Each semester, I hand every student $686 in Monopoly money. Five to eight students come to the front of the room. 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 more than volume.
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. This is not a legislative simulation. It is a priority test. The goal is clarity.
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 not the ranking. It is the debrief. In one class composed mostly of young women, abortion policy ranked near the bottom. That result unsettled assumptions. Cultural intensity shifted when students faced finite allocation. One student later told me, “I’ve been a far left progressive activist since I’ve been aware. I now see that some of my views are impossible to pass as legislation and actually lose me other support.” That movement, from conviction to feasibility, is critical thinking.
The point is not a single ranking. 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 anticipate scrutiny. They expect to justify cost, anticipate opposition and clarify claims before being asked. That anticipation is the habit.
Critical thinking is not simply identifying bias or critiquing sources. It is ranking priorities under constraint, articulating those priorities clearly and revising in light of feasibility. Monopoly money makes the constraint visible. Precision makes judgment more reliable under pressure.