[1944] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] [UA-SCATR] New Card initiative
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Shaw)
Mon Jul 3 16:23:47 2006
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 16:23:21 -0400
From: "Michael Shaw" <mshaw@mit.edu>
To: faber@alum.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <e9cc53d60607031304je44687r3b2cf224e874c547@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: reubano@alum.mit.edu, ua-scatr@mit.edu,
"Pius A. Uzamere II" <pius@alum.mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
> "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.
I don't have the business sense to know if Bon Appetit is doing a
great job. But lets crunch a few numbers. Assume $8 per meal. Say
around $3 of this goes to buying ingredients and other supplies. Thats
$5 a meal to pay staff and to make profit. If half of the students in
the dorm eat at the dining hall in a given night (and no matter how
good the food is, its going to be hard to get more than that), they'll
make $5 x 150 or somewhere around $750 a night. With 5 staff members
at $15 an hour, we're talking 5 x $15 x 8? \approx $600 just in wages.
That leaves $150 for rent, equipment, staff benefits, etc. No matter
how efficient the dining hall is, the numbers are rough.
I might have my numbers pretty far off, but given that both Aramark
and Bon Appetit are running into the same problems, I somewhat doubt
that better food could be provided cheaper by anyone. If someone comes
forth offering that, great, but in the absence of such an offer, don't
look to that for a solution.
As to cutting back on service, ask the residents of EC and Senior
House a year ago. I remember there was quite the series of complaints
about there not being a residential dining program instituted on the
east side of campus.
> "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.
Yes, FSILGs, I guess I should use the inclusive term. But students
choose their dorm too. You're right that its different, but I think
some of the same logic applies. I can choose (and did) to live in a
dorm without a dining hall or a "meal plan" (or whatever preferred
dining is called now). I think here it really does fall under the same
umbrella.
> "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?
I suppose that it would feel better if we were consulted on this
decision. But to some extent, the job of the administration is to
represent students, not to defer to us individually. The student body
as a whole rarely agrees on anything, and I trust (at least some)
administrators to represent the interests of students as a whole (both
those who actively speak up, like most of us on this list), and those
who don't actively speak up).
In this case, there might be younger students whose parents want to
subsidize food, but not, for example, LSC movies. Why do we want them
not to have that option? It doesn't necessarily follow that all those
parents will put the same money in techcash--some might just not give
it to their kids, or mail them food, or any number of other options.
So Dining Dollars might help some vendors without directly hurting
others by adding more money into the system.
Either way, I guess I really am an advocate of choice for students and
parents, and if MIT wants to open another avenue for that, I don't see
why its wrong.
-- Michael
-------------------------------------------------
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
