MEAL PLAN options present a simple annoyance for upperclassmen. Although it is mandatory that first-year students purchase meal plans, after then it is largely dependent on one's specific living situation as to whether he or she will choose to do so or not. University Dining Services has yet to present an attractive offer to upperclassmen, leaving them without an inviting on-Grounds dining option.
For students living in residence halls with limited or no kitchen access, having a meal plan is a necessity. But for those living off-Grounds or in on-Grounds housing with an available kitchen, it might not be unnecessary and very cost ineffective to purchase one.
After considering how much money they are wasting, many upperclassmen opt not to purchase meal plans, preferring instead to prepare their own food. Taking into account the cost of various dining options, this makes great economic sense. The Semester 50 plan, which costs $585 and averages out to about 3.3 meals per week, costs an average of $26 per week, or $7.80 per meal after adjusting for Plus Dollars. And if you'd like to eat more than 3.3 meals each week, you'll have to pile more money on top of that for groceries. The Semester 100 and Upperclass 10, which provides ten meals per week, prove to be only marginally cheaper, at $7.10 and $7.64 per meal, respectively. Unless you purchase the Plus 15, which provides fifteen meals per week and brings cost down to six dollars per meal, the plans offered overcharge students considerably.
What's the solution? Well, for many, it comes down to not buying a meal plan at all. Your $26 per week can go much further in the grocery store than it can in the dining hall. Even if a student chose to eat three meals on the Corner each day, it would likely be more cost-efficient than the $18 to $23 spent per day in the dining hall; a bagel and coffee at Bodo's runs under three dollars, a sandwich and drink at Take It Away averages close to seven dollars, and a generous dinner can be purchased at the College Inn for less than $10.
However, convenience also plays a role; we simply enjoy the ability and ease with which we can drop by a dining hall, not having to worry about preparing food or budgets. Often we want to eat with friends or meet over lunch -- and not having a meal plan can cause us difficulties. Paying out-of-pocket is also unattractive, as relatively few would venture to pay the seven dollars that Dining Services charges for lunch when more appetizing, lower-cost options are available elsewhere. The Corner Meal Plan, for example, provides University students with the option of eating at a number of establishments while paying only for what they eat -- and not seven dollars for a bagel and coffee.
But even if convenience does prove to be the deciding factor for many, it does not alter the fact that the meal plans which Dining Services offers are overkill for upperclassmen that do not eat the majority of their meals on Grounds. It's not uncommon for students to have significant numbers of meals remaining at the end of the semester. This excess discourages many students who would like the option of eating on Grounds every so often from purchasing meal plans. Even 50 meals per semester can prove to be too much for the occasional patron, especially when the 195 Plus Dollars included in the plan are considered. It is surprising that Dining Services has yet to attempt cornering this market. However, according to Director of Dining Services Eddie Whedbee it is not a priority, as 8,400 students have currently purchased meal plans.
But the potential to draw more patrons still exists. Dining Services should focus on the convenience of its dining establishments and consider making one of the following changes: Most obviously, it could offer the option of a smaller meal plan to upperclassmen. A plan which includes 25 or 30 meals per semester would significantly cut down on the excess meals many are left with, making it more attractive and cost-effective for them to purchase meal plans. Even if the average cost per meal is still close to eight dollars, the attractiveness of convenience should work in Dining Services' favor.
Secondly, Plus Dollars could be made optional for upperclassmen's plans, further cutting down a cost which many find undesirable and annoying. Alternatively, Dining Services could modify the Semester 50 plan to allow meals to roll over to the spring semester, which would serve the dual purposes of enticing students as well as ensuring itself two semesters' worth of business. Whedbee plans on introducing this last proposal to the Board of Visitors in March 2006.
From the perspective of Dining Services, making these changes might appear to be a losing proposition: They could generate less profit if students purchase smaller plans. However, by making its options more attractive, there is a great chance that meal plans will appeal to a population which does not usually consider dining on Grounds. This suggests that Dining Services could increase its overall profits while concurrently increasing its convenience to students.
Todd Rosenbaum's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at trosenbaum@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
