[1948] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] [UA-SCATR] New Card initiative
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (grace)
Mon Jul 3 16:49:00 2006
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 16:48:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: grace <gkenney@mit.edu>
To: Michael Shaw <mshaw@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <b903a2f20607031221l78812228ncfed42d207661740@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: reubano@alum.mit.edu, faber@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
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
---559023410-1144747756-1151959713=:2156
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
most of us don't think that the administration is out to get us, as such.=
=20
most of us _do_ think that parts of the administration have no real=20
interest in treating undergraduates like adults, and we do know that the=20
administration as a whole has a history of failing to incorporate any=20
substative student input when making decisions which affect student life.
what's wrong with dining dollars? 1) they don't add anything that already
exists. dining dollars would not allow students to access any new dining
opportunities - if a freshman "wants a familiar place that they can get a
meal" they can already get one - in precisely the same places. so they=20
don't really fulfill a widespread need. however, 2) dining dollars=20
actually limit the number of places students can eat students won't be=20
able to get food at verde's or any other place that sells non-food items.=
=20
this 3) will be a source of confusion to freshmen who find out that their=
=20
dining dollars don't really allow them to dine everywhere [or do the=20
things that their peers do with tech cash] and 4) won't even be an=20
effective source of parental control [the supposed aim] if dining dollars=
=20
are transferrable into tech cash [as was alleged upthread.]
basically, they are, at best, utterly pointless. they're not fulfilling=20
any real need, but they are quite likely to create additional confusion=20
and problems. the stated goal is dubious at best [adding a whole new=20
secondary system is more likely to solve parental confusion than, you=20
know, explaining the existing system better? catering to the most=20
paranoid parents is a good aim?] at worst, there are ways in which they=20
could be used to implement a de facto mealplan or undermine student=20
communities, and it's another step away from treating undergraduates like=
=20
people who are old enough and intelligent enough to make some decisions=20
for themselves [like the choice between buying dinner or seeing an LSC=20
movie, for example.]
finally, the reinstitution of dining halls is recent, and it's been more=20
or less a top-down thing [witness attempts in mccormick to _force_=20
students to eat there.] in general, they haven't been an expression of=20
dorm culture - in places where dining is part of the culture, it's=20
generally the result of halls and suites having their own kitchens. the=20
imposition of a dining hall [along with a mandatory mealplan for the dorm=
=20
to ensure that it's actually used] is often a way to limit, rather than=20
increase student dining choices.
-grace
gibbering like hunter thompson on a revolutionary drug, mshaw@MIT.EDU said:
> 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 stud=
ent
>>> body really big enough to support a competitive open market of food ven=
dors
>>> on campus? With the exception of the first floor of the student center,=
are
>>> there any places on campus where you'd really want a thriving, successf=
ul
>>> restaurant (meaning open to the public, doing business in a way to attr=
act
>>> in the public)? While that might be pretty cool in principle, it would
>>> inevitably result in a practical nuisance to any living/research/admin =
group
>>> in the area.
>>>
>>> If MIT Dining were really serious about having a successful quality din=
ing
>>> program, they wouldn't be focusing on manipulating the social structure=
s of
>>> the 4000 undergrads, but rather the 10,000 staff members. Throw in the =
6000
>>> grad students for fun, too. That's a small town, which could reasonably
>>> support a small restaurant economy. But I think Dining falls under the
>>> Chancellor, whereas staff issues fall under the Provost. I think. Anywa=
y,
>>> 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 pretty
>>> funny, and the proposal would die pretty quick...unless the admins push=
ing
>>> this are as willing to condescend to their fellow staff members as they=
are
>>> to students.
>>> Actually, as a staff member myself, I can picture some of my colleagues
>>> 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 overdue=
=2E If
>>> it shows that it can execute as intended by not descending into a group=
of
>>> brown nosing, resume padding, administrative apologists within a few ye=
ars
>>> (after its well-principled founding members graduate), then I agree tha=
t 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>; "Pi=
us 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 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 reaso=
n
>>>> can't
>>>> get their heads around the idea of TechCash's declining balance system=
=2E
>>>>
>>>> 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 kind =
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 account =
to
>>>> their
>>>> regular TechCash account, meaning that parents don't actually have mor=
e
>>>> 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 create=
d
>>>>> that will be "food only". Where Tech Cash can be used at any location
>>>>> that
>>>>> currently accepts it (and, so I hear, possibly a few more being added=
),
>>>>> 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 excluded.
>>>>>
>>>>> The primary motivation for the creation of this account seems to be
>>>>> appeasing parents who are either confused about the way Tech Cash wor=
ks
>>>>> and want a simpler plan, or parents who want a little more control ov=
er
>>>>> the way their child spends the money they put into the account. Many
>>>>> students that I have talked to feel that the system is redundant. A f=
ew
>>>>> have expressed concern also that the incoming freshmen will not know
>>>>> that
>>>>> the system is optional and that there is an alternative system alread=
y
>>>>> in
>>>>> place. On the other hand, the new account will help strengthen on-cam=
pus
>>>>> dining, nearly all of which has been steadily losing money.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is rumored that a press release from the Dining Office is expected=
=2E
>>>>> The
>>>>> system has already been set up, and is expected to go live near the
>>>>> first
>>>>> of August. An informative mailing to the freshmen class is also
>>>>> expected,
>>>>> though whether this is going to happen and what the information is go=
ing
>>>>> to be has yet to be confirmed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me clarify that this information is second hand, and I only want =
to
>>>>> begin a discussion. Additionally, THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE 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 work=
s.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bring the issue up because it has met with resistance, and I would
>>>>> like
>>>>> a discussion so that concerns can be raised and addressed. What are
>>>>> people's thoughts? Will you use the system? Even if not, do you think
>>>>> that
>>>>> others will? What benefits/problems do you see? What would you like t=
he
>>>>> 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
>>
>
>
> --=20
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
---559023410-1144747756-1151959713=:2156
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
---559023410-1144747756-1151959713=:2156--
