[1941] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] [UA-SCATR] New Card initiative
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jacob Faber)
Mon Jul 3 16:04:56 2006
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 16:04:13 -0400
From: "Jacob Faber" <faber@alum.mit.edu>
To: "Michael Shaw" <mshaw@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <b903a2f20607031221l78812228ncfed42d207661740@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: reubano@alum.mit.edu, ua-scatr@mit.edu,
"Pius A. Uzamere II" <pius@alum.mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Reply-To: faber@alum.mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Michael,
You do bring up some good points and I'll do my best to address them.
"It always interests me that students always think the administration
is out to get them. It seems somewhat paranoid to me--of course, just
because we're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get us."
I'll admit it's not fair to say they're always out to get us.
However, I have extensive experience working with MIT administration,
and they're not idiots. They know when they're doing something
controversial, and messing with housing or food is almost always
controversial. The question with this specific issue is a matter of
input. I'm not on campus any more, so I don't know how much student
input advised this decision, but I'd be surprised if it was anything
substantial or appropriate. On a more general note, there are several
high level admins I have dealt with who just simply treat students
like children. There is nothing that can be done to attend to this
ignorance, and while they might not consciously be "out to get us"
their policies reflect a lack of respect for students' ability to make
decisions.
"Why do residential dining halls need subsidies? Well, they are
dealing with a very small market--there are only a few hundred
students in a dormitory. If many of them decide to eat elsewhere, then
we're talking about a dining hall to serve 100 meals, which is
difficult to make a profit off of. Dining halls can raise prices, but
then even more students eat elsewhere and its a self-perpetuating
cycle."
I find it hard to believe that it is impossible to develop a business
model to serve a couple hundred meals. Raising prices is not the only
answer. What about lowering costs? Why not serve more desirable food
and increase your market? It seems that vendors complain about a lack
of customers but then don't make any changes to their product, which
speaks to a complete lack of business sense and even logic. Also, I
don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to cut back on service.
"Putting this into context, fraternities often go even further and
require members to sign up for a meal plan--that way they can sustain
a kitchen with a small number of brothers in the house."
Missing here is the even larger context of housing and lifestyle
choice. Joining a FSILG (do people still use that term?) is a
decision. Forcing (or tricking) students into a meal plan is just
something MIT should not be doing. I know I deserve to get flamed
about this (and I'm not sure I even agree with this line of
reasoning), but you can argue that the community aspect of eating
together is more important in a frat than a dorm. I know, I know,
it's horrible to say, but it is a point of argument.
"So, what really is wrong with Dining Dollars? For those of us who
don't use them, it doesn't make a difference, anyway--its not like
we're talking about taking away traditional techcash."
The problem is, from what I've gathered from this discussion, that
this policy is being thrust upon the student body without sufficient
student input. Again, I'll agree that they might not be "out to get
us" this decision does seem a little uninformed. Why take the side of
the vendors and for students to subsidize instead of taking the
students' side and work to improve the service provided?
Thanks for the well thought out commentary, MIT-talk used to have so
much rich debate, and I'd like to see that happen again.
Jacob Faber '04 '06
Former UA Something or Other
On 7/3/06, Michael Shaw <mshaw@mit.edu> wrote:
> Jacob (and others),
>
> It always interests me that students always think the administration
> is out to get them. It seems somewhat paranoid to me--of course, just
> because we're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get us.
>
> Why do residential dining halls need subsidies? Well, they are dealing
> with a very small market--there are only a few hundred students in a
> dormitory. If many of them decide to eat elsewhere, then we're talking
> about a dining hall to serve 100 meals, which is difficult to make a
> profit off of. Dining halls can raise prices, but then even more
> students eat elsewhere and its a self-perpetuating cycle.
>
> It is possible that they suffer from poor food quality and
> mismanagement, and that firing administrators or replacing one company
> with another will work, but remember, we tried that once and it led us
> to the present situation. I doubt even a perfectly-managed dining hall
> can sustain itself with the small population of a dorm. There are two
> options--scale back the school's dining program by closing some (or
> all) residential dining halls, or offer them subsidies to continue to
> serve students. The administration clearly has chosen the second
> option is recent years.
>
> Putting this into context, fraternities often go even further and
> require members to sign up for a meal plan--that way they can sustain
> a kitchen with a small number of brothers in the house. Dorms are
> different, and I would never advocate the administration going this
> far. But is what they're currently doing correct?
>
> If they stopped subsidizing dining on campus, and half our local
> dining options closed, this would be a problem to some students. While
> we all talk about being adults and able to take care of ourselves,
> freshmen coming to campus sometimes want a familiar place they know
> they can get a meal, and dining halls do provide that. And the rest of
> us lose another food option--we are all arguing that more options is
> better, right?
>
> So, what really is wrong with Dining Dollars? For those of us who
> don't use them, it doesn't make a difference, anyway--its not like
> we're talking about taking away traditional techcash. If they
> encourage some students to partake in residential dining more
> frequently, so be it--the rest of us won't have to subsidize them as
> much. As for those students and their parents, I don't think MIT
> should be dictating student-parent relationships with technology. If
> we want to encourage parents not to restrict their childrens' use of
> money, fine, but why enforce it with techcash? It seems to be just
> restricting options.
>
> Maybe I'm just being naive, but I guess I kind of see the
> administration's point on this one.
>
> -- Michael
> Class of 2007
>
> On 7/3/06, Jacob Faber <faber@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > "Anyway, just for fun, try tying a mandatory Student meal plan
> > proposal to a mandatory Staff meal plan proposal and watch the
> > proponents struggle to explain the difference between the goose and
> > the gander."
> >
> > This would be hilarious and I would love to see that (you can tie in
> > grad students as well). There are some high level admins, who I will
> > not name here, who would really struggle with the logical connection
> > between these groups.
> >
> > What I meant by "ridiculous" was the fact that they have monopolies
> > and still fail, which is just a baffling concept. What offends me is
> > that if these vendors are failing to turn profit, they don't take any
> > responsibility for their failure, blame it on the system, and demand
> > changes in the system to get them out of the red. Subsidies can't be
> > the only option. This strategy will just lead to complacent
> > management and the same problem year after year: mediocre food (in
> > quality and/or quantity) at unreasonable prices. An owner or manager
> > of a business is responsible for analyzing how well the business is
> > doing, and a large part of that is keeping in touch with their
> > customers.
> >
> > "Is the MIT student body really big enough to support a competitive
> > open market of food vendors on campus?"
> >
> > Yes. But is a dorm of a couple hundred big enough? Maybe not. Maybe
> > MIT needs to rethink whether or not it is useful to have full dinner
> > service in places like Baker.
> >
> > Jacob Faber '04 '06
> > Former UA Something or Other
> >
> >
> > On 7/3/06, Sean P. Robinson <spatrick@mit.edu> wrote:
> > > I think Jacob hit the nail on the head, for the most part.
> > >
> > > Jacob Faber wrote:
> > > >I am not surprised to hear that this is how the administration is
> > > >rationalizing this potential plan. In reality, this plan is just a
> > > >way to subsidize the ridiculous monopoly that is MIT campus dining, =
as
> > > >were the plans that "were not meal plans" implemented in Baker,
> > > >Simmons, and Next while I was at MIT. The intention was as obvious
> > > >then as it is now.
> > >
> > > It's a fair bet the parents' thing is a feel-good excuse, not the real
> > > reason behind this proposal.
> > >
> > > Although, the "ridiculous" part might be a little much. Is the MIT st=
udent
> > > body really big enough to support a competitive open market of food v=
endors
> > > on campus? With the exception of the first floor of the student cente=
r, are
> > > there any places on campus where you'd really want a thriving, succes=
sful
> > > restaurant (meaning open to the public, doing business in a way to at=
tract
> > > in the public)? While that might be pretty cool in principle, it would
> > > inevitably result in a practical nuisance to any living/research/admi=
n group
> > > in the area.
> > >
> > > If MIT Dining were really serious about having a successful quality d=
ining
> > > program, they wouldn't be focusing on manipulating the social structu=
res of
> > > the 4000 undergrads, but rather the 10,000 staff members. Throw in th=
e 6000
> > > grad students for fun, too. That's a small town, which could reasonab=
ly
> > > support a small restaurant economy. But I think Dining falls under the
> > > Chancellor, whereas staff issues fall under the Provost. I think. Any=
way,
> > > just for fun, try tying a mandatory Student meal plan proposal to a
> > > mandatory Staff meal plan proposal and watch the proponents struggle =
to
> > > explain the difference between the goose and the gander. It'd be pret=
ty
> > > funny, and the proposal would die pretty quick...unless the admins pu=
shing
> > > this are as willing to condescend to their fellow staff members as th=
ey are
> > > to students.
> > > Actually, as a staff member myself, I can picture some of my colleagu=
es
> > > being more than willing to punish each other with something like that=
. Hmmm.
> > >
> > > Non Sequitor,
> > > ++Sean ('99, '05)
> > >
> > > P.S. I think the SCAT group is a great idea and one (very) long overd=
ue. If
> > > it shows that it can execute as intended by not descending into a gro=
up of
> > > brown nosing, resume padding, administrative apologists within a few =
years
> > > (after its well-principled founding members graduate), then I agree t=
hat it
> > > should look for the oomph of Presidential status.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jacob Faber" <faber@alum.mit.edu>
> > > To: "Jessica H Lowell" <jessiehl@mit.edu>
> > > Cc: <ua-scatr@mit.edu>; <mit-talk@mit.edu>; <reubano@alum.mit.edu>; "=
Pius A.
> > > Uzamere II" <pius@alum.mit.edu>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:40 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Mit-talk] [UA-SCATR] New Card initiative
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a longer email than I planned, but I'd like to think i bring
> > > up some good points :)
> > >
> > > "What I know, having heard it directly from an involved administrator:
> > >
> > > This is intended to reduce confusion and complaining among parents who
> > > don't understand why we don't have campus-wide meal plans and for some
> > > reason can't get their heads around the idea of TechCash's declining
> > > balance system."
> > >
> > > I am not surprised to hear that this is how the administration is
> > > rationalizing this potential plan. In reality, this plan is just a
> > > way to subsidize the ridiculous monopoly that is MIT campus dining, as
> > > were the plans that "were not meal plans" implemented in Baker,
> > > Simmons, and Next while I was at MIT. The intention was as obvious
> > > then as it is now.
> > >
> > > The complaints from the vendors on campus about losing money and need
> > > subsidy (in the form of the socialist [not that socialism is bad]
> > > programs implemented in Baker, Simmons, Next, etc. or this plan, which
> > > will have the long-term effect of forcing students to only eat on
> > > campus) are completely ridiculous. I always thought that a good way
> > > to make money in any business was to offer a good product at a
> > > reasonable price. The vendors should stop whining and look to improve
> > > their practice.
> > >
> > > Imagine if a restaurant in Central Square was losing money and
> > > demanded a tax increase? This is the kind of absurd logic driving MIT
> > > policy.
> > >
> > > When these changes started to happen around campus when I was at MIT,
> > > a few students spoke up about how ridiculous this policy stance was.
> > > Don't get stuck with mediocre, over-priced food, which is the
> > > inevitable outcome of such unimaginative policy. Demand
> > > accountability from the vendors and the MIT administration. Remember:
> > > you're paying both of them to serve you, and you shouldn't have to
> > > settle for this.
> > >
> > > Good luck with everything, especially keeping MIT honest,
> > > Jacob Faber '04 '06
> > > Former UA Something or Other
> > >
> > > PS =96 Is the Student Committee on Administrative Transparency and
> > > Relations a real committee or just something clever to put in a sig?
> > > If it's real, please reply privately, as I'm curious to hear about its
> > > history/makeup/charter/etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/3/06, Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > What I know, having heard it directly from an involved administrato=
r:
> > > >
> > > > This is intended to reduce confusion and complaining among parents =
who
> > > > don't
> > > > understand why we don't have campus-wide meal plans and for some re=
ason
> > > > can't
> > > > get their heads around the idea of TechCash's declining balance sys=
tem.
> > > >
> > > > What I think:
> > > >
> > > > I'd be surprised if this actually reduces confusion. I'd expect it=
to
> > > > cause
> > > > more, and I said so when I first heard about this. I think it's ki=
nd of
> > > > dumb
> > > > and redundant, but if it creates a justification for not putting in
> > > > mandatory
> > > > meal plans when the relevant admins are being pressured to put them=
in,
> > > > that's
> > > > convenient.
> > > >
> > > > What I've heard:
> > > >
> > > > Students will be able to move money from their Dining Dollars accou=
nt to
> > > > their
> > > > regular TechCash account, meaning that parents don't actually have =
more
> > > > control, even if they think they do.
> > > >
> > > > - Jessie
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Steven M Kelch <kelch@MIT.EDU>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > It's come through the grapevine that there will be an addition to=
the
> > > > > MIT
> > > > > ID card. In addition to Tech Cash, there will be a new account cr=
eated
> > > > > that will be "food only". Where Tech Cash can be used at any loca=
tion
> > > > > that
> > > > > currently accepts it (and, so I hear, possibly a few more being a=
dded),
> > > > > this new "food only" account will be accepted at places that sell
> > > > > only food items. This means that the Coop, La Verdes, and
> > > > > student groups that accept Tech Cash for ticket sales are exclude=
d.
> > > > >
> > > > > The primary motivation for the creation of this account seems to =
be
> > > > > appeasing parents who are either confused about the way Tech Cash=
works
> > > > > and want a simpler plan, or parents who want a little more contro=
l over
> > > > > the way their child spends the money they put into the account. M=
any
> > > > > students that I have talked to feel that the system is redundant.=
A few
> > > > > have expressed concern also that the incoming freshmen will not k=
now
> > > > > that
> > > > > the system is optional and that there is an alternative system al=
ready
> > > > > in
> > > > > place. On the other hand, the new account will help strengthen on=
-campus
> > > > > dining, nearly all of which has been steadily losing money.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is rumored that a press release from the Dining Office is expe=
cted.
> > > > > The
> > > > > system has already been set up, and is expected to go live near t=
he
> > > > > first
> > > > > of August. An informative mailing to the freshmen class is also
> > > > > expected,
> > > > > though whether this is going to happen and what the information i=
s going
> > > > > to be has yet to be confirmed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me clarify that this information is second hand, and I only w=
ant to
> > > > > begin a discussion. Additionally, THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO CREAT=
E A
> > > > > MEAL
> > > > > PLAN. The system is completely optional, and is intended as a
> > > > > convenience.
> > > > > Dean of Student Life Larry Benedict has been quoted on numerous
> > > > > occasions
> > > > > that there are no attempts to create meal plans currently in the =
works.
> > > > >
> > > > > I bring the issue up because it has met with resistance, and I wo=
uld
> > > > > like
> > > > > a discussion so that concerns can be raised and addressed. What a=
re
> > > > > people's thoughts? Will you use the system? Even if not, do you t=
hink
> > > > > that
> > > > > others will? What benefits/problems do you see? What would you li=
ke the
> > > > > students and admins close to this project to know?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (SCATR)
> > > > > Student Committee on Administrative Transparency and Relations
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > ua-scatr mailing list
> > > > > ua-scatr@mit.edu
> > > > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua-scatr
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > MIT-talk mailing list
> > > > MIT-talk@mit.edu
> > > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jacob W. Faber
> > > Phone: 857.928.2838
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > MIT-talk mailing list
> > > MIT-talk@mit.edu
> > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > MIT-talk mailing list
> > > MIT-talk@mit.edu
> > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jacob W. Faber
> > Phone: 857.928.2838
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MIT-talk mailing list
> > MIT-talk@mit.edu
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
> >
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Michael Shaw
> MIT, Class of 2007
> E-mail: MShaw@MIT.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> MIT-talk mailing list
> MIT-talk@mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>
-- =
Jacob W. Faber
Phone: 857.928.2838
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
