Some 14 percent of those who filled out the Student Council's recent Food Poll questionnaire suggested in their general comments that the meal contract plan be revised, and the Council is asking the University to show why the present 21 meal requirement is especially necessary. The change most often suggested was a reversion to the pre-war 7, 14 or 21 meal per week optional contract. But curiously enough, a return to the optional contract system would mean a cost increase for a majority, and only a small saving to a minority.

The present weekly rate is $12.25 for 21 meals. If the optional contract system were now adopted, the Dining Hall management calculates that 55 percent of Dining Hall patrons would still sign up for the full 21 meal contract even though its price would then be $14. Some 35 percent of College diners would sign up for the 14 meal per week contract costing $12, and ten percent would contract to eat only seven Dining Hall meals per week at a cost of $10.

In other words, 55 percent of those eating in Dining Halls would find their 21 meals costing them $1.75 more than the present rate, while 35 percent would save 25 cents weekly by skipping seven College meals, and ten percent of College diners would save only $2.25 by skipping 14 College meals per week.

Since the average student at present eats only 16 meals per week in College Dining Halls, those who eat more than 16 meals per week are subsidized by those who eat less. Therein lies the injustice of the present system. Yet the optional contract system would afford little saving even to the minority who wish to eat less than the average 16 meals weekly. Those who think it would be cheaper to eat all their meals at beaneries around the Square might prove their point only at the risk of ptomaine poisoning or malnutrition, while men who eat at clubs know that the contract saving of 25 cents on 14 meals would not stretch very far for their seven non-contract meals, nor the $2.25 saving for 14 non-contract meals.

The Administration in charge of Dining Halls has not been asleep to possible improvements in the meal contract system, nor is it, as some would think, hostile to the clubs. The University must consider the effect of a change on the majority of undergraduates, and the optional contract system would mean a considerable increase of meal costs to that majority, without effecting any substantial saving to the minority. College-wide, the interests of the undergraduate are best served by maintaining the 21 meal requirement.