Justice Classes.” Unpublished manuscript.
Jessup, Michael M. 2001. “Sociopoly: Life on
the Boardwalk.” Teaching Sociology 29:102-
9.
THAT’S NOT FAIR: AN INEQUALITY EXERCISE
McCammon, Lucy. 1999. “Introducing Social
Stratification and Inequality: An Active Learn-
ing Technique.” Teaching Sociology 27:44-54.
McGrane, Bernard. 1993. “Zen Sociology:
Don't Just Do Something, Stand There!”
Teaching Sociology 21:79-84.
Sernau, Scott. 1995. “Using a Collaborative
Problem-Solving Approach in Teaching Social
Stratification.” Teaching Sociology 23:364-73.
Wright, Erik O. 2001. “A General Framework
for the Analysis of Class.” Pp. 99-113 in
Great Divides: Readings in Social Inequality
in the United States, 2d ed., edited by Thomas
M. Shapiro. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Wright, Mary. 2000. “Getting More Out of
Less: The Benefits of Short-Term Experiential
Learning in Undergraduate Sociology
Courses.” Teaching Sociology 28:116-26.
Downloaded from tso.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on January 19, 2014
187
Catherine Coghlan is the Assistant Director of
Institutional Research at Texas Christian University
and has taught introductory sociology, social problems,
social inequality, and research methods. Her research
and writing interests include social inequality, the
history of sociology, and pedagogical techniques.
Denise Huggins is an assistant professor of criminal
justice at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Her
research interests include women in prison, sexual and
physical abuse experienced by female offenders, cor-
rectional officers and job satisfaction, and comparative
criminology. She is currently working on a manuscript
describing the everyday lives of female inmates. Dr.
Huggins has also worked with James L. Williams and
Daniel G. Rodeheaver on a study comparing crime and
punishment in Russia and the United States as well as a
comparative analysis of a large county jail facility.