In addition to the ageless gripe about limited hours, one theme seems to recur with increasing intensity as the semester wears on. We speak of the unhappiness with Bonus Bucks, the (only) alternative meal plan. For those with only a hazy grasp of the plan, it includes full lunch and dinner, excluding breakfast but offering a $100 credit-legal tender at Schwemm's and vending machines-in return.
We are cognizant of two main categories of critiques regarding Bonus Bucks. The first concerns the low absolute amount offered as credit-a criticism which makes intuitive sense when one does a bit of math. To most students $100 of credit per semester clearly undervalues breakfast and fails to represent value for the amount of board each student pays.
We must, however, disagree.
Students do not seem aware that forgoing breakfast saves Val only a negligible amount in the provision of breakfast; only by expanding the program far beyond its current subscription (hovering around 200 students a semester) can Val accrue substantial cost benefits. In other words, Bonus Bucks represents a "value-added" plan that in practice hardly creates savings for the College. Moreover, according to Dining Services, only a startling 45 percent of all students on Bonus Bucks over the past five years have used the full value of credit.
A second critique questions the flexibility of the entire dining system at the College. Should we be content with just two meal plans? Bonus Bucks, as the argument goes, can be attractive to only a portion of the College's students; a greater spectrum of dining options would cater to more students and conceivably increase the standard of living at the College. The introduction of Bonus Bucks in 2001 was itself born of a year-long dialogue between the administration and students on expanding meal plan options.
Nevertheless we doubt that greater flexibility will be consistent with the principles of coterie special to the Amherst experience. Having to consume most meals at the same location and at the same times is undeniably beneficial to a collective sense of identity; dining at one's pleasure isn't.
We think the tension between preserving the feel of community within these ivied halls and allowing students a larger degree of freedom lies at the heart of the matter. It's not hard to see that, while not entirely ideal, the current system represents an acceptable compromise. We still want to be able to eat past 8 p.m. at Val, but most of all we don't wish to be eating alone during the day.