[818] in UA Senate
Clarifications: Radical idea on dining: Choosing a dorm based on
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael E Plasmeier)
Sat Oct 16 03:18:19 2010
Resent-From: ua-senate@MIT.EDU
From: Michael E Plasmeier <theplaz@MIT.EDU>
To: ec-discuss <ec-discuss@mit.edu>, Andy Wu <andywu@mit.edu>,
Vrajesh Y Modi
<vrajesh@mit.edu>, Samantha G Wyman <swyman@mit.edu>,
"Nils Molina
(nilsmolina@gmail.com)" <nilsmolina@gmail.com>,
ua-exec <ua-exec@mit.edu>, "baker-forum@mit.edu" <baker-forum@mit.edu>,
"Tom Gearty" <tgearty@mit.edu>, cfs <cfs@mit.edu>,
ua-senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 03:18:00 -0400
--_000_60826A506BCDE447B39C85C1496EAB74018B11053CEXPO7exchange_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think there has been some misunderstanding of my proposal. Let me go thr=
ough some scenarios, because I think they will help explain the proposal:
Let's take EC. The vast majority (say 95%) of people in EC would vote to c=
ontinue not having a dining hall (unless there are some closet dining fans)=
. Since it would be move minimizing (5% would need to move to be happy vs =
95%) to not offer a dining hall at EC, Pritchett would stay closed. The 95=
% who voted for no dining would stay in EC and be happy, no issues. The 5%=
who voted for another plan could choose to stay in EC (even though they wo=
uld not get their dining choice) OR they would have a virtually guaranteed =
spot in a dorm with the dining program they want. They could then choose a=
mong the dorms that offer the option that they want - according to the othe=
r factors of culture.
(I have not decided if they could choose among any dorm, ie ones other than=
their current one or all of the dorms with the dining level they desired. =
The downside is that by changing their minds they are taking away a bed in=
a dining level from someone who voted for it, which would not be fair, sin=
ce space was allocated for them at their desired dining level. Now since s=
tudents can already choose to stay in their current dorm and thus no bed is=
guaranteed, this may not be as big an issue. As I am thinking about this,=
I think that we should allow people to move anywhere (just like we already=
do).)
Then let's say 300 students in the dorm system voted for hot breakfast and =
dinner. The dorm which would require the least students to move would be o=
ffer this plan. The least number of moves would most likely be in whatever=
dorm had the strongest demand for hot breakfast and dinner. Let's say it =
is Baker. I (as a Baker resident) can now choose to stay in Baker and buy =
into breakfast, or I can move elsewhere with a spot open for me in one of t=
he dorms that has my dining option. I choose which new dorm that is based =
on culture. However, there would at least be room for me somewhere, so I w=
ould be able to move out and not pay for something I don't want. This is b=
ecause the number of beds available at MIT under each dining level would ro=
ughly match the demand for each dining level. Under the HDAG plan many stu=
dents said that they would move out. But where would they go? And who wou=
ld fill their empty beds? It is pretty clear that almost no one would be ab=
le to move out because MIT had vastly over supplied the number of hot break=
fast + dinner beds.
If only 50 students voted for hot breakfast we would have a decision to mak=
e. We could decide that the demand was too small and those students would =
have to settle with cold breakfast. Or, if the administration felt obligat=
ed to offer hot breakfast we could squeeze it in somewhere (minimizing move=
s) and force other people their eat that hot breakfast. Or we could offer =
the students to aggregate in a certain dorm and then MIT could do optional =
hot breakfast, eating the loss to meet student demand. Again the student w=
ould have a choice: stay where I am and take the program that makes the maj=
ority of the people in my dorm happy or move to a dorm that fulfills my din=
ing wants.
If the plans the Institute can offer without the subsidy are too expensive,=
then many students who currently live in a dorm with a dining hall choose =
to not have a dining hall. Then to match the number of beds with no dining=
hall to demand, one of the locations would close. Again it would be the l=
ocation that would be move minimizing and again, students could choose to s=
tay or move to a dorm with the dining level they like.
Some have pointed out that it's not dining that defines a dorm's culture. =
Well fine. If you want to stay in your dorm, you can stay. You would be s=
ubjected, however, to the dining level which minimized the number of other =
people who would have to move out of your dorm. I think that is perfectly =
fair. You either have a virtually guaranteed spot in the dining level of yo=
ur choice, or you can accept the dining level which will minimize the numbe=
r of other people who would want to move out of your dorm. If you want the=
dining level your current dorm picked, awesome, there would be no change. =
And if you would prefer your desired dining level above your current commu=
nity, you have a spot for you in one of the dorms with your desired dining =
level. You could then choose the particular dorm at that level based on al=
l the other factors of culture.
I also realized that under this system we might not even need mandatory. I=
f all of the people who want breakfast would live in one dorm, then the sys=
tem would do better. The problem is that I estimate ~70-80% of the cost of=
a house dining meal is fixed. Those costs are the same if they serve 5 me=
als that night or 500. That is why mandatory makes some sense. But the ba=
sic idea is that if you want breakfast, you need to pay for breakfast. Agg=
regate the breakfast eaters together (well what I am proposing is to offer =
them the choice of keeping their current dorm vs having a spot in a dorm th=
at has breakfast) This is much better than having every option everywhere w=
ere students have to pay for it if they eat it or not. Having breakfast ev=
erywhere is not fair either because everyone is paying the cost of offering=
breakfast in 4 places, if they want it or not. Also, right now everyone=
else who buys food on campus subsidizes House Dining to the tune of ~$600,=
000/year. I don't think this is fair. Why should you, EC student, be payi=
ng for my house dining when you buy pizza at Stata?
My plan minimizes the cost of the service be providing it only in the place=
s people want. It minimizes the people paying for service they do NOT want=
. It then gives students a choice of their desired dining level OR their c=
urrent community (whose dining level was chosen so that it minimizes the to=
tal # of people who would have to move out of all dorms). It strengthens w=
est campus culture by increasing the distinction between the dorms. And la=
stly if you agree with the majority of your house on dining level, then you=
are happy right where you are. Perfect!
-Michael Plasmeier
--_000_60826A506BCDE447B39C85C1496EAB74018B11053CEXPO7exchange_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=
=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Micros=
oft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vli=
nk=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal>I think there ha=
s been some misunderstanding of my proposal. Let me go through some s=
cenarios, because I think they will help explain the proposal:<o:p></o:p></=
p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Let’=
s take EC. The vast majority (say 95%) of people in EC would vote to =
continue not having a dining hall (unless there are some closet dining fans=
). Since it would be move minimizing (5% would need to move to be hap=
py vs 95%) to not offer a dining hall at EC, Pritchett would stay closed.&n=
bsp; The 95% who voted for no dining would stay in EC and be happy, no issu=
es. The 5% who voted for another plan could choose to stay in EC (eve=
n though they would not get their dining choice) OR they would have a virtu=
ally guaranteed spot in a dorm with the dining program they want. The=
y could then choose among the dorms that offer the option that they want &#=
8211; according to the other factors of culture. <o:p></o:p></p><p cl=
ass=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>(I have not decid=
ed if they could choose among any dorm, ie ones other than their current on=
e or all of the dorms with the dining level they desired. The downsid=
e is that by changing their minds they are taking away a bed in a dining le=
vel from someone who voted for it, which would not be fair, since space was=
allocated for them at their desired dining level. Now since students=
can already choose to stay in their current dorm and thus no bed is guaran=
teed, this may not be as big an issue. As I am thinking about this, I=
think that we should allow people to move anywhere (just like we already d=
o).)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMso=
Normal>Then let’s say 300 students in the dorm system voted for hot b=
reakfast and dinner. The dorm which would require the least students =
to move would be offer this plan. The least number of moves would mos=
t likely be in whatever dorm had the strongest demand for hot breakfast and=
dinner. Let’s say it is Baker. I (as a Baker resident) c=
an now choose to stay in Baker and buy into breakfast, or I can move elsewh=
ere with a spot open for me in one of the dorms that has my dining option.&=
nbsp; I choose which new dorm that is based on culture. However, ther=
e would at least be room for me somewhere, so I would be able to move out a=
nd not pay for something I don’t want. This is because the numb=
er of beds available at MIT under each dining level would roughly match the=
demand for each dining level. Under the HDAG plan many students said=
that they would move out. But where would they go? And who wou=
ld fill their empty beds? It is pretty clear that almost no one would be ab=
le to move out because MIT had vastly over supplied the number of hot break=
fast + dinner beds. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </=
o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>If only 50 students voted for hot breakfast we=
would have a decision to make. We could decide that the demand was t=
oo small and those students would have to settle with cold breakfast. =
Or, if the administration felt obligated to offer hot breakfast we could s=
queeze it in somewhere (minimizing moves) and force other people their eat =
that hot breakfast. Or we could <b>offer the students to aggregate in=
a certain dorm</b> and then MIT could do optional hot breakfast, eating th=
e loss to meet student demand. Again the student would have a choice:=
stay where I am and take the program that makes the majority of the people=
in my dorm happy or move to a dorm that fulfills my dining wants.<o:p></o:=
p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>If the=
plans the Institute can offer without the subsidy are too expensive, then =
many students who currently live in a dorm with a dining hall choose to not=
have a dining hall. Then to match the number of beds with no dining =
hall to demand, one of the locations would close. Again it would be t=
he location that would be move minimizing and again, students could choose =
to stay or move to a dorm with the dining level they like.<o:p></o:p></p><p=
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Some have poin=
ted out that it’s not dining that defines a dorm’s culture.&nbs=
p; Well fine. If you want to stay in your dorm, you can stay. Y=
ou would be subjected, however, to the dining level which minimized the num=
ber of other people who would have to move out of your dorm. I think =
that is perfectly fair. You either have a virtually guaranteed spot in the =
dining level of your choice, or you can accept the dining level which will =
minimize the number of other people who would want to move out of your dorm=
. If you want the dining level your current dorm picked, awesome, the=
re would be no change. And if you would prefer your desired dining le=
vel above your current community, you have a spot for you in one of the dor=
ms with your desired dining level. You could then choose the particul=
ar dorm at that level based on all the other factors of culture.<o:p></o:p>=
</p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>I also r=
ealized that under this system we might not even need mandatory. If a=
ll of the people who want breakfast would live in one dorm, then the system=
would do better. The problem is that I estimate ~70-80% of the cost =
of a house dining meal is fixed. Those costs are the same if they ser=
ve 5 meals that night or 500. That is why mandatory makes some sense.=
But the basic idea is that if you want breakfast, you need to pay fo=
r breakfast. Aggregate the breakfast eaters together (well what I am =
proposing is to offer them the choice of keeping their current dorm vs havi=
ng a spot in a dorm that has breakfast) This is much better than having eve=
ry option everywhere were students have to pay for it if they eat it or not=
. Having breakfast everywhere is not fair either because everyone is =
paying the cost of offering breakfast in 4 places, if they want it or not.&=
nbsp; Also, right now everyone else who buys food on campus sub=
sidizes House Dining to the tune of ~$600,000/year. I don’t thi=
nk this is fair. Why should you, EC student, be paying for my house d=
ining when you buy pizza at Stata? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNorma=
l><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>My plan minimizes the cost of t=
he service be providing it only in the places people want. It minimiz=
es the people paying for service they do NOT want. It then gives stud=
ents a choice of their desired dining level OR their current community (who=
se dining level was chosen so that it minimizes the total # of people who w=
ould have to move out of all dorms). It strengthens west campus cultu=
re by increasing the distinction between the dorms. And lastly if you=
agree with the majority of your house on dining level, then you are happy =
right where you are. Perfect!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p=
> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal> -Michael Plasmeier<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o=
:p></p></div></body></html>=
--_000_60826A506BCDE447B39C85C1496EAB74018B11053CEXPO7exchange_--
