Lesson Report:
# Title
**Midterm Debrief and Policy Memo Foundations: Writing Neutral, Quantifiable Problem Statements**
This session resumed the course after spring break by using the returned midterm exams as a bridge into the second half of the semester. The instructor reviewed common strengths and weaknesses from the Instacred case study, introduced the final policy memo assignment, and focused class discussion on how to turn a grievance into a strong problem statement that is both neutral and quantifiable.
—
# Attendance
**Students mentioned absent: 7**
– **Erikova Aidana Erikovna**
– **Juya Ali**
– **Kadyralieva Bereke Azamatovna**
– **Mamadboqirova Muqaddas Mamadboqirovna**
– **Matmusaev Aziret Taaliabekovich**
– **Orolova Altynai Sharshenalyevna**
– **Shamyrbekov Erkhan Shamyrbekovich**
—
# Topics Covered
## 1. Opening, post-break reset, and use of returned midterms
– The instructor opened by welcoming students back from spring break and noted that the class would immediately make use of the **scanned midterm exams posted on E-course**.
– Students were instructed to **download their exam files at the start of class**, since the midterm responses would be used as the main source material for review and revision during the lesson.
– The instructor also noted that **many students had already received grades and feedback**, while some still only had the exam file available.
## 2. Framing the second half of the course: from analysis to policy memo
– Before beginning the review, the instructor explained what the midterm had assessed:
– taking a **large body of case-study data**
– identifying a **real grievance**
– transforming that grievance into a **problem statement**
– determining whether the issue was a **policy problem** or a **societal condition**
– The instructor told students that, overall, they had done reasonably well at this introductory stage, but emphasized that the rest of the semester would push them further into **argument-building and policy analysis**.
– The class was introduced to the **end-of-semester deliverable: a policy memo**, which students will eventually present and defend.
## 3. Defining a “memo” and distinguishing it from an essay
– The instructor paused to define the term **memo / memorandum**, asking students what came to mind when they heard the word.
– A student identified memo as **“memorandum.”**
– Another student described it as something like a **draft/initial thought**, which the instructor partially validated but clarified: a memo is **not merely a draft**; it can be a finished piece of writing.
– The class then built a comparison between **essay** and **memo**:
– **Shortness/conciseness**
– A student answered that a memo is **short**, which the instructor affirmed, explaining that memos are usually around **1–4 pages**.
– **Specific audience/target**
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna** contributed that a memo is for a **specific audience**, which the instructor developed into the idea that a memo is often directed toward **one person or one defined group of decision-makers**.
– **Purpose and structure**
– The instructor contrasted essays and memos by explaining that essays often build slowly toward a thesis, while a memo must communicate its main point quickly and clearly.
– The instructor introduced the key memo-writing principle: **“Bottom Line Up Front” (BLUF)**.
– Unlike an essay, where the writer may begin with a hook and place the thesis at the end of the introduction, a memo puts the **main argument immediately at the top** so the target reader can understand the core point within **30 seconds to one minute**.
– This segment established the formal writing expectations students will need for the final assignment.
## 4. Final assignment preview: policy memo + presentation defense
– The instructor explained the final project in more concrete terms:
– each student will identify **one real-world grievance/problem**
– determine whether it is actually a **policy problem**
– identify the **market failure** behind it (if applicable)
– propose a **policy solution**
– condense all of this into a **brief, decision-maker-friendly memo**
– Students were also told that they will **present** their work to classmates, who will act as a **critical panel** and try to challenge their reasoning and proposed solution.
– This framing positioned the day’s review of the **problem statement** as the first step toward the larger final policy proposal.
## 5. Returning to the policy-analysis pipeline: grievance → problem statement → policy analysis
– The instructor brought the class back to the analytical sequence from earlier in the semester and asked students to recall what a **grievance** is.
– **Kambarova Adilia Sagynbekovna** responded that it is a kind of **problem/issue** that people want solved.
– The instructor refined this by emphasizing that a grievance is usually expressed in **raw, emotional, political, or subjective language**, and that the task of policy analysis is to transform it into something that can be **measured and compared**.
## 6. Midterm case-study review: the Instacred example
Using the midterm case dossier, the class revisited the central example in detail.
### 6a. Reconstructing the case
– An **uncertain student** summarized the case as revolving around **Instacred**, a fast-loan app that approved people quickly but imposed repayment terms and interest conditions that could push users into **debt, housing loss, and stress**, particularly affecting **students and vulnerable rural populations**.
– Another **uncertain student** added that one issue involved the app operating with **insufficient financial information/transparency** about the borrower or the lending process.
– The instructor then restated the basic setup of the case:
– Instacred offers **rapid microloans**
– users can get money quickly through an app
– the app scans a user’s **phone/social-media footprint**
– approvals happen quickly, making the service highly attractive to people in urgent need
### 6b. Identifying why the app was problematic
The class then unpacked multiple dimensions of the problem:
– **Predatory lending / exploitative terms**
– Students described the app as **predatory**, which the instructor used as a useful starting grievance-term but not yet a proper analytical formulation.
– **Extremely high interest rates**
– The instructor highlighted that the app’s loans carried around **400% APR**, making repayment costs balloon rapidly.
– **Buried or obscured terms of service**
– Important information about repayment conditions and consequences was described as being hidden deep in terms-and-conditions text.
– **Rural exclusion from traditional banking**
– Students and instructor discussed how people in **rural Bulgaria** often lacked meaningful access to normal bank services, leaving them more dependent on services like Instacred.
– The instructor gave an illustrative example: if a person’s car breaks down and they need money immediately to keep a job, fast but harmful credit becomes very tempting.
– **Gamified, manipulative app design**
– A student noted that the app was presented in a **colorful, game-like way**, turning borrowing into a seemingly light or playful activity.
– The instructor expanded this idea, arguing that the app’s design made a serious financial obligation feel more like a **rewarding or addictive interface**, which could lower users’ caution.
## 7. Why a problem statement matters before deciding whether something is a policy problem
– The instructor reminded students that before deciding whether Instacred represents a **societal condition** or a **policy problem**, they first need to define the problem clearly.
– Students were instructed to **locate their own problem statements** in their midterm exam responses, as these would now be evaluated and revised.
## 8. Reading Bardach: defining the problem and the role of quantification
– The class opened the assigned reading on E-course and did a short **“popcorn reading”** of excerpts from Bardach on:
– the importance of **problem definition**
– the need for a problem statement to include a **quantitative feature**
– The reading emphasized that a problem definition gives direction to analysis and that analysts should ask questions such as:
– **How big is the problem?**
– **How many people are affected?**
– **How much is too much?**
## 9. Building criteria for a good problem statement: neutral + quantifiable
The instructor then explicitly articulated the two core criteria for a strong problem statement:
### 9a. Neutrality
– Students were asked what changes when a grievance becomes a problem statement.
– A student answered that one should remove **opinion/generalized language**.
– The instructor refined this into the principle that a problem statement must avoid:
– **emotional language**
– **subjective claims**
– **political/moral labels**
– The instructor repeatedly stressed that the phrasing should be **scientific and neutral**.
### 9b. Quantifiability
– The instructor asked what else a problem statement must do, and students identified the need to **use data / make the issue measurable**.
– The class discussed that quantifiable means:
– the issue can be **measured**
– the issue can be **compared**
– the scale of harm can be shown numerically
– The instructor demonstrated weak formulations:
– **“Instacred is bad”**
– **“Instacred is evil”**
– **“Instacred is predatory”**
– These examples were rejected because they are:
– **not neutral**
– **not measurable**
– too dependent on subjective interpretation
## 10. Self-check activity: evaluating students’ own midterm problem statements
– Students were given time to evaluate their own midterm problem statements using two questions:
1. **Is it neutral?**
2. **Is it quantifiable?**
– The class then discussed examples.
### Student contributions during the self-check discussion
– **Konokbaeva Makhabat Zhamshidovna** read or summarized a problem statement that referred to harms like **evictions and social consequences**, but the instructor pointed out that it still lacked explicit numerical quantification.
– Makhabat then asked whether quantification essentially means using **numbers**, and the instructor confirmed that the key question is **“How many?”**
– **Kambarova Adilia Sagynbekovna** shared a stronger version that included a **40% increase in evictions**, which the instructor treated as a clear example of quantification.
– **Joro Danek** asked whether failing to include quantification in the original problem statement made his answer fundamentally bad; the instructor reassured him that it did not make him a “bad student,” but explained that quantification is necessary because later policy arguments depend on demonstrating **how serious the problem is** and why government intervention may be warranted.
## 11. Bardach’s practical strategy: think in terms of deficit and excess
– The instructor introduced Bardach’s advice to frame problems through **deficit** and **excess**:
– **deficit** = too little / not enough
– **excess** = too much
– Examples from the reading were discussed:
– “There are **too many** homeless people…”
– demand for water growing faster than the ability to supply it
– The class then applied this to Instacred:
– too many people without access to proper banking
– an excess of vulnerable people being driven into risky borrowing
– possibly a deficit of accessible, conventional financial services
### Student contribution: baked-in solutions
– **Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred** suggested an alternative framing: a **deficit in the number of microloan companies/apps** available to people.
– The instructor used his suggestion to introduce a critical warning: some problem statements accidentally **bake the solution into the problem**.
– If the problem is framed as “there are too few microloan apps,” then the only obvious solution becomes **“make more microloan apps,”** which prematurely narrows the analysis.
– This became an important bridge into the next topic.
## 12. Magnitude and thresholds: not just “too much,” but how much
– The instructor defined **magnitude** as the degree or size of a problem.
– Students were reminded that saying something is “too much” is still too vague unless there is a **threshold** or **figure** showing where the problem becomes serious.
– This was linked directly back to policy analysis: without magnitude, students cannot convincingly argue why an issue deserves government attention.
## 13. Revision workshop: rewriting problem statements
– Students were given several minutes to **revise** their midterm problem statements so that they would be both:
– **neutral**
– **quantifiable**
– The instructor reminded them that the full case data remained available on E-course, so they could consult graphs or figures from the original exam materials.
## 14. Board exercise: three revised problem statements evaluated publicly
Three students were selected at random to write revised problem statements on the board:
### 14a. Joro Danek
– Danek wrote a problem statement quantifying the **interest burden**, especially the app’s **400% APR**.
– The class agreed it was quantifiable, and the instructor used it to show why numerical framing matters:
– comparing **400% APR** to more typical bank lending rates (described as far lower, often below 20%) immediately reveals the severity of the issue
– the number shows that the harm is not just “high interest,” but **extreme and potentially devastating debt**
### 14b. Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna
– Samira’s revised statement was judged by the class as both **neutral and quantifiable**.
– The instructor highlighted that her formulation quantified:
– the share of **Bulgarian citizens without access to regular banking services**
– the loan **interest rate**
– This allowed the statement to show both:
– **how many people are exposed**
– **how severe the terms are**
### 14c. Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred
– Abu Bakr’s statement included multiple forms of quantification, including:
– the number/share of Bulgarians relying on the app
– a quantified housing-related consequence (discussed in class as an increase in **evictions**)
– The instructor used his statement to show how multiple data points can reveal different dimensions of a problem:
– user scale
– population vulnerability
– consequences such as **loss of housing**
– The discussion emphasized that including several quantified claims gives much more leverage for later analysis and policy justification.
## 15. Final conceptual warning: do not “bake the solution into the problem”
– The instructor closed the main lesson by giving a separate example of a poor problem statement:
– **“There is a lack of parking garages downtown.”**
– This was criticized because it already prescribes the solution:
– if that is the problem, the solution can only be **build more parking garages**
– The instructor pushed students to identify the underlying problem instead:
– too many cars on the street
– insufficient available parking relative to demand
– This reinforced the analytical lesson that problem statements should remain broad enough to allow for **multiple policy solutions** rather than predetermining one.
## 16. Closing preview of next class
– The instructor announced that **Thursday’s class** would move into the next stage:
– students will be **assigned final topics/grievances**
– they will work **individually**, but be grouped by **subject matter**
– the class will continue with:
– how to **choose/frame a grievance**
– how to build a **stronger problem statement**
– The instructor made clear that the day’s work on neutral, quantifiable formulation is the foundation for the final memo project.
## 17. After-class administrative and advising conversations
Several short one-on-one follow-ups occurred after the formal lesson:
### 17a. Excused absence for conference/lecture
– One student said they had been selected for a conference and needed to attend a **Thursday 4:00 lecture**, which would conflict with class.
– The instructor said the absence could be excused if the **event organizer emailed confirmation**.
### 17b. Midterm return timeline
– **Kurstanbekova Darina Kurstanbekovna** asked when graded work would be posted.
– The instructor replied that they were grading roughly **two per day** and estimated that students in the later alphabetical range would likely receive feedback around the **weekend**.
### 17c. Clarification on midterm answers
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna** asked whether the midterm question about alternative explanations had only one correct answer.
– The instructor clarified that **multiple answers were defensible**, as long as the student argued persuasively why one was strongest and why the others were less central.
### 17d. Clarifications on quantification and neutrality
– **Konokbaeva Makhabat Zhamshidovna** asked:
– what happens if a student lacks statistics to support a statement
– whether one quantifier is enough or whether several are better
– what exactly “neutral” means
– The instructor answered that:
– analysts should still try to estimate thresholds or use available approximations where possible
– for the exam, **one quantifier** could be acceptable, but stronger future statements should quantify **as many claims as possible**
– neutrality means avoiding **subjective terms** such as “predatory” unless they are translated into measurable claims
### 17e. Additional absence/event conversation
– A late-arriving **uncertain student** explained that they had attended a talk by a high-profile economist and had missed class.
– The instructor again asked for **program/organizer confirmation** in order to formally excuse the absence.
—
# Student Tracker
– **Kambarova Adilia Sagynbekovna** — Defined grievance as a problem to be solved and later offered a stronger quantified example involving a rise in evictions.
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna** — Noted that memos are written for a specific audience, produced a revised quantified problem statement, and asked for clarification about whether multiple midterm answers were acceptable.
– **Konokbaeva Makhabat Zhamshidovna** — Shared an initial problem statement lacking full quantification and asked several follow-up questions about numbers, statistics, and neutral wording.
– **Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred** — Suggested an alternative framing about the number of microloan apps, helping surface the issue of “baked-in solutions,” and wrote a multi-quantifier revised problem statement on the board.
– **Joro Danek** — Asked whether omitting quantification was a major flaw and wrote a revised board example centered on 400% APR.
– **Kurstanbekova Darina Kurstanbekovna** — Asked about the timeline for receiving graded midterm feedback.
– **Uncertain student** — Summarized the Instacred case as a fast-loan app causing debt, stress, and housing loss among vulnerable users.
– **Uncertain student** — Added concern about the lack of clear financial information/transparency in the Instacred lending process.
– **Uncertain student** — Asked about excusing an absence for an academic event/conference and was told to provide organizer confirmation.
– **Uncertain student** — Reported missing class for an outside economics lecture and discussed absence documentation with the instructor.
—
# Actionable Items
## High Priority
– **Assign final project grievances/topics on Thursday**; students will work individually but be grouped by subject area.
– **Follow up on excused absence requests** once students send organizer/program confirmation for outside academic events.
– **Continue posting midterm grades and feedback** for students who have not yet received them.
## Medium Priority
– **Revisit strategies for quantification when exact statistics are unavailable**, since students asked about estimates/thresholds and how many quantifiers are needed.
– **Reinforce the distinction between neutral wording and evaluative language** in future examples, as several students needed clarification.
## Lower Priority
– **Clarify final presentation/panel format later**, since students were introduced to the idea of peer critique but logistics were not yet fully discussed.
– **Address individual advising questions separately** for students asking about internships/ministry-related opportunities, as those exchanges were not fully resolved during class.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
No explicit out-of-class assignment was given: the professor only assigned in-class tasks such as “please download your exam file right now” and “take five minutes fixing it,” said “on Thursday, we’re going to be assigning your topics for the final,” and only briefly mentioned in a one-on-one exchange, “Oh, I forgot to tell you to read Bardock,” without giving the class a clear reading task or deadline.