Each semester, I hand every student $686 in Monopoly money. I use $686 because that is the total value of one bill from each denomination in a standard Monopoly set: $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100 and $500.
Five to six students come to the front of the room each time we do this exercise. Each has two minutes to propose a federal or state policy: What does it cost? What is the intended benefit? Who does it affect? Who supports it? Who opposes it? Students have presented on abortion policy, climate initiatives, foster care reform, student loan forgiveness and affordable housing. The range reflects student interests and varies each semester.
After the presentations, students privately allocate their $686 to whichever proposals they wish. They may divide it or place it all in one proposal. We total the funds and rank the proposals from most supported to least. Then we analyze the results.
I begin my policy class with a definition from Stuart Shapiro at Rutgers’ Bloustein School: public policy is the allocation of finite public resources. In an era of misinformation and AI-generated fluency, disciplined prioritization matters.
The exercise is intentionally simple. I do not allow students to spend money to oppose a proposal. I do not allow bargaining or horse-trading.
Monopoly money works because people know bankruptcy, overextension and aggressive acquisition from the game. We take that structure and apply it to public budgeting.
The most important moment is the debrief. In one class composed mostly of young women, abortion policy ranked near the bottom. That result surprised me and unsettled some of the students’ assumptions. Cultural issues, in this instance, shifted when students faced finite allocation. One student later told me, “I’ve been a far left progressive activist since I’ve been paying attention to politics. I now see that some of my views are impossible to pass as legislation and actually lose me other support.” That movement, from passion to feasibility, is critical thinking. Students repeatedly confront limits, defend claims and revise their reasoning until clarity becomes expectation rather than exception.
Social work education rightly emphasizes dignity and justice. Professional ethics and constitutional protections are not subject to allocation here; the exercise examines discretionary funding priorities above that floor. What students practice is something different: translating conviction into policy under fiscal and political constraint. Social workers advocate, testify and operate within constrained systems. They must distinguish between moral belief and legislative viability.
Preparing them only for the ideal world leaves them unprepared for the systems they will enter.
By the end of the semester, students begin to anticipate my scrutiny. They expect to justify cost, anticipate opposition and clarify claims before being asked.
Aspects of critical thinking that are often missed in social work education include ranking priorities under constraints, articulating those priorities clearly and revising in light of feasibility. My Monopoly money exercise teaches those constraints and helps students develop their ability to persuade and make decisions. We engage in this exercise three to five times a semester; through practice and discussion, their judgment improves as they prepare to become active citizens and professional social workers.