The following is a summary of the Student Council Report on Student Waiting prepared by a committee of eight undergraduates and adopted by the Student Council last June.

In its previous report the Student Council Committee on Board expressed the opinions that the members of the Houses are not receiving, a fair return for the present board charges and that better meals could be served at lower prices. Since it became clear during the course of this investigation that board rates might possibly be lowered by the partial substitution of students for waitresses, the Committees is issuing this supplementary report on student waiting. Nevertheless, it wishes to emphasize its belief that the question of student waiting is subordinate in importance to the remedying of the dining-hall inefficiency and waste pointed to by evidence in the first report.

The issues involved in student waiting are three-fold:

1. What effect would it have on board rates?

2. What are the arguments for an against it aside from this effect?

3. What is the altitude of House Masters and undergraduates toward student waiting?

I. The Effect upon Board Ratcs

Although University officials are skeptical about the saying in the weekly board rate through the introduction of student waiters, the Committee believes that a saving of between 18 and 25 cents a week per House member would result. . . . But in any case the reduction in board rate through the introduction of student waiters would be slight.

II. Arguments for and Against Student Waiting

Pro:

The chief argument for student waiting is that it would create jobs for about 110 undergraduates who need help to get through college.

Con:

1. The House system was originated to provide common living and eating facilities for upperclassmen, and through the intermingling of students with different interests and backgrounds to promote what President Conant has termed "dinner-table education." Those students who waited on table would be deprived of this privilege half of the time, and on their days off they might find themselves too pressed for time to take full advantage of it.

2. This leads us to the second objection against student waiting, that it would create a social distinction between waiters and non-waiters and would cause an unfortunate feeling of discomfort on both sides.

3. Student waiting might lower the efficiency of the service in the dining-halls.

4. The introduction of student waiters would mean the dismissal of many wait-resses.

III. The Attitude of the House Masters

Adams House: Dr. Little would prefer not to have student waiters in his own House. He would like to see a test case but does not believe that it would work out.

Dunater House: Mr. Haring in decidedly opposed to student waiting.

Eliot House: Mr. Merriman expressed his opposition to the employment of student waiters on the grounds that "these sophomore puppies don't know how to treat servants. This kind of work would subject the boys who are waiting on table to the worst kind of insults they could receive. Frankly, I do not like it!"

Leverett House: Mr. Murdock, although he had no definite opinion, expressed dissatisfaction with the idea, saying that he would rather see some other method of employing undergraduates. . . .

Lowell House: Mr. Coolidge thought that student waiters would be less efficient than the waitresses. . . . He "would not weap salt tears" if it were tried elsewhere.

Kirkland House: Mr. Clark . . . stated that if the majority of the undergraduates in his House indicated support to the plan he would be willing to have a test ease tried out.

Winthrop House Mr. Ferry gave his support to the idea, saying that he would like to see it tried out if such a desire were expressed by the students.

IV. Student Opinion

To determine what the sentiment of House members was on this issue, the Committee conducted a poll. Of the 862 men who answered the question: "If a weekly savings of 50 cents per person was made possible by the partial replacement of waitresses by student waiters, would you favor such a change?"

49% answered "Yes,"

42% answered "No."

8% answered "no opinion."

Comparing this with the results of the next question: "If it is found that no immediate saving can be effected by the use of student waiters in the Houses, would you, nevertheless, be in favor of their employment?" we find that of the 859 men who answered it:

33 % said, "Yes."

57.5% said, "No."

9.5% said, "No opinion."

V. Additional Information Gleaned from the Committee Poll

In answer to questions designed to mould preferences for one or the other type of job, here, for once, opinion was definitely on one side in that a sizeable majority of both previous T. S. E. workers and student waiters would prefer the former type of employment if both were available.

The poll also included the question "Would you favor the abolition of the 10 and 14 meal a week rates and the introduction of a $9.00 a week rate for 21 meals for all students?" This question . . . the following response: YES  56% No  42.5% No opinion  1.5%

VI. Suggestions

1. Any student waiting jobs should be complementary to the T. S. E.; no T. S. E. jobs should be replaced.

2. Despite the fact that 57.5% of the men who answered the poll declared opposition to student waiting if it could not reduce the board rate, the sympathetic majorities in answer to the question sounding opinion on a test lead us to believe that the plan should be tried this fall in one or two of the Houses.

The introduction of student waiting would lower board costs by only a very small amount if at all, an amount which might well be offset by some of the disadvantages to student waiting. Any savings brought about by reorganization of the dining halls in the direction of greater efficiency would, on the other hand, be pure gain. The only justification for the introduction of student waiting is that it would supplement the work of the Temporary Student Employment plan in providing jobs for students. If is on this ground, and in view of the considerable support for such a plan expressed by undergraduates, that the committee recommends that student waiting he given a thorough trial in one or two Houses.