Meal plan woes
Jim Nesbitt
Issue date: 9/11/08 Section: Opinion
Some disturbing details of the food service structure were revealed in last week's Collegian article, "Skipped meals lower tuition."
First, Chief Administrative Officer Ken Cole's refusal to consider outside bids for food service is very poorly reasoned.
It reminds me of Professor of History Burt Folsom's favorite economics lesson of U.S. history.
When Cornelius Vanderbilt offered to deliver the mail more cheaply than Edward Collins, Congress turned him down because Collins was proven and trustworthy. Congress subsequently wasted millions of taxpayer dollars by spurning the benefits of competition.
If another company believes it can run the dining hall more efficiently, why should it be denied the opportunity simply because the Grewcock Student Union's issues have not yet been revealed?
The best way to correct the inefficiencies and problems of an unknown situation is to allow competition in finding a solution.
Second, the Collegian article definitively shows that the food service market at this college is the opposite of an efficient and rational market; a higher number of customers due to higher quality punishes Saga, while decreased demand due to lower quality provides it with profit.
Who sincerely believes such perverse incentives will lead to better results in the basement of Grewcock?
Third, Cole claims that students must be forced to buy meals in order to make meal plans "cost effective." Just how exactly does forcing a student to purchase food he does not want make his meal plan "cost effective"?
The intelligence of students I have met on this campus leads me to believe that they first must have discovered a more attractive option for dining before refusing Saga's services.
The system amounts to nothing more than redistribution, making dining cheaper for students who would eat there regardless, while making dining more expensive for those who would otherwise eat elsewhere.
First, Chief Administrative Officer Ken Cole's refusal to consider outside bids for food service is very poorly reasoned.
It reminds me of Professor of History Burt Folsom's favorite economics lesson of U.S. history.
When Cornelius Vanderbilt offered to deliver the mail more cheaply than Edward Collins, Congress turned him down because Collins was proven and trustworthy. Congress subsequently wasted millions of taxpayer dollars by spurning the benefits of competition.
If another company believes it can run the dining hall more efficiently, why should it be denied the opportunity simply because the Grewcock Student Union's issues have not yet been revealed?
The best way to correct the inefficiencies and problems of an unknown situation is to allow competition in finding a solution.
Second, the Collegian article definitively shows that the food service market at this college is the opposite of an efficient and rational market; a higher number of customers due to higher quality punishes Saga, while decreased demand due to lower quality provides it with profit.
Who sincerely believes such perverse incentives will lead to better results in the basement of Grewcock?
Third, Cole claims that students must be forced to buy meals in order to make meal plans "cost effective." Just how exactly does forcing a student to purchase food he does not want make his meal plan "cost effective"?
The intelligence of students I have met on this campus leads me to believe that they first must have discovered a more attractive option for dining before refusing Saga's services.
The system amounts to nothing more than redistribution, making dining cheaper for students who would eat there regardless, while making dining more expensive for those who would otherwise eat elsewhere.
Be the first to comment on this story