Week 1 Discussion — Where Should the Economy Sit on Its Frontier? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
Every economy faces the same trade-off you face on a free evening: whatever it chooses, it gives something up. This week you drew that trade-off as a production possibilities frontier and learned to separate what the model says from what we value.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: Imagine a country choosing where to sit on its frontier over the coming years. It could make more capital goods now (new roads, machines, broadband lines, hospitals) and fewer consumer goods, or more consumer goods now (food, clothing, entertainment) and fewer capital goods. Where would you put it, and why? Name the opportunity cost of your choice, label which parts of your argument are positive and which are normative, and say what someone who weighs today's needs and tomorrow's needs differently would argue.
Option B: Bring a real economic claim you have heard (a headline, an ad, a campaign slogan, a family argument at dinner). Split it into its positive parts and its normative parts. For each positive part, say what evidence could test it; for each normative part, name the value it rests on. Then say how a person with different values could accept the same facts and still disagree.
There is no single right answer. Two people can agree on every fact about the frontier and still choose different points on it, because the choice rests on values as well as on the model. Pick the option you actually care about, and make your case.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- For Option A, say where you would put the country on its frontier, name the opportunity cost of that choice, and label each part of your argument positive or normative; for Option B, describe the claim, split it into positive and normative parts, and say what evidence would test each positive part.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (opportunity cost, production possibilities frontier, capital goods, consumer goods, positive statement, normative statement) correctly.
- State the strongest case for a view you do not hold, in one or two sentences.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: name an opportunity cost the poster left out, point to a claim they labelled positive that rests on values (or the reverse), or make the strongest fair case for the choice they did not make. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option A and would tilt the country toward capital goods, such as new bus lines and clinic equipment. The opportunity cost is the consumer goods it gives up now: fewer meals out, phones, and clothes this year. "New bus lines would shorten commutes" is positive, because travel times could test it. "The future matters more than this year" is normative; it rests on how I weigh people now against people later. Someone who puts today's hardship first could accept every fact here and still choose more consumer goods.
Notice how it names the opportunity cost, labels each claim, and states a fair case for the other side without calling it wrong. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Full credit | Partial credit | No credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A specific choice or claim, with a named opportunity cost or a clear split into testable and value-based parts, a reason for the position, and a fair statement of another view | A choice or claim is present, but the opportunity cost is vague or the position is asserted without a reason | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning about the choice or claim |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses opportunity cost, the frontier, and positive versus normative precisely, with every label applied correctly | Uses a term loosely, or mislabels one statement | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or challenge a classmate's reasoning | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com