Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Editorial: A fairer way to allocate shared meal plans

Each spring, sophomores and juniors face an ever-widening range of housing and dining options. One option in particular that has drawn much attention is the shared meal plan. By allowing upperclassmen in eating clubs the option of living in one of the three four-year residential colleges and having a Block 95 meal plan for the dining halls, this plan lets students retain membership in an eating club while remaining connected to the four-year residential college system. Every year, each eating club negotiates with the University to decide how many shared meal plans it will offer, but because of the cost to the eating clubs, which pay for the dining contracts out of members’ dues, the number of plans each club offers is normally small. 

This cost limits the number of shared meal plans each club can offer, and as a result, some students who wish to remain in the residential colleges will be unable to do so. For rising juniors, shared meal plans are allocated fairly: Based on students’ random room draw times, they are able to sign up for one of the limited number of shared meal plans until all are taken. But this fairness does not carry over into the next year’s room draw. Because each year spent in a residential college provides a student with an additional 0.1 point when drawing in that same college the next year, those with a shared meal plan their junior year have a significant advantage in securing a shared meal plan their senior year. Thus, the advantages of an early draw time junior year carry over to the next year, creating an unfair system that contradicts the notion that each year’s room draw presents students with an equal opportunity. 

ADVERTISEMENT

To create the fairest system for all students interested in remaining in the residential colleges, each club should hold a lottery for its shared meal plans independent of the room draw process, with juniors and seniors split into separate pools. Such a system would thus not unfairly privilege those with a good junior draw time the next year. And even if one were to draw and receive a shared meal plan both years, such an occurrence would arise by chance, not through a systemic loophole. Though some may argue that students eager to remain in the residential colleges could still purchase a University meal plan their junior year if unable to attain a shared meal plan, the additional cost is often too much of an expense. Moreover, this policy change would not negatively impact upperclassmen’s connectedness with the residential colleges.  

Though the current system strives to advantage those students with a demonstrated commitment to the residential colleges, the number of years spent in a specific dormitory is a poor proxy for the desire to participate in the life of the residential colleges. Given this reality, the University and the Interclub Council ought to value fairness among all students and establish a lottery system each year for shared meal plans.

ADVERTISEMENT