Lesson Report:
# Title
**From Radical Alternatives to Evidence-Based Policy Feasibility**
This class focused on moving students from intuitive, “vibes-based” judgments about policy feasibility toward a more structured, evidence-based method for evaluating policy alternatives. Students reviewed homework on radical solutions, compared equity ratings, selected more realistic alternatives for their policy problems, and began breaking those alternatives into implementation steps and stakeholder maps that will support their policy memos.
# Attendance
– **Absent students explicitly named:** None
– **Number of students explicitly mentioned absent:** 0
– **Note:** Full attendance could not be verified from the transcript. The instructor referenced a class size of roughly **16** and noted that **8 students had submitted the homework** as of shortly before class.
# Topics Covered
## 1. Opening, class objective, and homework status
– Instructor opened informally, checked in with students about workload, exams, assignments, and sports requirements.
– Instructor noted he had forgotten his computer and asked students to **sit with their final policy groups** while class got started.
– He thanked the students who had submitted the homework and noted that **8 out of about 16 students** had done so.
– He framed the day’s goal clearly:
– Students had previously identified **four feasibility criteria**.
– Today’s task was to determine whether their chosen policy was feasible and, more importantly, to explain that judgment **scientifically, rigorously, and with evidence**, rather than by instinct alone.
## 2. Homework review: radical alternatives and initial feasibility scoring
– The instructor reviewed the previous homework, which required students to take a **radical alternative** and begin applying the four feasibility criteria.
– He reminded the class that the purpose of the homework was not only to say a policy was infeasible, but to explain **why** it was infeasible.
– The class revisited four policy problems and their radical alternatives:
– **Gender-based violence / kidnapping (likely bride kidnapping):** radical alternative discussed as **castration** of perpetrators.
– **Lack of rural internet access:** radical alternative discussed as **nationalizing internet providers**.
– **Bribery/corruption in access to public services** (problem wording was unclear in the transcript): radical alternative not fully recoverable from the transcript.
– **Deforestation in Brazil:** radical alternative discussed as **deporting farmers**.
– The instructor polled students on which problem they had selected, then shifted into a comparison of their **equity scores** on the 1–5 scale.
## 3. Equity comparison exercise: why “1 vs. 2 out of 5” is too subjective
– The class first discussed **nationalizing internet providers** as a response to lack of rural internet access.
– One student/group reported **4 out of 5** for equity.
– The instructor intentionally did not yet ask them to justify the score fully; he wanted first to compare how different students had rated the same policy.
– The class then discussed **deporting farmers** as a solution to deforestation in Brazil.
– Multiple students rated it **1 out of 5** for equity.
– One student rated it **2 out of 5**.
– **Kurmanbek kyzy Zhibek** explained why she chose **1/5**, arguing that deporting farmers was extremely inequitable because it would affect approximately **100,000 farmers** and their families, whose livelihoods depend heavily on farming. She emphasized that the policy would not only uproot their lives but also damage their economic survival and output.
– The instructor highlighted the language of “**totally unequal**,” reinforcing that Zhibek’s reasoning treated the proposal as a complete injustice to the affected farmers.
– The instructor then asked why someone might rate the policy **2/5 instead of 1/5**.
– **Shamyrbekov Erkhan Shamyrbekovich** suggested that the only possible sliver of equity was that **all farmers would be punished in the same way**, meaning the burden would be distributed uniformly, even if the policy was still deeply unfair.
– The instructor referenced **Alishoeva Gharibsulton Salmonovna** as the student associated with the **2/5** position and used that difference to make the broader methodological point:
– If students rely only on instinct, there is no clear, defensible threshold between **“completely inequitable”** and **“slightly equitable.”**
– Therefore, the scoring system becomes weak unless it is grounded in **specific questions, evidence, and operational definitions**.
## 4. Key transition: from “vibes” to scientific diagnosis
– The instructor explicitly stated the lesson’s central methodological shift:
– Students had already used the four criteria in a broad, intuitive way.
– Now they needed to turn those impressions into something **defensible and systematic**.
– He explained that for each criterion, the class would need to identify:
– **What exact question is being asked**
– **What kind of evidence is needed**
– **How the evidence supports a score on the 1–5 scale**
## 5. Group task: move from radical alternatives to the “best” realistic alternative
– The instructor then asked students to flip perspectives:
– Previously, they had designed the **most radical** alternative.
– Now, they needed to identify the **most realistic / most feasible / “best”** alternative among the options they had developed so far.
– A student asked whether a policy alternative could be a **multi-step solution**.
– The instructor clarified:
– **Yes**, a policy can have multiple steps.
– However, those steps must **logically follow from each other**.
– Students should not simply bundle unrelated policies together into one package without explaining the causal sequence.
## 6. Clarifying policy alternatives: “Do nothing” is always Alternative #1
– After students worked briefly in groups, the instructor corrected an important conceptual mistake on the board.
– He explained that the policies students had been discussing were **not Alternative #1**.
– Instead:
– **Alternative #1 is always “Do nothing.”**
– The previously discussed radical option is better thought of as **Alternative #2**.
– The newly selected realistic option becomes **Alternative #3**.
– He emphasized that “do nothing” remains the default option in policy analysis because:
– Doing nothing is often the **cheapest and least disruptive** option.
– Any proposed policy must therefore prove that it is worth the extra cost and effort.
## 7. Group reporting: each policy group’s “best” alternative
The instructor then called on each policy group to present its current best solution.
### 7a. Gender-based violence group
– The group’s proposed realistic alternative was **not fully intelligible in the transcript**, but it appeared to involve some intervention focused on **men/males**.
– The instructor acknowledged it as an interesting solution and said the class would return to elaborate it later.
– Because the transcription is unclear, the exact wording of this group’s proposal should be treated as **uncertain**.
### 7b. Lack of rural internet access group
– This group proposed that the **government adopt a public-private partnership model** to expand internet access.
– Their idea included:
– **Public investment**
– **Private-sector expertise**
– Some form of **targeted support/subsidy mechanism**
– The instructor summarized the idea as the government partnering with internet providers and helping finance expansion into underserved rural areas.
### 7c. Public-service bribery/corruption group
– This group proposed **incremental, sector-specific anti-corruption reforms** rather than a broad, sweeping solution.
– They identified high-risk or high-corruption sectors such as:
– **Health care**
– **Education**
– **Police / law enforcement**
– One additional sector was mentioned unclearly in the transcript
– The instructor marked the proposal as **“anti-corruption reforms”** and indicated that the class would need to return later to make the concept much more concrete.
### 7d. Deforestation in Brazil group
– This group proposed a **two-part solution**:
1. **Raise salaries and recruit more officers/park rangers** in forest areas in order to reduce corruption and improve enforcement.
2. Use **cheap drones for aerial surveillance** to identify deforestation hotspots more quickly than satellite review alone.
– The group explained that drones would allow more frequent monitoring and faster identification of where deforestation was occurring.
– The logic of the salary increase was that better pay would reduce low-level corruption among enforcement personnel.
– The instructor restated the idea as a geographically targeted enforcement strategy: detect deforested areas and then improve enforcement capacity in those areas.
– He noted that it was an unusual idea, but one worth exploring if the group could explain exactly how it would work.
## 8. Mini-lecture: a policy is not just a law, but a chain from paper to action
– The instructor used the group proposals to introduce the next major concept:
– A **law** is words on a page.
– A **policy** must produce a **material change in the real world**.
– He asked students to think in terms of an **implementation pipeline**:
– At what point does the idea stop being text and start becoming action?
– He used the deforestation proposal as an example of how many practical details are hidden behind a short summary:
– Who buys the drones?
– Who operates them?
– How is “deforested” defined?
– What threshold triggers intervention?
– How much extra pay is given?
– Which personnel receive it?
– Students were instructed to take their chosen alternative and break it into a **four-step plan** from policy text to real-world implementation.
## 9. Group activity: building four-step implementation plans
– Students were given time to draft a **four-step version** of their policy.
– The instructor clarified that this was not necessarily the full formal policy cycle, but rather a practical sequence:
– Start with the written policy
– End with the policy being carried out in actual practice
– This activity aimed to expose gaps in each proposal’s logic and force students to specify the implementation chain.
## 10. Stakeholder mapping: who implements, who executes, who is affected
– After the four-step plan exercise, the instructor introduced a second analytical layer using three “who” questions:
1. **Who is responsible for implementing the policy?**
2. **Who is responsible for executing/enforcing it on the ground?**
3. **Who will be affected by it in real life?**
– Students were guided toward the umbrella concept of **stakeholders**.
– The instructor defined stakeholders as all actors who have **something to gain or lose** from the policy, including:
– Decision-makers
– Enforcers/implementers
– Ordinary people whose lives change because of the policy
– He previewed that the next class would extend this analysis by asking:
– Which stakeholders have the most **power**
– Which have the most **interest**
– Who stands to **gain**
– Who stands to **lose**
– Who ultimately **pays the cost**
## 11. Returning to feasibility: operationalizing the criteria
– The instructor brought the discussion back to the four feasibility criteria and emphasized that students should begin by **attacking** their policy alternatives early, because many policies will not survive rigorous scrutiny.
– He restated the high bar: students must show that their policy can beat **Alternative #1: Do nothing**.
### 11a. Effectiveness
– The instructor described the simple question for effectiveness as:
– **“Will it work?”**
– He then explained that this cannot be answered by opinion alone.
– Students need to show at least two things:
#### a. Alignment with the principal objective
– The policy must directly target the **principal objective**, not just something vaguely related to the issue.
– He used an **air pollution** example:
– A weak objective: “make the air better”
– A stronger objective: **reduce PM2.5 levels**, especially during a specific seasonal window
– The policy alternative must clearly connect to that objective through a plausible causal chain.
#### b. Evidence from similar cases
– Students should ask whether the same or a similar policy has **worked elsewhere** under similar conditions.
– Comparative evidence helps move the analysis beyond speculation.
### 11b. Classroom example: gasoline tax and PM2.5
– To illustrate alignment, the instructor used the policy idea:
– **Increase gasoline taxes by 10%**
– The class discussed whether this aligns with the objective of reducing PM2.5.
– One student argued that the effect might be indirect and that people could switch to other fuels or behaviors.
– The instructor agreed that the proposal is at best **partially aligned**, because the logic depends on several assumptions:
– Higher gas prices
– Lower gasoline consumption
– Less fuel burned
– Lower PM2.5
– He also noted that whether the logic holds depends on local context:
– In the **U.S.**, many people cannot easily stop driving.
– In **Bishkek**, students argued that public transport alternatives may make substitution more realistic.
## 12. Creative policy illustration: horses/donkeys as transportation
– An **uncertain student** proposed that people in Bishkek might use **horses** as transportation to reduce air pollution.
– This led to a brief, humorous but analytically useful discussion:
– Could the government encourage horse use?
– Would this require legal changes?
– What would the actual policy tool be?
– The instructor used the idea to reinforce the distinction between:
– A **broad idea** (“people should ride horses”)
– A **real policy instrument** (public messaging, tax credits, feed subsidies, registration rules, etc.)
– He also pointed out that solving one problem this way might create another kind of pollution problem, again showing the need for full policy analysis.
## 13. Equity
– The instructor then introduced the simple question for equity:
– **“Is it fair?”**
– He began translating that into operational questions:
– **Who benefits?**
– **Who pays?**
– He reminded students that “paying” may mean:
– **Monetary cost** to taxpayers or users
– **Opportunity cost**
– Unequal access or burden placed on certain groups
– This linked back to the earlier discussion of stakeholders and to the homework ratings that had exposed how hard it is to define “fairness” without evidence.
## 14. Wrap-up, homework reminders, and preview of next class
– The class ended before all four feasibility criteria could be fully covered.
– The instructor stated that the class would **continue from this point on Thursday**, especially:
– completing the remaining feasibility criteria
– deepening stakeholder analysis around **power**, **interest**, and **cost distribution**
– He reminded students:
– If homework had not yet been submitted, they should submit it **that day if possible**
– Late submissions would be accepted **until next Tuesday**
– Late work would lose **10 points**, unless the student had a **spravka** (documented excuse)
## 15. Post-class student questions and advising
After the formal lesson ended, several students asked administrative and advising questions.
### 15a. Assignment clarification
– **Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred (likely; name uncertain in transcript)** asked whether the assignment should focus on the **best alternative** or the **problem statement**.
– The instructor clarified that students should use the **problem statement**.
### 15b. SYS registration problem
– **Konokbaeva Makhabat Zhamshidovna** explained that she had tried to register for **SYS** for the next fall semester, but the system produced an error related to year/class standing.
– She also noted that many current sophomores who would take SYS in the fall of their junior year were reportedly facing the same issue.
– The instructor said this was a serious problem and that he would need to speak with **Dr. Atzenger** to find out why the system was blocking enrollment.
### 15c. Transfer student advising: transcript, FYS, and transfer credit
– An **uncertain transfer student** spoke with the instructor/advisor about:
– sending a **full transcript** from a previous institution
– how prior credits would transfer
– a scheduling problem with **FYS**
– The instructor:
– requested the full prior transcript
– took a picture of the student’s paperwork
– advised the student to try to add **FYS during add/drop**
– explained that without FYS, the student would struggle to move through other general education requirements
– The student also asked about a prior **English composition** course from a U.S. college.
– The instructor explained that it had transferred as **IAE / general education credit**, but **not as FYS**, and that this could not be changed by him.
### 15d. Future supervisor/advisor assignment
– Another student asked about a list of supervisors that included **“new ICP full-time faculty.”**
– The instructor explained that the program expected to hire a **new professor next semester**, but the exact person was not yet known, so advisor/supervisor assignment was still uncertain.
### 15e. Late submission questions
– One student asked whether they could still submit the assignment later that day and what the penalty would be.
– The instructor confirmed:
– late submission was still possible
– penalty would be **10 points**
– no penalty if there was a valid **spravka**
– Another student stated they had **just submitted the assignment**, and the instructor confirmed they would receive **late credit**.
# Student Tracker
– **Kurmanbek kyzy Zhibek** — argued that deporting farmers in Brazil is maximally inequitable because it destroys the livelihoods of a very large farming population and their families.
– **Shamyrbekov Erkhan Shamyrbekovich** — suggested that the only limited argument for equity in the farmer-deportation proposal is that all farmers would be punished equally.
– **Alishoeva Gharibsulton Salmonovna** — was referenced by the instructor as holding the more moderate 2/5 equity position in the equity discussion, helping illustrate the subjectivity of unstructured scoring.
– **Konokbaeva Makhabat Zhamshidovna** — raised a significant SYS registration issue affecting future enrollment and progression.
– **Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred** *(likely; transcript unclear)* — asked whether the assignment should be based on the best alternative or the problem statement.
– **Uncertain student (rural internet group)** — presented a public-private partnership model for expanding rural internet through state support and private implementation.
– **Uncertain student (public-service corruption group)** — presented incremental, sector-specific anti-corruption reforms targeting key service sectors.
– **Uncertain student (deforestation group)** — presented a combined drone surveillance and higher-salary enforcement strategy for deforestation control in Brazil.
– **Uncertain student (air pollution discussion)** — proposed horses/donkeys as an alternative transportation idea, prompting discussion about turning ideas into actual policy instruments.
– **Uncertain transfer student** — consulted the instructor about transcript transfer, FYS registration, and how previous English composition credit would count.
– **Uncertain student** — asked about the meaning of “new ICP full-time faculty” in supervisor/advisor assignments.
– **Uncertain student** — asked about late submission rules and point deductions for the homework.
# Actionable Items
## High Urgency
– **Missing homework:** follow up with students who still have not submitted; late work accepted until **next Tuesday** with a **10-point penalty** unless supported by **spravka**.
– **SYS registration issue:** instructor to contact **Dr. Atzenger** about the system blocking eligible students from registering for SYS.
– **Thursday continuation:** resume lesson with remaining feasibility criteria and stakeholder **power/interest/cost** analysis.
## Medium Urgency
– **Policy memo development:** each group should refine its “best” alternative into a **clear four-step implementation plan**.
– **Stakeholder mapping:** groups should identify who **implements**, who **executes**, and who is **affected** by their policy.
– **Feasibility scoring:** students should replace intuitive 1–5 ratings with **evidence-based justifications**, especially for **effectiveness** and **equity**.
– **Clarify vague proposals:** especially the **gender-based violence** group’s realistic alternative and the **anti-corruption** group’s sector-specific reform details.
## Administrative / Advising Follow-Up
– **Transfer-credit advising:** transfer student should send the instructor the **full prior transcript**; student should seek **FYS during add/drop**.
– **Supervisor assignment:** clarify advisor/supervisor assignment once the planned **new ICP full-time faculty** hire is finalized.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The instructor only referred to an already-existing assignment—saying “eight people out of like the 16 in this class have submitted the homework,” later reminding students “if you’ve not submitted the homework yet, please get it in today,” and telling a student it could still be submitted late “until next Tuesday”—but did not assign any new homework during this lesson.