Lesson Report:
**Title:
Introducing Public Policy Analysis: From Personal Grievances to Policy Problems**
This first session oriented students to the purpose and structure of the public policy course and began building a shared vocabulary and mindset. The class moved from informal “complaints� about life in Bishkek toward more analytic concepts like “grievances,� “conditions,� “policy problems,� and “collective responsibility.� The instructor also laid out expectations around attendance, participation, assignments, and plagiarism/AI use, and previewed the major skills students will develop: proposing and critiquing real-world policy solutions.
—
## Attendance
– **Number of students mentioned absent:** 0
– No students were explicitly noted as absent in the transcript.
– One student appears to have arrived late (addressed briefly by the instructor at the end), but not recorded as absent.
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Progression)
### 1. Course Framing & Purpose: What This Class Is (and Is Not)
– **Course welcome and framing**
– Instructor greeted students and acknowledged this is the first meeting of the semester.
– Emphasized that most students and the instructor already know each other, so less time is needed on social icebreakers and more on “getting to know the class.â€�
– Stated main **purpose of the course**:
– This is a course in **public policy**, not law or doctrinal legal studies.
– It will include some political theory, but that will be kept “relatively minimal.â€�
– **Defining the core skill set**
– Main overarching skill: **moving from complaining about problems to systematically fixing them**.
– How to identify what’s “brokenâ€� in society.
– How to describe problems in **measurable and actionable** terms.
– How to generate **potential solutions** and evaluate:
– Which are more likely to work.
– Which are more likely to fail.
– The instructor positioned **public policy analysis** as:
– A disciplined way to move beyond unfocused dissatisfaction.
– A toolkit for **diagnosing** and **addressing** social problems in a structured way.
– End-of-course outcome (by May):
– Students should feel comfortable:
– Turning generalized complaints into well-defined **grievances**.
– Proposing and assessing concrete policy remedies.
—
### 2. Initial Conceptual Anchor: From “Complaints� to “Grievances�
– **Terminological shift: complaint → grievance**
– Instructor introduced the idea of using the more **“scientificâ€� term**: *grievance*.
– Asked students to adopt this terminology in class, noting:
– Rationale would be explained in more detail later.
– For now, students should “work withâ€� the term as a more analytical label for their complaints.
—
### 3. Individual Exercise: Identifying Personal Grievances in Bishkek
– **Prompt**
– All students had experience living in Bishkek (months to many years).
– Task: Individually write down **three things that annoy you about living in Bishkek**:
– Could be infrastructure (roads), services (markets), utilities, environment, etc.
– Defined as **problems / complaints / grievances** in everyday life.
– Clarification from a student:
– They asked if it can be something that affects both their own apartment and others.
– Instructor confirmed: yes, it can be individual and/or widespread (e.g., many apartments, older buildings).
– **Working time**
– Students were given about a minute (plus some extension) to list their three grievances in notebooks.
—
### 4. Pair Activity: Sharing and Prioritizing Grievances
– **Pair formation and introductions**
– Students instructed to:
– Turn to someone they do not know well (an acquaintance or near-stranger).
– Sit next to them and introduce themselves.
– Intent: slightly expand their social circle in the class.
– After introductions, each partner shared their list of three grievances.
– **Prioritization task**
– From both lists together, the pair had to:
– Select **two grievances** total that they judged most important.
– “Remove all but twoâ€� from the combined list.
– Instructor allowed a couple more minutes for this filtering process.
– **Social objective**
– Beyond the analytical purpose, the instructor explicitly noted:
– Hope that students gained at least one new friend or acquaintance.
– This step set up the later full-class introductions and grievance-sharing.
—
### 5. Whole-Class Sharing: Pairs Present Their Two Grievances
– **Structure**
– Instructor asked each pair to:
1. Introduce themselves:
– Name.
– Department.
– (Optionally) where they are from.
2. Present the two main **Bishkek grievances** they had selected.
– **Examples of grievances reported**
– From the transcript, several key issues emerged repeatedly (sometimes from multiple groups):
– **Road quality**:
– General characterization: roads are in poor condition.
– Implied problems: potholes, maintenance, driving safety and comfort.
– **High gas / heating prices**:
– Students mentioned that despite Kyrgyzstan’s relationships in the region and access to gas (e.g., being in the Eurasian context, nearby Turkmenistan), heating prices are high.
– A sense of disconnect between **resource availability** and **retail prices**.
– **Traffic and traffic jams**:
– Congestion on city streets.
– Leads to delays, inconvenience, and general frustration.
– **Smog and air quality**:
– Air pollution and seasonal smog.
– Students and instructor noted:
– Bishkek often ranks among the top polluted cities globally (top 10, sometimes top 3).
– At the time of class, smog was not as severe, but everyone recognized it as a recurrent issue.
– **Urban architecture & lack of ventilation/air corridors**:
– Linked to smog and city planning:
– Poor planning prevents proper **airflow** (“roza vetrovâ€� concept).
– Lack of wind corridors traps pollution between buildings.
– Students noted:
– Buildings are placed in ways that obstruct ventilation.
– This contributes heavily to persistent smog.
– **Electricity scarcity / power cuts**:
– Mention of electricity shortages (e.g., lights off after 10 p.m.).
– Directly impacts quality of life and basic services.
– **Instructor’s note**
– He anticipated that **roads, smog, traffic** would be repeated themes, and indeed they were.
—
### 6. Instructor Self-Introduction and Personal Grievances
– **Instructor biography**
– Name: **Nate**.
– Role: Professor in the **ICP Department**.
– Experience:
– 3rd year teaching for ICP.
– 8th year at AUCA overall.
– This specific public policy course was the first class he ever taught for the ICP Department; he is returning to it with more experience.
– Background:
– From New York.
– Living in Kyrgyzstan for most of the last ~10 years.
– **Instructor’s two Bishkek grievances**
– **Unreliable / slow Wi-Fi**:
– Provider: “Akhmetâ€� (likely a pseudonym or mis-transcription of a local ISP).
– Issue pattern:
– Internet randomly cuts out for hours.
– When he messages support, they send a canned response: “technical outage in your node, we do not know when it will be fixed.â€�
– Frustration with:
– Lack of transparency.
– Poor customer service and unclear timelines.
– **Excessive summer heat**:
– Bishkek in July–August is “way too hot,â€� reaching over 40°C.
– Compared to New York:
– Even though NYC isn’t especially cool, Bishkek’s summer heat is significantly worse and physically exhausting.
– **Transition**
– These instructor grievances became **worked examples** for the next analytic activity.
—
### 7. Core Analytic Activity: “Things to Fix� vs. “Things to Endure�
– **Setting up the framework**
– On the board, the instructor created two columns:
1. **Things to fix**
2. **Things to endure**
– Students were asked:
– What does it mean to “endureâ€� something?
– Student responses: “to take it,â€� “to keep it,â€� “we can’t fix it.â€�
– This set up a simple operational definition:
– **Things to fix**: We can realistically do something about them.
– **Things to endure**: We cannot realistically fix them (or believe we cannot).
– **Instructor’s initial examples**
– Using his two grievances:
– **Wi-Fi too slow** → categorized as **“thing to fixâ€�**
– Reasoning: There are plausible, actionable solutions (technological, regulatory, provider competition, etc.).
– **Summer too hot** → categorized as **“thing to endureâ€�**
– Reasoning:
– Core climate/temperature pattern is beyond realistic local control.
– Potential extreme “sci-fiâ€� solutions exist but are infeasible politically, financially, or technically for a city government.
– **Pair work**
– Students were asked to:
– Take the collective list of grievances on the board.
– With their partners, sort each one into:
– “Things to fixâ€�
– “Things to endureâ€�
– Importantly: Not just label, but reflect on *why* they placed items in each category.
– What implicit criteria are they using to judge “fixabilityâ€�?
—
### 8. Course Logistics & Policies (“Boring Stuff� Segment)
*(This was interjected mid-lesson because it was the first day.)*
#### 8.1 Attendance Policy
– **Class timing**
– Class begins at **15:35**.
– Attendance taken at or shortly after 15:35.
– **Status definitions**
– **Present**:
– Student is in the room when attendance is called.
– **Late**:
– Student arrives after attendance but **within 15 minutes** (up to **15:50**).
– Being late automatically **cuts participation points in half** for that day.
– **Absent**:
– Arrival **after 15:50** is treated as **absent** for the day (even if they show up for last minutes).
– Rationale: prevents students from appearing at the very end and claiming full attendance.
– **Absence limits**
– Students are allowed **four (4) absences** per semester.
– On the **5th absence (or more)**:
– The student **does not pass the class**.
– This is a strict threshold.
– **Excused absences via spravka**
– To remove an absence from the record:
– Student must provide a **medical certificate (spravka)**:
– From a doctor.
– Stamped/validated by the AUCA medical office.
– Must be submitted (or emailed) **within one week** of the missed class.
– If accepted:
– The day becomes **“excusedâ€�**:
– It is neutral in the gradebook (no penalty, no participation credit).
– Without spravka: absence stands.
#### 8.2 Participation Expectations
– Instructor differentiated **attendance** from **participation**:
– Simply being in the room is not enough.
– Expectations:
– Visibly paying attention.
– No obvious off-task behavior (e.g., scrolling phone, AirPods in during discussion).
– He acknowledges:
– Students are not expected to be “onâ€� or verbally active every class.
– But some level of observable engagement is required.
– Poor engagement can result in **reduced participation points** even if attendance is recorded as present.
#### 8.3 Assignment Structure, Deadlines, and Late Policy
– **Number of major graded assignments**
– Three main grading components overall:
1. Attendance/participation.
2. **Midterm exam**.
3. **Final policy memo**.
– **Submission platforms**
– Assignments (at least the final) will be **submitted via eCourse**.
– Readings will be posted there as well.
– This is a 200-level elective; expected reading load: **10–15 pages per week**.
– No reading assigned for this first week; reading will start the following week.
– **Deadlines and late credit**
– Assignments must be submitted by the posted deadline.
– Late submissions:
– **Up to 1 week late**:
– Accepted with an automatic **–10 point penalty**.
– **More than 1 week late**:
– Not accepted **unless** the student has a valid **medical spravka** or serious documented emergency.
– With appropriate spravka:
– Instructor can grant extensions on a case-by-case basis.
#### 8.4 Assessments: Midterm Exam & Final Policy Memo
– **Shift away from take-home essays (AI concern)**
– Previously: course used to have **two take-home memos**.
– Instructor’s observation:
– By 2026, take-home writing assignments are heavily compromised by AI usage.
– Approx. “85% of studentsâ€� submit AI-generated text regardless of instructions.
– Decision:
– Switch to an **in-class written midterm** (paper and pen) to directly assess students’ own understanding.
– **Midterm exam**
– Timing:
– At approximately the halfway point of the course (~after 8 weeks).
– Focus:
– Assess conceptual and theoretical knowledge built in the **first half** of the course:
– What is public policy?
– How do we define problems?
– Relevant conceptual frameworks and terms.
– Format:
– Instructor will provide:
– A **policy case** (a specific proposed policy).
– Context about the **country** where the policy is being proposed.
– Students must:
– **Critique** why this policy **will not work**.
– Use course concepts, theories, and examples to structure their critique.
– Closer to an essay-style exam, **not multiple-choice**.
– Similar in spirit to Intro to Political Science final exam, but tailored to policy analysis.
– Purpose:
– Demonstrate actual, internalized understanding prior to the applied/practice portion of the course.
– **Final assignment: Policy Memo**
– Memo vs. essay:
– Instructor polled:
– Only one student had prior memo-writing experience.
– From that example and instructor’s elaboration:
– A **memo**:
– Has a **specific audience** (e.g., a policymaker, official, organization).
– Is **purpose-driven**: to propose, justify, or critique a policy/action.
– Is **short and dense**:
– Typically **no more than 2 pages**.
– Contains all necessary decision-relevant information.
– Is not just “academic speculationâ€�; it is meant to influence **real decisions**.
– An **essay**:
– Often longer, more discursive.
– More focused on demonstrating knowledge than on guiding action.
– BLUF communication:
– Students will be trained in **BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)** style.
– Means:
– The key recommendation or conclusion is stated at the beginning.
– Supporting data, reasoning, and alternatives are efficiently structured underneath.
– Emphasis on **hyper-condensed, clear, decision-ready writing**.
– Final memo task:
– Students will:
– Identify a **real-world problem** (possibly one of their Bishkek grievances or another issue of personal interest).
– Imagine they are working for a **politician** or **international organization**.
– Write a **2-page memo** that:
– Describes the problem in precise, measurable policy terms.
– Proposes one or more **feasible solutions**.
– Explains briefly why proposed solutions are likely to work (and/or why other options may fail).
– Second half of the course:
– After the midterm, the emphasis shifts to **practice**:
– Designing policies.
– Critiquing both students’ own proposals and existing real-world policies.
#### 8.5 Plagiarism and AI Use Policy
– **Traditional plagiarism**
– Defined as:
– Copying text from:
– Books, articles, or websites.
– Another student’s work.
– One’s own previously submitted assignments (self-plagiarism).
– Consequence:
– Any proven plagiarism yields a **zero** on the assignment, non-negotiable.
– **AI-based plagiarism**
– Using AI (e.g., ChatGPT) as the **primary writer** of the assignment is considered cheating, even if:
– The student changes some words.
– Rearranges sentences slightly.
– Policy:
– If the instructor suspects AI-based plagiarism:
– The work goes to a **department committee**.
– A panel of professors reviews the assignment.
– The student is allowed to present an explanation/defense.
– If the committee is not persuaded:
– The student receives a **zero** for that assignment.
– Clarification:
– AI may be useful for **research or brainstorming**, but:
– It **must not** be used to generate the actual submitted text.
– The instructor strongly discourages any copy-paste from AI.
—
### 9. Returning to the Analytic Activity: Classifying Grievances
– **Revisiting the board**
– The instructor returned to the list of grievances (complaints about Bishkek).
– Using class discussion, each was classified as “to fixâ€� or “to endureâ€� via informal voting (show of hands).
– **Examples of categorization (with class divisions noted)**
– **Summer heat**:
– Classified as **“to endureâ€�**.
– Clear consensus: viewed as largely unchangeable, or change would be unrealistically expensive/technologically impossible for local actors.
– **Wi-Fi too slow**:
– Classified as **“to fixâ€�**.
– Considered solvable through infrastructure investment, competition, regulation, etc.
– **Road quality**:
– Unanimously “**to fix**.â€�
– Seen as classic public infrastructure problem within government’s remit.
– **High gas/heating prices**:
– Split vote; instructor noted interest:
– Some saw it as **“to fixâ€�** (policy levers exist: subsidies, regulation, energy agreements).
– Others saw it as **“to endureâ€�** (perhaps constrained by international markets, state capacity, or complexity).
– **Corruption**:
– Also split:
– Some students: **“to fixâ€�** — treat corruption as a governance problem requiring reform.
– Others: **“to endureâ€�** — argued corruption is rooted in **human nature** and cannot be eliminated fully (only mitigated).
– **Traffic jams**:
– Majority: **“to fixâ€�**.
– Minority/one group: **“to endureâ€�**.
– Their rationale:
– Every capital city has traffic; fully solving it is extremely hard.
– Thus seen as a chronic feature of urban life rather than fully solvable.
– **Smog / air pollution**:
– Majority: **“to fixâ€�**.
– Dissenting view:
– Smog is the outcome of **many different causes** (traffic, heating, industry, geography, architecture).
– Too many interlocking factors; can’t fully eliminate without extremely disruptive measures (e.g., tearing down buildings, massive system changes).
– Thus, partially something to endure.
– **Urban architecture & lack of ventilation/air corridors**:
– Split view again:
– Fixable by future planning and regulation (for some).
– Effectively “locked inâ€� by existing built environment for others.
– **Electricity scarcity / outages**:
– Nearly unanimous: **“to fixâ€�**.
– Seen as a fundamental service whose absence severely harms quality of life (“you survive but you’re not livingâ€� as one student paraphrased).
– Considered urgent and within the responsibility of authorities to address.
– **Discussion of criteria used by students**
– Instructor prompted reflection:
– Not just “can/can’t fix,â€� but: *why* do we think so?
– Student-identified differentiators included:
– **Natural vs human-made**:
– Natural issues (like climate/heat) are less fixable.
– Human systems (roads, electricity) are more obviously within policy reach.
– **Severity / life-threatening impact**:
– Some issues drastically affect **quality of life or survival** (e.g., water, electricity, severe pollution).
– These are intuitively judged as needing to be **fixed**.
– Lesser inconveniences might be tolerated.
– **Complexity**:
– Some problems have **too many root causes** (e.g., smog).
– The scale and interconnectedness make them feel nearly impossible to solve.
– **Human nature & structural limits**:
– In the case of corruption, some argued it can never be fully eradicated due to deep-seated tendencies, only reduced.
– **Instructor’s meta-point**
– No single student criterion (naturalness, severity, complexity, human nature) yielded a fully **scientific, consistent rule**.
– Different criteria lead to different classifications for the same issue.
– This shows that our intuitions about “fixabilityâ€� and “enduranceâ€� are **value-laden and belief-driven**, not purely objective.
—
### 10. Introducing Key Concepts: Collective Responsibility, Conditions, Policy Problems
– **Collective Responsibility**
– New term defined and discussed:
– **Collective responsibility**: when a **group** (e.g., government, institution, or authority) is judged to have the duty and capacity to address a problem.
– Instructor’s claim:
– The **real dividing line** between “things to fixâ€� and “things to endureâ€� often lies in whether we believe:
– Some powerful collective actor *should* and *can* take responsibility for solving the issue.
– Examples:
– “Things to fixâ€�:
– Usually those where we believe **government/institutions have a duty** (and at least potential ability) to respond.
– “Things to endureâ€�:
– Issues for which we **do not attribute** clear collective responsibility:
– Either because we think no actor can realistically solve them (heat, geography).
– Or because we don’t politically or morally expect authorities to address them.
– **Conditions vs. Policy Problems**
– Instructor introduced two more terms to formalize the categories:
– **Conditions**:
– The items in the “things to endureâ€� column.
– Defined as aspects of reality that:
– We **do not believe** any group has collective responsibility to fix.
– May be natural, structural, or just deemed beyond feasible intervention.
– Example:
– Summer heat in Bishkek: generally not seen as a policy-responsible variable.
– **Policy problems**:
– The items in the “things to fixâ€� column.
– Defined as:
– **Conditions** that have been **reframed** as issues that *someone* (usually government or similar actor) **ought to address**.
– Problems that:
– Have identified stakeholders.
– Are seen as at least partially **feasible** to improve.
– These are the **primary focus of the course**.
– Key point:
– Many real-world issues are initially just **conditions**.
– Through political processes, advocacy, and changing beliefs about **collective responsibility**, some of these conditions are reclassified as **policy problems**.
– This “boundary workâ€� — deciding what is and isn’t a policy problem — is itself a crucial part of public policy analysis.
– **Preview of upcoming class**
– Next session (Thursday) plan:
– Take some of the **policy problems** identified (e.g., slow Wi-Fi, electricity loss, traffic).
– Begin to **describe them more precisely**:
– Who is responsible?
– What specifically is wrong (measurable terms)?
– What might plausible policy levers be?
– Continue pushing from raw grievance → structured policy analysis.
—
### 11. Course Platform & Reading Expectations
– **E-Course**
– All:
– **Readings**.
– **Assignment submissions** (at least the final memo).
– Will be managed via **eCourse**.
– A student asked for the **eCourse key**:
– Instructor did not recall it on the spot.
– Promised to **email the key** that evening.
– **Syllabus and readings**
– Syllabus:
– Not yet finalized at time of this class.
– Instructor committed to sending it by **Friday night**.
– Readings:
– Because this is the first week, **no reading assigned** for the next session.
– Starting from the following week:
– Expect **10–15 pages per week**, appropriate for a 200-level elective.
—
## Actionable Items for the Instructor
### High Priority (Before Next Class / Very Soon)
– **Distribute eCourse access information**
– Email students the **eCourse key** as promised.
– Ensure the course shell is active and visible to enrolled students.
– **Finalize and share syllabus**
– Complete the syllabus and upload/email it by **Friday night**:
– Include:
– Detailed grading breakdown (attendance, participation, midterm, final memo, etc.).
– Specifics on late policy and absence policy as described verbally.
– Tentative weekly topics and reading schedule.
– Plagiarism and AI policy in writing.
– **Upload initial reading(s) for Week 2**
– Select and upload the first **10–15 pages** of reading that introduce:
– Definitions of public policy.
– Problem definition and agenda-setting.
– Possibly texts that elaborate on “conditionsâ€� vs “problemsâ€� and “collective responsibility.â€�
– Clearly label due dates and expectations in eCourse.
—
### Medium Priority (Within the Next 2–3 Weeks)
– **Clarify midterm exam format and evaluation criteria**
– Prepare a short written description for students covering:
– Approximate exam date.
– Time allowed.
– Expected structure (e.g., one case, one long essay; or multiple short questions).
– Grading rubric (criteria: clarity, use of concepts, evidence, structure, etc.).
– **Provide a memo-writing guide and BLUF examples**
– Create or source:
– A memo template (e.g., header, to/from, subject, date, executive summary, background, analysis, recommendations).
– 1–2 short model memos that demonstrate good BLUF style.
– Post these on eCourse and/or discuss in class prior to assigning the final memo formally.
– **Start building a bank of local policy cases**
– From today’s grievances list (Wi-Fi, roads, heating, smog, traffic, electricity, corruption), identify a few that:
– Are especially tractable and well-documented.
– Could serve as case studies for in-class exercises and the midterm scenario.
—
### Lower Priority / Ongoing
– **Reinforce attendance and participation expectations**
– In the next few sessions:
– Briefly remind students of start time, late cut-off, and absence limits.
– Be consistent about attendance recording and noting visible disengagement.
– **Monitor and respond to student understanding of key concepts**
– Revisit:
– “Grievance,â€� “condition,â€� “policy problem,â€� and “collective responsibility.â€�
– Check comprehension through:
– Quick in-class checks (short discussions or mini-exercises).
– Possibly a short formative quiz (ungraded or low-stakes) on terminology.
– **Follow up with late-arriving students**
– The student who queried whether they were marked late at the end of class (or any repeated latecomers):
– Gently reinforce that habitual tardiness will harm participation scores and, after 15 minutes, be counted as an absence.
—
If you’d like, I can next help you turn this session’s grievances list into a structured table separating “conditions� vs “policy problems� with possible responsible actors; that could serve directly as a handout or starting point for the next class.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The instructor explicitly states, “I am not going to be giving you a reading for this week,” and although he briefly says, “I need to get the homework up for you guys,” he never actually assigns any task and later confirms there’s no reading or other work before Thursday, then ends class.