The campus's newest uproar -- the newly proposed Dartmouth Dining Services reforms -- has been discussed before in these pages, but I feel the need to speak up on behalf of the group that is traditionally most exploited by DDS: small eaters. There are a myriad of reasons why some students, myself included, choose to elect small meal plans. Many don't have the time to eat a dining-hall breakfast every day, or find that they often prefer lighter meals like grilled cheese or wraps to the larger hot dinners. Others like to cook their own food in the dorm kitchens or at their off-campus apartments. Some are scrimping wherever they can in order to afford to be here in the first place. Finally, there are those students who are simply small and don't need to eat a million calories a day.
These situations lead students to choose the Mini Green Plan or the Off-Campus Plan if they are eligible.
Under the current system, the Mini Green Plan costs $755 for $705 of DBA, while the Off-Campus Plan carries $420 of DBA but costs $520. Keep in mind that while we pay a $50 or $100 surcharge for the privilege of not using DDS' services, big eaters who elect the Bonus Green or the Big Green meal plans receive free bonus DBA dollars of $75 and $125 respectively. The surcharges have always irritated me, so I was elated to see the announcement of the proposed reforms.
The feeling didn't last long.
The changes, rather than making the system fair to all students, actually make the situation much worse for students who habitually spend less on food.
Eliminating the Mini Green Plan entirely forces small eaters to pay an extra $200 that very few of us will be able to spend, particularly with the $100 limit at Topside. DDS has deliberately designed this system so that small eaters will have large balances left over, which can then be appropriated and used to meet expenses.
The fact that the new rollovers allow this to happen only once at the end of Spring term rather than at the end of each term is immaterial. Students want their DBA to roll over because they are sick of DDS taking their money at the end of term. Because small eaters will not have the option of switching to a small meal plan to balance a rollover, the rollovers don't actually stop that from happening.
I would be more willing to make this drastic upgrade to my meal plan if I could spend as much as I wanted at Topside. The problems with the $100 spending limit have been discussed at length elsewhere, but let me just say that $10 per week won't go very far with Topside's already-high prices. A pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, a loaf of bread and a half-gallon of milk per week, and I'm done. If that's all I can buy, what's the point of having Topside at all? I'd just as soon have a smaller meal plan and go elsewhere, where I would pay less for the same items.
We as students have to ask ourselves: Which reforms actually change the system in our favor? The rollover benefits some students but not others. The Topside limit is clearly against the interests of more than 50 percent of students. When DDS claims the changes eliminate surcharges they are telling lies. The surcharges are being hidden, not eliminated. My first bottom line is that I refuse to support a so-called "reform" that makes my situation far worse than it is now.
It is not my problem if DDS is unable to break even; I would be perfectly happy buying my own groceries and cooking in the dorm kitchens. It is unfair for them to demand that I pay to prop up an inefficient service that doesn't satisfy me and never has.
If DDS is having trouble balancing its budget, it should cut down on wasteful and expensive internal practices instead of immediately demanding more money from students. If they pay their workers a living wage they should schedule those workers efficiently. I have often walked into Food Court during off-peak hours and seen a lot of extra employees standing around with nothing to do because the rush either hasn't started yet or ended an hour ago.
Topside often employs both a cashier and a bagger -- is this really necessary? Students at an Ivy League institution can probably handle bagging their own purchases.
DDS should limit the number of workers on any shift to the maximum necessary to make things run smoothly.
DDS should also take a closer look at how they motivate their employees. Workers should be promoted and given raises based on merit, not just seniority -- this could encourage more efficiency in the workplace, possibly reducing the number of workers per shift even further.
The way DDS rewards student employees is also in need of reform. If students work more than 10 hours per week, 20 percent of the DBA they spend is recycled back into their account every two weeks. This isn't possible during the last two weeks of the term; instead, DDS pays student employees that percentage in cash. I have no idea how much money they lose every term to this practice, but I imagine it's quite a bit. Why not reward employees with an on-the-spot discount instead?
Another way to cut costs could be the elimination of discount programs like the Double Meal Deal. I do sympathize with the athletes whose lifestyles require a high and often costly calorie intake, but it makes more sense for them to pay for what they consume than for the bill to be passed along to me (for the record, I'm already subsidizing their food, since I pay a surcharge while they receive bonus DBA).
DDS Director Tucker Rossiter was recently quoted saying that such rewards are "no different than frequent flyer miles or hotel stays" ("DDS attempts to lessen costs, not reduce options," Feb. 28). I respectfully disagree. American Airlines does not force me to pay for flights I never had any intention of booking.
If DDS is unable to continue serving students without stealing their money, it might be time to try a new approach.
A business turns a profit when it successfully convinces customers that they want to pay for its goods; it is not my responsibility to bear the high internal costs of a business in which I have no choice but to participate. There has been a lot of outcry over the proposed changes; it remains to be seen if DDS is as committed to student interests as it claims to be.
