Academic Exchange Quarterly Summer 2004
ISSN 1096-1453 Volume 8, Issue
2
Modified Monopoly: A Simulation
Game for Experiencing Social Class Inequality
Morten G. Ender,
Abstract
Many teachers use sSimulations
games are
a feature of teaching.***Certainly, not every teacher uses simulation
games. This statement needs qualification and
clarification.*** Games offer opportunities to
foster communication with students in both large and small classes. In the present paper, ten points are
presented with the adoption of the
popular game Monopoly whose rules
have been modified to create a shared but simulated introduction to social
inequality. The game provides a
simulation experience for cadets and faculty who are learning and teaching in
the unique educational environment of the
Introduction
Simulations games have long been a feature of teaching (Dorn
1989). Goldsmid
and cadets in
both large and small classes.
McAllister, Warren, and Witschger (1996)
successfully adopted a simulation game to teach about structured inequality
that required few resources, accommodated a large class, and was well liked by students. In an extensive and exhaustive review of the
literature, Dorn (1989) offers ten points in consideration of adopting a game
for the classroom: 1) set goals setting;
2) integrate and supplement with course material; 3) time games
timing
relative to course material; 4) establish rules; familiarity
with the rules and instructions; 5) time, space, and costs; 6) prpre-game
preparation; 7) enthusiasm; 8) equitable familiarity with the rules;rule based;***What
does this mean? All the items in your
list here should be expressed in parallel structure, and this
one in particular needs to be distinguished from item #4.***
9) structured post-game debriefing post-game
including emotional debriefing; and 10) reflection, evaluation,
and assessment.
I have considered each of these points “rules” and
adopted the popular game Monopoly. The rules are modified to create a shared
introduction to social inequality for my cadets. The next section describes the rules of the
game.
Student
Rules for Modified
Introduction: Monopoly is considered the leading proprietary
game in the in 26
different languages, momost cadets will have familiarity with
the game. The objective of the
traditional game is based on one primary rule to “ . . . become the wealthiest
player through buying, renting, and selling property.”
Monopoly
represents a simulation
of a significant feature of a capitalistic political economy and when played
can help highlight/simulate the experiences of living in
the Western world. However, one assumption of the rules of the game is that
everyone begin equal--$1,800. I call my version of
the game Modified ***Is this
what you call your game? If so, make
that clear.***. This classroom version accounts for theis
socio-economic error and distributes income according to four different classes--upper,
middle, working, and lower socio-economic to more robustly represent class
distributions in the
"“born."”
into a
family. Cadets must draw
slips of paper from a hat containing the social-class families. The drawing is random with no
replacement. Eight possible family
arrangements representing the four different social classes are available. After all
cadets have drawn a socio-economic class, they next next get
with their respective family members and adopt family roles. For example, if four cadets draw middle class
family, then they must decide what type of family they will be—mother, father,
and two children or two single parent mothers or four adult sisters, and so on. Ages must be identified for purposes of
voting—described below.
Beginning
Salaries: Each family begins starts the
game with the following amounts of money: 1) upper socio-economic
class (05 – LTC is a LLieutenant Colonel, TCa higher
ranked military officer usually ***Define and explain all this
stuff. You do
have a brief explanation of these terms on page 6, but it belongs here.*** with
12-14 years of service) receives $2,000; 2) middle socio-economic class (W4 –
Warrant Officer, a higher ranked specialized officer
with 12-14 years of service) receives $1,500; 3) working socio-economic
class (E9 – Sergeant Major, a higher
ranked enlisted soldier, with
12-14 years of service) receives $1,000; and 4) lower socio-economic class (E5
– Sergeant,
a lower ranked enlisted soldiers wit/h 12-14
years of service) receives merely $500.
I use the current military pay scale and create proportional monthly
salaries where a Sergeant earns 42.3% of a LTC salary, a Sergeant Major 67.5%,
and a Warrant Officer 74.9%.
Taking
Turns: Turns are taken in
descending order, beginning with the upper socio-economic statusSES***What
does this stand for?*** (SES) family. Upper SES classes can move the number showing on the
dice or plus or minus one. Middle SES
classes can move the number showing on the dice or plus one. Working SES classes can move the number
showing on the dice or minus one. Lower
SES classes move the number showing on the dice.
Buying
Property: The lower SES can
buy only the purple and the light blue properties; the working SES can buy
lower SES and maroon and orange properties; the middle SES can buy lower and
working SES properties, red and yellow properties, plus utilities and
railroads; the upper SES can buy any properties it can afford. If an SES family
lands on a property that is for sale but isthey are
ineligible or decliness to purchase a
property, the property is auctioned off to the highest bidding eligible SES families. Bidding runs in increments of $10.00.
Passing
Go Salaries: Salaries are a major feature of Monopoly and they are obtained by passing “GO.” When a family passes GO, the lower SES
receives $85; middle SES receives $130, upper SES receives $200, and working
SES receives $150.
Taxes
and Jail: Any family landing on
the corner “Free Parking” spot must pay a flat tax fee of $200 each time. Similarly, when landing on “GO TO JAIL,” the
lower SES must go directly to jail and remain there until doubles are rolled;
the working SES must go directly to jail, but can pay $50 to get out on the
next or any of the following turns or remain there until doubles are rolled; middle
SES must go directly to jail and roll greater than 7 to be released or pay $50
on any following turn. Upon receiving
instructions to “GO TO JAIL,” the upper SES immediately rolls the dice. If an
even number turns up, they do not have to go to jail. If an odd number turns up, they go to jail
but can roll again immediately. If the second
roll is greater than 7, they are released; if less, they must remain until a
number greater than 7 is rolled or pay $50 on any following turn.
The Lottery: A $50.00 lottery ticket can be purchased
prior to a family's turn. In order to
double their money, they must roll a 12 on dice on their turn (an odds ratio of
Outside of the above specified rules, all
other Monopoly game rules apply. The course instructor is usually the bank. Finally, the contravening of a rule if there is any socially
deviant/criminal acts***What are you talking
about here? What is a “deviant/criminal”
act in the context of your game?*** committed or perceived
to have been committed by any any single player
or group
of (voted on by referendum by all players playing rolls that are
18 years or older) sends a family to jail. and gGet out of jail
rules then
apply. Three violations
constitute expulsion from play completely.
The next section turns to academics at
Academics
at
Monopoly
Versus Modified Monopoly
Monopoly, the Parker Brothers' Real Estate
Trading Game was developed by an unemployed American named Charles B. Darrow and trademarked by Parker Brothers (1935). The game begins and assumes equality on the
social, political, and economic playing board of American life. Sociological
research shows the country to be stratified along a number of dimensions
including class. I have modified the rules of Monopoly to more realistically represent the forms of social
inequality that exist.
I adopt and modify Monopoly as an experiential tool in a junior level,
sociology of the family course and more recently, for an introductory sociology
course. It can easily be adopted for
social problems, social inequality, and other courses that have some social
class component. The game is designed to
have cadets experience the tasks and subtletiesitles
of being born into and living within a family of a specific social class
standing and “feel” the structural conditions such situations impose on
members. The affective, cognitive,
and behavioral dimensions of class are included in the experience as well. The modified rules can be further modified to
accommodate different class sizes, courses, and time schedules. No other resources other than a traditional Monopoly board are necessary.
The goal of the MFM odified Monopoly is
to introduce cadets to the problem of social inequality, create a common
experience, meet our aAcademic goals,
and hopefully inspire them to want to learn more about the causes and
consequences of inequality. We play Modified MonopolyMFM
prior to readings and lesson blocks on social inequality and stratification in
the introductory course or prior to lessons and readings on families and
class. While the game is played as
laboratory of sorts, it is eventually integrated and supplemented with course
material. I attach the MFModified Monopoly rules
to the course guide and encourage them to familiarize themselves with the rules
prior to attending class.
Depending on the structure of our
classroom, I move all the chairs to the side of the room and set-up the game on
the floor or use a large conference desk that is centrally located in the
classroom. The key is equal access to
the game board. The justification here
is to observe if cadets from lower SES groups in the game move further away
from the gaming activities as the game progresses. I prepare by counting all the monies out in
advance and have a set -up the board
prior to cadets arriving to class. An
accelerated game requires more distribution of properties to the eligible
families. As cadets enter the room, they
are “born” into a family by drawing a slip of paper from a hat, randomly
without replacement. They are told to adopt family roles in a household
arrangement. Note that on some occasions
cadets will actually merge with other families to survive the game. This should be closely monitored and included in
debriefings about the social forces of economics and alternative family
arrangements. I use the current military pay scale and create
proportional monthly salaries where a Sergeant earns 42.3% of an LTC salary, a
Sergeant Major 67.5%, and a Warrant Officer 74.9%.***This information should
go in pages 2-3 when you introduce the designations.*** We then begin the game.
Monopoly
board games are
inexpensive and can be purchased for approximately $30.00 new and cheaper
used. More elaborate games are on the
market, including an electronic version. In large classes, two or more games can be run
simultaneously. Instructors can also
increase the family size. I have allowed
for as many as eight families to play a single game, across three 55-minute
classes. The game can be played for an hour or across three to four--50 minute
class periods. Again, shorter games or
accelerated games may require a pre-distribution of some properties to families
based on class standing. Again, I
justify distributing various properties to cadets in advance as an additional
form of inherited wealth (property).
This justification often arises during the game but should be discussed
during the debriefing session.
In preparing for the game, I have invited
colleagues to visit our class to serve as bankers when running more than one
game or as non-participant observer to assist with taking notes to use for
debriefing. In preparing, instructors should treat the game as an
experiment. The instructor serves as the
bank but should also take mental or short-hand notes as the game progresses.
When I instruct cadets about the rules
and the upcoming class, I try not to understate playing Monopoly to encourage cadets not to attend, but I am enthusiastic
about the game. Cadets are instructed to
bring the rules to class and I also make another copy of the rules available
for each family during the game.
While
the game progresses, the instructor should take mental, and on occasion,
short-hand, notes on the cadets' interactions.
Indeed, the instructor is a participant observer in this field
experiment. Various forms of
communication, both verbal and non-verbal, become significant social indicators
to the cadets’ experiences that can be addressed in the debriefing portion of
the game. However, on many occasions I
improvise the teaching moment and throw -out
concepts to cadets. For example, lower
SES cadet families have complained about not being able to purchase property
from other areas of the board. I point out that this is known as “redlining”--a
practice of banks denying home loans to minority groups (Healey, 1998).
Cadets should be debriefed about their
experiences as a result of playing the game. Instructors should ask their cadets
about their feelings and what they were thinking during the game. Of course, all thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors should be placed in a larger social context and discussed. The first class after Modified Monopoly MFM involves
structured debriefing including emotional debriefing. Some examples of interactions in my classes
have included higher SES family members being much more cognitively,
emotionally, and physically involved in the game than lower SES family
groups. Higher SES behaviors included
being more verbal, more excited, closer in proximity to the board, and overall
more attentive to the activities of other players and the game in general. Indeed, on occasion, they served as sources
of social control in the game. On some
occasions, privilege made some cadets feel uncomfortable. In contrast, lower SES family players will be
quieter, more withdrawn, and socially and physically distanced from the
game. They may also attempt to role distance***Explain
this verb.*** themselves from their ascribed
lower status. OthersSome cadets from lower SES groups might
question the pedagogical legitimacy of the game and others have indicated that
they stopped coming to class because they were not “into the game.”
Any
verbalizing and other out-right deviant behaviors should also
be noted for later discussions. For
example, some lower SES players may offer to merge with other
families--creating very non-traditional households in order to solidify their
economic standing. It is worth noting
that on only one occasion did a higher SES family decide to distribute itstheir
wealth among the lower SES families. However, the normal response is to be
competitive, allow the norms of the game to govern behavior, and feel
compassionless for people relegated to jail, poverty, and outcast.
This becomes important information in
terms of how social forces limit and construct choices about household
arrangements and choices of partners.
Other deviant acts might include refusing to pay rents and stealing
money from other families. Finally, one
consistent feature I've noted with every course is a group or groups of families
who who either
verbalize***Verbalize what?
This makes no sense. Do you mean
that they express the intention of
remaining in jail? It’s unclear.*** or intentionally
remain in jail in order to continue playing in
the game. For the instructor, this facilitates
an interesting discussion about limited opportunities for the poor, values, and
rational choice. Most importantly,
instructors should link the experiences of the game to the real social
conditions that people in everyday life may face as a result of their income
condition.
Reflection is accomplished using the game
as a shared and common experience and as a gateway to larger social
issues. I rarely have a systematic
method for assessing and evaluating the game.
It is primarily a method of introducing a particular section in the
course. Cadets have offered suggestions
and strategies for improving the game.
Likewise, I routinely invite other instructors into the class as
non-participant observers. They have
offered noteworthy insights about improving the game. For example, my department chair, an
historian by training, suggested adding the lottery because it historically has
been a resource and beacon of hope for the poor.
Conclusion
The Parker Brothers' board game known internationally as Monopoly, simulates the capitalist
economy. However, the genesis of the
game assumes economic equality, with each player. I have modified the game for inequality and
allow cadets to experience the euphoria of higher SES living and the
disappointments of lower SES life.
Instructors should consider the major points outlined by Dorn before
adopting a simulation game. I have
easily integrated the game into a number of different courses including Marriage and the odified Monopoly to be novel, familiar, and inexpensive. Because it teaches from the perspective of
the students and involves their active
involvement, they are allowed to experience and consider inequality at
different levels immediately prior to reading about it--an opportunity the
sociology teacher can capitalize on. Most importantly, the game is aligned with
the aAcademic
goals we aspire to at
References
Dorn, Dean S. 1989. "“Simulation
Games: One More Tool on the Pedagogical Shelf."”
Teaching Sociology 17:1-18.
Goldsmid, Charles A. and
Healey, Joseph F. 1998. Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Class: The
Sociology of Group Conflict and Change (2nd Edition).
"Reversal of
Fortune: A Simulation Game for Teaching Inequality in the Classroom."”
Teaching Sociology 24:364-371.
Monopoly. 1935. Monopoly: Parker Brothers' Real Estate Trading Game
Office
of the Dean 1998. Educating Army Leaders
for the 21st Century.
Office
of the Dean 2002. Educating Future Army
Officers for a Changing World: Operational Concept for the Academic Program of
the
Submission
Number: 2585-4l
Submission Title: Modified
Monopoly: A Simulation Game for Experiencing Inequality
A: 2
B: 1
C: 3
D: 3
E: 2
F: 2
G: 2
H: 2
Final Grade: R=accepted pending
revision
Comments: I think you
have a novel and interesting idea here. And, it appears to be a very effective
teaching tool. This essay is
perfect for AEQ in my view because it illustrates a useful practice, and I
think readers from all
disciplines would benefit from it. However, I think it needs some revision. The changes I’ve suggested in the text above should
be easy to make, but they will add some much needed clarity in places. For instance, your classification of “Beginning
Salaries” on p. 2 is all but Greek to me, but you do take the time to explain
those categories on p. 6. A simple and
logical way to solve this problem is to move that explanation to p. 2. Also, your discussion of “deviant/criminal
acts” on p. 4 requires some explanation as well. One might conclude from
that section that you have had students assault one another while playing your
game! Perhaps some
of the above problems are the result of
jargon. I’m not sure,
but keep in mind that you are writing for a general audience of educators, and
many of those readers do not teach sociology nor do they teach in military
schools. So, in some cases, it is necessary to provide
context. Making these changes will result in a more lucid essay. I vote to
accept your essay pending revision. I hope these comments are helpful.
Reviewer: ZED
Accept with
requested revision plus
1. shorten
title to six words or less, see entry# 14g
http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/rufen1.htm
2. remove
pagination
3. remove indention, see entry#14e
http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/rufen1.htm
4. observe
3000 word limit (title, authors,
academic bio, abstract,
text, notes, references) or pay Excess-Page fee, see entry
#13
SSP