Position on Dining 10/14/2010

As a result of the down turn in the economy, MIT looked inward to see how it could cut costs and save money as a result of the drop in the value of MIT’s endowment. The MIT Institute-wide Planning Task Force looked at all aspects of MIT’s operations to look for ways to save money and reduce waste. One of the aspects MIT identified was a then-$500,000 subsidy to house dining operations. The task force charged Dean of Student Life Chris Colombo to investigate ways of eliminating that subsidy. Dean Colombo created the House Dining Advisory Group (HDAG) to work on this issue. However, in the charge Dean Colombo issued, cost saving had fallen to last on a list of issues to consider. Instead of cost savings, values such as “service,” “quality,” “nutrition” and “variety” topped the Dean’s list of important issues. What started as an exercise in cost cutting, quickly transformed into a service escalation.

It is clear that the plan HDAG created was not set up to cut costs. It more than doubles the number of meals served per week at MIT houses from 22 to 56 per week. Meals served in house dining locations are inherently most costly than other locations on campus because of their isolated and internal focused nature. HDAG correctly synthesized that most members of dorms with dining halls do not want their dining hall to close. As the administration correctly points out, dining halls are an important place of community for each dorm. I certainly have put off many P-Sets because I become involved in long conversations over dinner with other students who live in Baker, as well as the other dorms.

I think for many MIT students; the value of this community and conversations over dinner is worth the cost of running smaller house dining locations. Certainly for me, the dining hall provides me with nutritious food; without which I probably would not do as well at MIT; it would certainly take more time.

Now, MIT certainly has a right to remove the subsidy from the house dining operations if it decides that the rest of campus should no longer subside house dining through their food purchases. But if you do the math on this deficit, which has been reported to be as high as $640,000 , it only works out to $513 per student who lives a dorm with a dining hall. These students currently spend $600 for a half-off “House Dining Membership,” which a 2007 study found that most Baker students lose money on. If one was generous and assumed all students broke even on the plan that would lead to total sales of $600/year. This adds up to a total cost of $1713/student/year under the current plan without a subsidy. When one compares this to the 7 breakfast/7 dinner plan which costs a projected $3,800, one is left with over half the cost of the plan accounting for the addition of breakfast or the change to all you care to eat (AYCE).

Richard Berlin, director of Campus Dining, has claimed to me that AYCE has about the same cost as a la carte. However, Mr. Berlin has not provided more than simple anecdotal evidence of the cost differences. In the final HDAG report, the administration makes no claims about the cost of AYCE vs a la carte. Instead, the administration touts AYCE for its power to make students drink 5 times more milk than before. For a committee that was supposed to be convened under the banner of cost minimization, evidence of the costs of AYCE were not even mentioned, leading me to assume that they were not considered.

Where the plan really falls apart however is on breakfast. Most of the additional meals I mentioned are due to the introduction of breakfast 7 days a week. While the addition of a brunch on weekends, would represent an expansion of the dining program, a leisurely, hot breakfast brunch, with the MIT community would be a good way to start a long day of P-Setting. I believe that a significant majority of students would be willing to pay the additional cost for this. However, weekday breakfast would fall flat. MIT students are looking to get up as late as possible. They have no interest in waiting for a hot breakfast or sitting and eating while talking to their friends. Marginally better would be a cold grab-and-go program. However many students I have spoken to are also wary about this idea. The grab-and-go program would need to be staffed by at least one additional staff member. This would lead to higher costs than Shaw’s. In addition, the selection that is offered would likely pale in comparison to a supermarket like Shaw’s. MIT students are perfectly capable of visiting a grocery store once a week or less and buying a box of cereal and a gallon of milk. Rather than paying someone to pour out some cereal for us, we can pour our own in our rooms and eat it on the way to class.

If we assume that my calculations for the current cost of dinner without the subsidy, and the administration’s assertion that AYCE costs the same, we would be paying about $8 for this fancy cereal service.

In this bad economy, we can’t afford this expansion of services. MIT should focus on getting rid of the dining deficit if need be, but refrain from adding a costly expansion of service.

MIT’s stance to improve service at the expense of cost only furthers the cost spiral of higher education in the US. College’s total cost of attendance have been growing at double the rate of inflation for many years – not due to increased instruction, but the exploding costs of student life and related programs. By not adding a service most students do not want, MIT will help hold the line on the escalating costs of higher education in the US. Even covering the added cost with additional financial aid would be a poor use of scarce resources. Because students have been historically able to meet rising costs through loans and scholarships, colleges have been free to ever try to outdo the competition with plusher student life programs.

As a member of the RFP committee, I look forward to reading actual vendor proposals and evaluating the actual cost of service. However, I am just scared we will be paying for a service which no one will use and no one wants to afford.

I made a deal to Dean of Student Life Chris Colombo to set a performance target on the use of breakfast. By the administration’s logic, breakfast, especially breakfast you have already paid for, will be picked up by a lot of students. On the other hand, many of the students I talked to have no interest in breakfast, especially considering they would have to pay about $8 for it, every day, if they buy it or not. Dean Colombo and the rest of the administration on HDAG had no patients for my idea, even though it involved conceding every issue to the administration, at least to try for one semester. They told me that they could not evaluate the success of breakfast even after an entire semester. Instead they would be willing to wait years for breakfast to “take”.

Even though we, the actual students are not the ones actually paying the bills, many of us are extremely cost conscious. We recognize that using our scarce financial aid resources takes them away from other places; especially the increase in enrollment this year. For those without financial aid, $50,000+ is a LOT of money. Adding to it, even a little amount, hurts. We do not want to dig ourselves further into a debt hole to enjoy a plusher service than we have now. In fact in the 2009 Envision Strategies Blue Ribbon Commission report, students overwhelmingly stated that they cooked for themselves because it was cheaper.

Despite the potential health benefits of breakfast, I urge MIT to stand with majority of students affected by this change and reject the additional cost of breakfast.   Cut

It is true that many costs are fixed, and one of the best ways to cover these fixed costs is to

Don’t want to argue keeping houses open loses $$ Is the community worth it? Could say yes for dinner, but no for breakfast – this might be best But how say would lose any more $$??

Should I get into AYCE at all???