It’s the end of the semester, and our first year meal plans are soon to expire. The incoming first year class, though, is already locked into one of two mandatory, full-access dining plans. This succession isn’t new — each year, all first-year students are required to pay top dollar for either the $2,360 (per semester) All Access 7 dining plan or the $2,470 (again, per semester) Ultimate Access plan. Factoring out holidays, as well as the cost of guest meal swipes and plus dollars, this amounts to around $20 per day. After paying these steep prices, it’s safe to say that my meal plan, in addition to those of my peers, has not been worth it. With such a disparity between price and value, first-years should not be required to buy the most expensive meal plans.
Here, it’s useful to further break down what an All Access 7 meal plan — the cheapest available to first years — entails. Though I estimated six and a half dollars per meal above, other meal plans available to upperclassman also fall into the same range of price-per-meal. The issue lies in the fact that the All Access 7 meal plan simply isn’t worth the money (relative to other plans) if the student does not eat at least three dining hall meals per day. There is no discretion left: a student spends around $20 per day, regardless of whether he steps foot into a dining hall.
So why, then, must we overpay? After all, the University’s Undergraduate Record for 2014-15 does not address which meal plans first years must purchase. Instead, it says, “first year students are required to purchase a meal plan for the entire year.” For more insight, it’s useful to turn to the University’s relationship with Aramark, its dining partner. Earlier this school year, the University added 20 more years to its agreement with Aramark. Throughout this time, Aramark is to invest around $20 million upgrading facilities and expanding meal options. It seems, then, that the University must make a certain amount of money off of dining plans each year to match Aramark’s investment. This apparent dining quota lands on the head of each incoming class.
Of course, expansion isn’t where all the money ends up. Anyone walking around Grounds has seen the new “Happy” dining campaign. As a student, it’s frustrating to see how much money is poured into advertising UVA Dining. It seems reasonable that, instead of spending money to coerce students into continued meal plans, UVA Dining should focus on food quality and lowered prices. Surely, above cheerful advertising campaigns, such improvements must encourage students to renew their plans.
None of this is to say that UVA Dining does not provide enough options for students — in fact, we’re met with many culinary options, as well as many dining locations to choose from. It’s also true that Jeffersonian ideals might cater toward dining plans. After all, Mr. Jefferson envisioned students of his University eating together and partaking in lively discussion. However, no amount of attractive options will account for the unreasonable dining hall attendance required to make full-access meal plan worth it. In addition, lower-tier meal plans still make room for upholding Jeffersonian ideals.
Here, we’ve reached the cyclic nature of the problem. Aramark and the University spend countless dollars and manpower upgrading and expanding dining facilities, conducting dining events and advertising UVA Dining. In order to fund such costs, a certain number of students must buy a meal plan. Clearly, there isn’t enough interest among upperclassman to fill this need, so first-years are required to purchase full-access meal plans. Though Aramark and the University are pumping money into UVA Dining, the disparity lies in the fact that not enough upperclassman purchase meal plans.
If it’s not dining options or advertising causing this lack of interest in meal plans, then what is it? Personally, and based off of the general feeling around Grounds, I’d be willing to label dining hall food as subpar. It’s reasonable to assert that this stands out as a reason that students might spend less on meal plans. After all, there’s really no other reason students would avoid expensive meal plans. Dining locations are abundant and extremely convenient, and there are meal options for most hours of the day. It must be the case that students simply don’t enjoy dining hall food.
Instead of placing the burden of dining costs on students, UVA Dining should allocate more money into making its food more attractive. That’s really the heart of the issue. If the students loved the food, there would be no deficit of meal plan purchases. If there were no deficit of meal plan purchases, the University would have no reason to require that first-year students buy expensive meal plans. Throughout the year, I’ll admit, I found myself avoiding dining hall food. Of course, I paid dearly for doing so. As a student, I’d argue I shouldn’t have to pay for a service I simply don’t want. Especially in the case of students in financial need, the first-year dining requirements are an unnecessary financial burden. The University should, thus, relax the first-year dining requirements and stick to no more than what’s written in the Undergraduate Records: first-years must simply have a meal plan.
Gage DeZoort is a Viewpoint writer.
Read More
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | YesterdayIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 3 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
EDITORIAL: Reckon consistently with our history
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoUntil these bureaucracies have proven willing to commit to change outright, it is up to us, students and Charlottesville residents, to continue pushing for that change.
