Third, even without this coercion, many students would still prefer their house dining halls. Students are aware that dining halls are good places to meet their friends, and there are few places in the Square besides the Harvard dining halls where you can get an all-you-can-eat dinner for $4.10.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, lunch isn't social anyway. Eating lunch in a deserted Quad house isn't social. Eating lunch in a jammed Adams or Lowell House with a bunch of interhouse strangers isn't social. Missing your friends because your classes are at noon and theirs are at 1 p.m. isn't social. Because lunch isn't social, having some students desert it will not appreciably hurt the house system.

Given eight meals plus cash, most students would probably skip breakfast, eat lunch out, and come home for dinners and Sunday brunch. It is hard to get a good dinner for under $5, but getting a great lunch in Cambridge for the same amount is no challenge at all.

Under a limited-debit system, dinners would still have the same social function as before, while students would enjoy the flexibility of a cash system. An acceptable balance would be struck. If it became necessary to ensure this balance, the University could make only lunches refundable, although this measure would probably not be needed.

Although a cash system would be a boon to those who choose to eat out more often, it could also improve meals for those who stay in the houses.

Obviously, the dining halls would be less crowded for those who remained. A cash system could also make the dining services more responsive to student preferences. If students had complete freedom to choose which meals they wanted to eat in the dining halls, the most and least favorite meals would quickly become evident. Martin Feldstein would have no trouble explaining that.

As a Harvard student, I hold the house system sacred. But as an epicurean, I also hold good food sacred. The two are not incompatible, and a limited-debit card system could honor both.