Benjamin Sommers, Professor of Health Policy and Economics, finishes his Healthcare Safety Net and Vulnerable Populations course with a debate: students are randomly assigned to roles—as senators, witnesses, or experts—and probe aspects of healthcare policy, simulating deliberations that take place on the Senate floor. Somewhat similar to real hearings, each witness makes an opening statement and then takes questions from acting Senators.
This exercise pushes students to not only delve into the details of policies, but also to understand how politics can enable or block them. “Most policies we discuss aren’t unequivocally good or bad.” Sommers wants students to understand different stakeholders’ views and learn how to build coalitions. Those playing Senators have to generate responses to proposals in defense of their positions; witnesses similarly have to address unexpected questions and critiques.
Implementing a highly orchestrated, tightly timed debate structure involves careful planning for Sommers, including major logistical support from his teaching fellows. In addition, there’s a risk that the performance aspect of the session can overtake the actual policy content in a way that may be entertaining but less useful educationally. Trying to maintain the right balance between style and substance is important and requiring students to prepare a written document outlining their position in more detail helps.
Sommers’ debate model and the scaffolding leading up to it makes visible the multiple perspectives and complexities involved in pushing for changes in the real world. The exercise could translate to other disciplines (even those not explicitly focused on policy), such as an English course debating which author to select for a literary award, or students in an astrophysics course enacting a scientific advisory committee.
