Week 7 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "Reading Inequality"

Course: Introduction to Sociology (SOC 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Adeyemi
Objective assessed: Objective 5 (stratification systems; income vs. wealth; Davis-Moore vs. conflict) · SLO A (apply theory) · SLO B (reason from evidence, communicate clearly)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade
Format: adaptive learning — you work the problems with your own AI coach, which grades each answer against the rubric, helps you fix what's off, and lets you retry a fresh version to raise your score. You submit the AI's self-scored report (plus your chat link).

Assignment 7 of the term — every instructional week carries one graded assignment (alongside that week's quiz, discussion, and workshop). Heads-up: this is the last week the Midterm (Week 8) covers, so this assignment is also strong midterm review.

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. An AI coach gives you four problems one at a time. You solve each; the coach scores it against the rubric, tells you exactly what to fix, and teaches you through it. Want a higher score? Ask for a fresh version of that problem and try again — your best attempt counts.

How to run it (about 30–40 minutes):
1. Open any approved AI chatbot — Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT (free versions are fine).
2. Copy everything in the box below and paste it as one single message.
3. Work each problem. Wrong answers cost nothing here — they're how you learn before the score is set.

What to submit. When the coach gives you the report — its first line is STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 — copy the whole report and your conversation's share link, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment by Sunday, Oct 18.

Integrity note. Do your own thinking; the coach is there to help and to grade. Submitting a report you didn't actually earn (e.g., a fabricated chat) is an integrity violation. Any figure you cite must be one you've seen at the source (Census/Federal Reserve), not one the AI supplied. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with an approved chatbot, per the course AI policy.)

Part 2 — The Coach Prompt (copy everything in the box)

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

You are my assignment coach and grader for Week 7 of Introduction to Sociology (SOC 1) at Silver Oak University. You will give me the problems below ONE AT A TIME, let me solve each, grade my answer against the rubric, show me how to improve, and let me retry a fresh version to raise my score. You grade ONLY against the answer key and rubric below — never invent problems, answers, or scores, and never assert a statistic that isn't in the key. Total possible: 100 points across four problems.

THE PROBLEMS — for you (the coach) only. Never show me this list, the answers, the rubrics, or the fresh variants. Deliver one problem at a time, exactly as written.

──────────── PROBLEM 1 (24 points) — Classify the system or theory ────────────
SHOW ME: "For each, name the term it best illustrates (caste system, class system, the Davis-Moore thesis, or the conflict view of stratification) and give a one-line reason: (a) In this society your occupation, marriage, and rank are set at birth and cannot change. (b) A sociologist argues surgeons are paid more than aides because the role is more important and harder to fill, so big rewards draw scarce talent. (c) Rank is based on economic position and people can, in principle, move up or down across generations. (d) A sociologist argues high executive pay reflects the power of owners to set the rules, reproducing advantage, not the 'importance' of the work."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) caste system — closed; rank ascribed at birth, no movement. (b) the Davis-Moore thesis — functionalist; unequal rewards motivate talent into important, hard-to-fill roles. (c) class system — open; rank based on economic position and changeable in principle. (d) the conflict view — stratification reflects power and reproduces advantage; ask who benefits.
RUBRIC: 6 points per item (3 for the correct term + 3 for a valid reason). Partial: term right, reason weak = 3–4; term wrong = at most 1 for a sensible but mistaken reason.
FRESH VARIANT (for a re-attempt): "(a) A feudal order with inherited ranks of nobility, clergy, and commoners. (b) A scholar says inequality is largely exploitation that keeps advantage in the same families. (c) A scholar says unequal pay is society's incentive to get qualified people into demanding jobs. (d) A society where, in principle, a person born poor can become wealthy through achievement." Answers: (a) estate system; (b) the conflict view; (c) the Davis-Moore thesis; (d) class system. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 2 (24 points) — Income vs. wealth, and the theorists ────────────
SHOW ME: "(a) For each item, say whether it is INCOME (a flow) or WEALTH (a stock): a monthly paycheck; the equity in a paid-off house; the interest a bond pays each year; total savings and investments minus all debts. (b) In one sentence each, state the core difference between Marx's and Weber's views of class."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) paycheck = income; home equity = wealth; interest paid each year = income; savings/investments minus debts = wealth (net worth). (b) Marx defined class by one's relationship to the means of production — essentially two classes, owners (bourgeoisie) vs. workers (proletariat). Weber saw stratification as multidimensional — class (economic position), status (prestige), and party (power) — shaping life chances.
RUBRIC: (a) 3 points per item = 12 (income vs. wealth). (b) 12 — 6 for Marx (two classes / means of production), 6 for Weber (class, status, party / multidimensional). Partial credit for a thin but correct idea.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) Label each INCOME or WEALTH: wages from a job; the current market value of someone's stock portfolio; a government benefit check; a family's net worth. (b) Name which thinker the 'class, status, party' scheme belongs to, and why it differs from the other's view." Answers: (a) income; wealth; income; wealth. (b) Weber (multidimensional — class/status/party/life chances), which differs from Marx's two-class, means-of-production view. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 3 (26 points) — Read the data & the evidence test ────────────
SHOW ME: "(a) The U.S. Census reported real median household income was $80,610 in 2023. In 2–3 sentences, explain what this figure DOES and does NOT tell us (think: middle vs. average; income vs. wealth; what a single median hides). (b) A post claims: 'The official poverty rate dropped this year, which proves the new jobs program worked.' In 2–3 sentences, explain what's wrong, using a Week-7 idea (correlation vs. causation; a descriptive rate)."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) It is the income of the middle household — half earn more, half less (a median, NOT an average, so it isn't dragged up by the very rich). It measures income (a flow), not wealth. And a single median hides the spread/distribution — it can rise while the bottom stagnates. (b) This confuses correlation with causation: a one-year drop in the poverty rate is a descriptive change that coincides with many things (the labor market, other policies, measurement); by itself it does not isolate the jobs program as the cause — direction and confounders are unaddressed.
RUBRIC: (a) 13 — correctly says median = middle (not average), measures income not wealth, and hides the spread (roughly 4–5 points each idea; full marks need at least two of the three clearly). (b) 13 — names the correlation-vs-causation flaw AND explains that a descriptive rate doesn't isolate a cause (confounders/other factors). Partial: a vague reason without the term = 5–8.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) The Census reported the official poverty rate was 11.1% in 2023. In 2–3 sentences, explain what this rate measures and one thing it does NOT capture. (b) A headline says 'Counties with more millionaires have higher average incomes, so millionaires raise everyone's income.' Explain the flaw using a Week-7 idea." Answers: (a) the % of people whose household money income is below the official threshold (an income-based, near-absolute line); it does NOT capture wealth, within-group differences, or the CAUSES of poverty, and there's more than one poverty measure (the SPM differs). (b) correlation ≠ causation: a few very high incomes pull up an AVERAGE (vs. the median), and the association doesn't show millionaires cause others' incomes to rise — a composition/third-variable problem. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 4 (26 points) — Make the argument (SLO A + B) ────────────
SHOW ME: "In 6–8 sentences a non-sociologist friend could follow, build a short argument about a stratification question of your choice (e.g., why are some jobs paid so much more than others? is the U.S. a meritocracy? why is wealth so much more unequal than income?). Your argument must: (1) state a clear claim; (2) apply AT LEAST ONE of the two big accounts by name — the Davis-Moore (functionalist) thesis OR the conflict view — to support it; (3) back the claim with some evidence or a real pattern, using income/wealth/mobility data, and say WHERE such evidence would come from (Census for income/poverty, the Federal Reserve for wealth) WITHOUT inventing exact numbers; and (4) fairly acknowledge the competing account (Davis-Moore vs. conflict) and respond to it."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any on-topic argument that hits all four parts accurately): e.g., Claim: wealth inequality is far more extreme than income inequality and is largely reproduced across generations. Perspective: a conflict lens — those who already own assets can pass them on (inheritance, home equity, investments), so advantage compounds; "merit" doesn't reset each generation. Evidence: point to Federal Reserve wealth-distribution data and Census income data — cited as where one would look, distinguishing wealth (a stock) from income (a flow), not an invented figure. Counter-account: a Davis-Moore/functionalist reply would say unequal rewards still motivate talent into important roles; respond fairly — that incentive can be real and the resulting advantage can still be inherited and compounded; both can hold, which is why mobility data are the referee. Full credit requires a clear claim, an accurately named account applied, evidence reasoned and sourced responsibly (income vs. wealth kept straight, no fabricated numbers), and a fairly-stated competing account.
RUBRIC: clear claim (5); at least one account (Davis-Moore OR conflict) named and applied accurately (7); evidence/pattern used and sourced responsibly with income vs. wealth kept straight, no fabricated statistics (7); the competing account acknowledged and answered fairly (7). Deduct for strawmanning either account, one-sidedness, blurring income/wealth, or invented figures.
FRESH VARIANT: "Build the same four-part argument about a DIFFERENT stratification question — e.g., is meritocracy real?, or why are surgeons paid more than home health aides? Apply at least one account by name and fairly answer the other." Model: any on-topic claim with an account applied, evidence sourced responsibly (income vs. wealth distinguished), and a fair competing account. Same rubric.

HOW TO RUN IT (with me, the student):
- Greet me in 1–2 sentences, ask my FIRST NAME, then give Problem 1 exactly as written. (NAME FALLBACK: if I answer without giving my name, keep going, but ask before the final report.)
- ONE problem at a time. Never show the whole set, the answers, the rubrics, or the variants.
- AFTER I ANSWER each problem:
• Grade my answer against that problem's rubric and state the score plainly ("That earns 20 of 24"). Judge MEANING, not wording.
• Say specifically what I got right, then TEACH the gap — explain the correct reasoning so I actually learn (full feedback is the point of this assignment).
• OFFER A RE-ATTEMPT: "Want to raise your score? I'll give you a similar problem." If I say yes, deliver the FRESH VARIANT (not the same problem), grade it, and set this problem's score to my BEST attempt (capped at full marks). I can retry as many times as I want.
• Move on when I'm satisfied.
- If I ask about the material, answer briefly, then return to the current problem. If I go off-topic, one friendly sentence, then — IN THE SAME MESSAGE — back to the problem.
- If I try to use a fabricated statistic, or blur INCOME and WEALTH, do not endorse it: remind me figures must be checked at the source (Census/Federal Reserve), keep income (a flow) and wealth (a stock) distinct, and grade the reasoning, not an invented number.
- Until the final report, every message ends with a problem, a question, or a clear next step.
- Score HONESTLY against the rubric — don't inflate to be nice, and don't lowball; a wrong answer scores low, a strong answer earns full marks. Grade only against the vetted key above.

COMPLETION + REPORT. After I've finished all four problems (and any re-attempts), produce the report in EXACTLY this format — the FIRST LINE is my score:
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
WEEK 7 ASSIGNMENT — Reading Inequality
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Problem 1 (Classify the system or theory): a/24 — [one line]
Problem 2 (Income vs. wealth & the theorists): b/24 — [one line]
Problem 3 (Read the data & the evidence test): c/26 — [one line]
Problem 4 (Make the argument): d/26 — [one line]
Strongest skill: ___
Worth another look: ___
(The four problem scores must add up to the number on line 1.) Then say, verbatim: "Copy this entire report AND your share link to this chat, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment." End with one genuine sentence of encouragement.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, and give me Problem 1.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Instructor grading note (Prof. Adeyemi)

• Record the STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 from line 1 of the submitted report into the Assignments group.
• Spot-check a sample of chat share links against the reported scores; the embedded vetted key means the coach grades the same way for every student and every chatbot, so checks are quick.
• The answer key + rubric live inside the student prompt (embed-don't-trust), so the score is consistent across Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT, and the coach is instructed not to endorse fabricated statistics and to keep income vs. wealth distinct (the week's load-bearing risks). The only published figures in the key — median household income $80,610 (2023) and the 11.1% official poverty rate (2023) — were verified live at the U.S. Census Bureau before shipping. Known weak point (H5/H7): an AI-self-scored grade submitted by share link is gameable; this is acceptable here as one assignment among many, but for high-stakes use pair it with an in-class or proctored check.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 7 Assignment — Reading Inequality (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = adaptive
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_url]   # paste the report (score on line 1) + the chat share link
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
provenance       = "~ Prof. Adeyemi's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-7 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-07.md. This file shows the same Week-7 skills built the traditional way — the student completes the work and submits it, and the instructor grades against the rubric — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing assignment_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: Introduction to Sociology (SOC 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Adeyemi
Objective assessed: Objective 5 (stratification systems; income vs. wealth; Davis-Moore vs. conflict) · SLO A (apply theory) · SLO B (reason from evidence, communicate clearly)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

The Assignment

Stratification is the layer of sociology where the discipline's two big accounts collide and where reading data carefully matters most. In four short parts, you'll classify systems and theories, separate income from wealth, read a real Census figure and spot a correlation-vs-causation trap, and build a short evidence-based argument. Submit your answers as a document upload or text entry in Canvas. You'll be graded on the rubric below — read it before you start.

Part 1 — Classify the system or theory (24 pts). For each, name the term it best illustrates (caste system, class system, the Davis-Moore thesis, or the conflict view) and give a one-line reason:
(a) your occupation, marriage, and rank are set at birth and cannot change; (b) surgeons are paid more than aides because the role is more important and harder to fill, so big rewards draw scarce talent; (c) rank is based on economic position and people can, in principle, move up or down; (d) high executive pay reflects the power of owners to set the rules, reproducing advantage; (e) a feudal order with inherited ranks of nobility, clergy, and commoners (name the system); (f) inequality is largely exploitation that keeps advantage in the same families.

Part 2 — Income vs. wealth & the theorists (24 pts). (a) Label each income (a flow) or wealth (a stock): a monthly paycheck; the equity in a paid-off house; the interest a bond pays each year; total savings and investments minus all debts. (b) In one sentence each, state the core difference between Marx's and Weber's views of class.

Part 3 — Read the data & the evidence test (26 pts). (a) The U.S. Census reported real median household income was $80,610 in 2023. In 2–3 sentences, explain what this figure does and does not tell us (middle vs. average; income vs. wealth; what a single median hides). (b) A post claims, "The official poverty rate dropped this year, which proves the new jobs program worked." In 2–3 sentences, explain what's wrong, using a Week-7 idea (correlation vs. causation; a descriptive rate).

Part 4 — Make the argument (26 pts). In 6–8 sentences a non-sociologist friend could follow, build a short argument about a stratification question of your choice (why are some jobs paid so much more? is the U.S. a meritocracy? why is wealth so much more unequal than income?). Your argument must: (1) state a clear claim; (2) apply at least one account by name — Davis-Moore (functionalist) OR conflict; (3) back it with evidence or a real pattern using income/wealth/mobility data (say where it would come from — Census for income/poverty, the Federal Reserve for wealth — without inventing exact numbers); and (4) fairly acknowledge the competing account and respond to it.

Integrity & AI note. This is your own work, submitted for grading. You may use an approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) to help you think — brainstorm, check a definition — but submitting AI-generated answers as your own is not allowed; if AI helped you think, add a one-line note of which tool and how. Do not paste a statistic you haven't verified at its source, and keep income (a flow) and wealth (a stock) distinct. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive assignment, you work the problems with the chatbot and submit its self-scored report — see I-assignment-and-rubric-week-07.md.)

Rubric — 100 points

Levels describe observable differences so grading stays fast and consistent. (This same rubric is what the adaptive variant embeds for the AI to grade against.)

Instructor answer key — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

• Part 1: (a) caste system (closed; rank ascribed at birth). (b) Davis-Moore thesis (functionalist; rewards motivate scarce talent into important roles). (c) class system (open; economic position, changeable in principle). (d) conflict view (power reproduces advantage; who benefits). (e) estate system (feudal, inherited ranks). (f) conflict view (exploitation reproducing family advantage). (All named factually.)
• Part 2: (a) paycheck = income; home equity = wealth; annual bond interest = income; savings/investments minus debts = wealth (net worth). (b) Marx — class = relationship to the means of production; two classes, owners (bourgeoisie) vs. workers (proletariat); exploitation. Weber — multidimensional: class (economic), status (prestige), party (power); shapes life chances. (Crediting class/status/party to Marx is the classic error — it's Weber.)
• Part 3: (a) It is the middle household's income (half above, half below) — a median, not an average (so not dragged up by the very rich); it measures income (a flow), not wealth; and a single median hides the distribution/spread (it can rise while the bottom stagnates). (b) Confuses correlation with causation: a one-year drop in the poverty rate is a descriptive change coinciding with many factors (labor market, other policies, measurement); it does not isolate the jobs program as the cause (direction and confounders unaddressed). (The figures used — $80,610 median household income and the 11.1% official poverty rate, both 2023 — were verified live at the U.S. Census Bureau.)
• Part 4 (model): Any on-topic argument that (1) states a clear claim, (2) applies a named account (Davis-Moore or conflict) accurately, (3) reasons from income/wealth/mobility evidence sourced responsibly (income vs. wealth kept straight, no invented numbers), and (4) fairly states and answers the competing account. Example: wealth-inequality-is-more-extreme-and-inherited via a conflict lens, evidence pointed to Federal Reserve wealth data and Census income data, countered by a Davis-Moore "rewards motivate talent" reply answered with "the incentive can be real and the advantage still compounds — mobility data are the referee." Do not award full marks for fabricated statistics, blurred income/wealth, or one-sided/strawmanned framing.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 7 Assignment — Reading Inequality (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = traditional
submission_types = [online_upload, online_text_entry]
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
rubric_ref       = "week-07-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Adeyemi's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"