[1946] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] [UA-SCATR] New Card initiative
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (grace)
Mon Jul 3 16:37:36 2006
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 16:37:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: grace <gkenney@mit.edu>
To: Michael Shaw <mshaw@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <b903a2f20607031323t24087efap4b675a878b836850@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: reubano@alum.mit.edu, faber@alum.mit.edu,
"Pius A. Uzamere II" <pius@alum.mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
about there _not_ being a residential dining program? i'm afraid you have
your data wrong. senior haus and ec residents would like dining
_options_, particularly at night, but our dorms have kitchens, and there
is not interest in a dining program like those on west campus, with
required mealplans and so on. most of us cook for ourselves most of the
time. i'd argue that mandatory dining & a residential dining hall would
hurt our culture, where dining is generally based on suite and hall
kitchens. after the pritchett renovations, there was a lot of concern
that we would be forced into a mealplan there - because we _don't_ want
it.
the idea that there are many parents who would give money to their kids if
there was a food-only option - well, presumably, those students are
eating now, somehow. either their parents are sending money [in which
case, the parents are already allowing them more freedom than exists with
tech cash] or the students are making their own money and feeding
themselves [in which case they already have more freedom]. either way, if
they're likely to use campus dining a lot, they're probably already using
it, albeit without tech cash. [the idea that many students are surviving
on food that their parents send them is ridiculous.] i really, really
don't see a way that dining dollars are likely to result in a huge number
of students suddenly dining on campus.
furthermore - again, does MIT want to embrace the idea that undergraduates
are more or less adults, or does it want to treat them as children? the
trend has been towards the latter, yes, but in the past, MIT has generally
espoused the idea that MIT students are intelligent and mature enough to
deal with a certain amount of independence. parents who didn't dorm
choice {oh no, my little darling is going to live in a shithole like
EC?} had to suck it up or work it out with their kids. giving the
institute and parents more control over students' lives is a step away
from that - and yeah, it's something that i think should be fought.
-grace
gibbering like hunter thompson on a revolutionary drug, mshaw@MIT.EDU said:
>> "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
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
