The SGA met Wednesday and passed meaningful resolutions that if followed, will benefit UH on-campus life.
Students who wish to stay in residence halls are required to get a meal plan, which costs around $1,000. The meal plans vary in number of cafeteria meals and Cougar Cash. The set number of meals per week expires at the end of the week. The block plans give students a set number of meals they can use throughout the semester, and all unused meal credits expire at the end of the semester. The Cougar Cash-only plans are just available to upper-class students.
Students have complained the quality and variety of food provided at the Real Food on Campus locations are below par. Students gave accounts at the SGA meeting of food not being available 30 minutes to closing times, unreasonable hours and poor dining service. Interestingly, the quality of the food was better at the start of every semester, and then the food quality declines.
SGA representatives said their previous attempts to improve the measure had marginal results. The Aramark meal plans are purchased at the beginning of the semester and the only change can be an upgrade. Once you have decided to stay on campus and have selected a meal plan, there is no getting out.
The logic of economic incentives permeates every aspect of life. The Aramark meal plans are no different. The mandatory plans create an incentive structure similar to an unnatural monopoly.
Imagine a consumer must purchase apples and there is only one supplier who keeps out other competition through governmental fiat. Throughout the course of time, the consumer would see a rise in prices and fall in quality of apples. This situation lacks an immediate negative feedback mechanism. The inability to stop buying regardless of quality prevents the apple monopoly from caring if quality declines.
As suppliers enter the market, the price would be forced down and quality improved. When a supplier of apples provides bad apples the consumers immediately have the option to change shopping habits. The structure that maximizes freedom of choice will allow the costumer to be king. The firm that repeatedly provides sub-par apples would be hounded with negative feedback; its costumer base, along with the firm itself, would shrivel up and die. Economic competition attempts to promote consumer satisfaction as each firm attempts to please the consumer best.
This helps explain Aramark’s mandatory meal plans. With students paying upfront for their meal plans, Aramark has less of an incentive to ensure the quality of the food throughout the semester. Students have no recourse to stop paying for meals. Students could stop eating at the cafeterias, and some decide to, but this makes little difference, as the money spent cannot be recovered.
The ultimate recourse is to move out of the Quadrangle and Moody Towers. And this is what is happening. SGA Vice President Jonas Chin drove this point home when he pointed out that the $1,000 mandatory meal plan is a major factor driving students away from living on campus.
The solution is easy. Allow cafeterias to compete with all of the options available to students regardless of student classification.
Aramark would no longer get a free ride with mandatory meal plans.
In cooperation with other representatives, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Sen. Kelly Evans, one of the architects of the legislation, was able to pass a resolution doing just that, calling for the removal of mandatory meal plans.
Is there a fear Aramark may not maintain the same amount of revenue? Yes, but that is the point. If students no longer wish to purchase their meals at cafeterias, they should not be required to.
This will provide the strongest motivation for improvement. Can Aramark maintain, if not improve, its consumer turnout without mandatory meal plans? Yes, they can by improving the quality of the food and service.
Only when every transaction is voluntary, when every purchase for a lunch or dinner is done freely at the beginning of each meal, can customer satisfaction be a top priority.
