As is probably the norm on any university campus, the SMU student population has habitually criticized SMU Dining Services for the quality of its food, the merit of its services and the price of its meals. Often, this criticism is unfounded or completely inescapable.
If an individual eats at the same place multiple times a day for the course of a semester, the food, atmosphere, and service is undoubtedly going to become dull – that’s just unavoidable.
In fact, I would venture to say that most students don’t appreciate the decent job on-campus dinning does. The task of SMU Dining Services is enormous – it must attempt to please a very diverse student body population that has a variety of tastes, likings and dining expectations.
However, despite my appreciation for SMU Dining Services’ predicament, I write this editorial in outrage. Today, SMU Dining Services will release its 2006-2007 academic year dining options.
The document outlines a plan that is very similar to the current option an upper classman has, but it also reflects the campus-wide 6 percent increase in cost that was voted on by the SMU Board of Trustees.
Thus, next year, if you choose to live on campus, regardless of the plan you select, the cost will equal $1,960 per semester.
At first you might wonder, what’s the big deal? You knew this was coming, Todd. SMU always raises the prices of its services every year, promising that the additional costs are necessary to provide new, improved services (side note: Is it just me, or does it seem that every time SMU asks for more money, the notice always frames the price hike with ridiculous enthusiasm as if it should be a joyful experience to give up more of your hard-earned money?).
But, it seems to me that dining costs have finally hit a level where SMU Dining Services is now exploiting the necessity of on-campus residents to purchase a meal plan. Simply put, we are not getting what we pay for.
While both Umphrey Lee Center and Mac’s Place provide “all-you-can-eat” styled dinning, I ask, who would want to eat all he or she could eat at either on-campus dinning hall? First of all, the selection of food is not only mundane but practically the same from day to day.
Variety is the spice of life, and at SMU, the dinning experience is bland. For $7 a meal, which is what each “swipe” equals according the dining options document, I can find many more choices right along Hillcrest that provide a much greater variety.
If I didn’t have to purchase a meal plan, I might just do that, as well. Second, if one chooses to eat at a non-peak hour (especially late at night), the meager food options are narrowed even further. I can eat for less than $7 at many other locations, like Taco Bell, Wendy’s or McDonalds, with similarly offered foods and hours.
Lastly, the food quality doesn’t warrant a second serving. If one is forced to consume the same cuisine for multiple meals within a matter of days, that dish should be a work of culinary brilliance.
But, in the case of SMU Dining, it is usually the result of culinary apathy (and I know the cooks can do better – I’ve tasted their catered food!).
Although I know the people at SMU Dining Services are not trying to maliciously concoct a dinning system from hell, the options that they released are infuriating because I am, once again, paying more for the same mediocre product.
I also fear the new plan will drive more upper classmen out of on-campus housing and further fragment the SMU community. I am reminded of the famous words of Charles Dickens through the beloved character Oliver Twist, “Please, sir, I want some more.”
If I’m going to fork over $2,000 per semester, SMU Dining Services needs to give me more.
Todd Baty is a sophomore music and history major. He may be contacted at [email protected].
