Editorial: A more rational break meal plan

In order to accommodate the different frequencies with which students eat in the dining halls, the University sensibly offers meal plans of different sizes for different prices. Students who intend to eat nearly every meal in the dining halls purchase the unlimited meal plan, which provides them with enough swipes to cover the full 19 meals a week or more; students who intend to use fewer swipes purchase cheaper plans. Our decisions about how many meals per week to eat in the dining hall, however, is wholly independent of our decision of whether or not to purchase a meal plan for academic breaks. It is puzzling, then, that the University combines these two separate decisions into one by making the plans differ not only by how many in-semester meals they give students access to but also in whether they permit students to use those meals over break. This policy is especially strange given the high relative cost of break meal plans — the $200 difference between the unlimited and block 235 plans is less than twice the $120 cost of a meal plan for a single break. Either all or none of the meals students purchase for use during the semester should be accepted for use during breaks.

We commend the current policy of permitting those with unlimited plans to use the meals they have purchased during breaks, so we urge the University to extend the same policy to block plans. While a student’s use of an unlimited meal plan over break does not affect how many meals that student may eat during the semester, students who use meals from their block plans over break will be able to eat fewer meals during the rest of the semester — saving Dining Services costs elsewhere.

Currently, Dining Services’ system of break meal plans strangely conflates the decision to purchase extra meals for use during the semester with the decision to purchase meals for use over breaks. These separate decisions should be made distinct.