WAITING

In the editorial columns of the CRIMSON Monday the problem of student-waiters in the Houses was suggested as pertinent for consideration in the Student Council's annual report. Patently, the depression has increased the number of men who must earn all or part of their college, expenses, and has made it inversely difficult for them to find employment either within or outside the University. The administration's somewhat ineffectual attempt to sidestep the whole question of employing students in the dining halls by the creation of special and often artificial jobs has been of some help in the past year; but now for every four applications to the Student Employment Bureau, but one can be filled.

There are certain cogent arguments against the employment of student waiters in the Houses that have influenced the University's attitude thus far. It has been found at the Union and at the Business and Medical Schools, where student waiting is in operation, that a number of waiters have had to resign because of sickness, course conflicts, and the pressure of their studies. For these reasons, and because they work only every other day, and have to be excused when taking examinations, they have in the past been found to be less efficient than full-time waitresses. Furthermore, in developing the House Plan, an attempt has been made to maintain an atmosphere similar to that of an English College or a club with all students on an equal social basis.

These objections are all valid: the question is whether they are sufficiently weighty to over-balance the importance of the economic emergency that now exists. There is no reason why under proper management, the efficiency of student waiters cannot equal that of waitresses; and the employment of a large number of students would facilitate an interchange of hours during the examination period. As regards the social problems, a questionnaire distributed last year among student-waiters and prospective student-waiters, asking if they thought themselves regarded as inferior by other students was returned by more than half with an emphatic "no"; many others were dubious.

The introduction of student waiters should only be viewed, as a temporary expedient, since it may interfere with the purpose of the House Plan. It would, however, give jobs to over one hundred and fifty men, who by working three days one week and four days the next could earn their board. The money now paid waitresses could be used to reduce the tuition fees of the waiters. And the apparent social inequality could be somewhat mitigated by having students serve only in Houses other than their own and allowing them to eat in their own Houses when not working.

If the University's purpose is to exhaust all the possible channels for student employment, it must consider student help in the dining halls more seriously than it has to the present. It is certainly a means by which a large proportion of the self-supporting students already in the University could be taken care of; but it should not be used as a bait for incoming freshman who hope to support themselves. As a temporary resort in time of emergency, it does seem an imperative step.