Student Council Group-Reports on Inefficient House Dining System

I

Introduction

Since board costs are such an important part of every student's expenses in college, and since the quality of the food he eats affects his health and ability to work, the Student Council last fall appointed a committee to investigate complaints from students about both the quality and cost of meals in the House Dining Halls. As far as the Committee knows, this is the first time any such investigation has been undertaken.

From 20 to 30% of an average student's annual expenses is for board, and a growing feeling that he was not getting his money's worth culminated this year in a petition, signed by 137 students, asking the Council to look into this matter. The petition expressing student dissatisfaction specifically asked that the Council determine (1) whether the present board rate is a reasonable charge for food and service given, and (2) if the existing rate is reasonable, whether changes might be made in the nature of the food and the service which would make a rate reduction possible.

Since its appointment in October, a nine-man committee, consisting of four members of the Council and five students not on the Council, has been investigating the problems connected with board rates. The Committee treated chiefly the four points which seemed most to affect the quality and price of the food. These were as follows: (1) the wholesale costs of food purchased; (2) the quality of the foods served; (3) the possible effects of reducing the number of extra dishes and second helpings now available; and (4) efficiency in the kitchens.

Although the committee considered dining hall service in its investigation, it will not treat this aspect of the problem at this time, since it believes that it is a different matter and one tied up with the whole question of student employment. Before any findings can be reported further investigation must be made and a poll of student sentiment held on the issue of student waiters. The problems of student employment and of the dining halls are closely, related because the funds for the Temporary Student Employment service come from the "profit" made by the halls. The Committee will report on this aspect of the investigation in the near future.

II

Findings

The Committee finds, in the first place, that the University purchases good quality foods at low prices. The fact that they are often not appetizing when served is caused mainly by poor preparation. The saving which might result from putting into effect the third point, namely cutting down extras and seconds, would not be large enough to justify this action. Finally, inefficiency in the kitchens is responsible for waste and poor food.

III

Raw Food Costs

In order to discover whether the University buys cheaply and well, the Committee attempted to check on the reputation as a buyer of Roy L. Westcott, who is Purchasing Agent for the University Dining Halls. Both Forrest L. Moore, now head butcher at the City Club in Boston and formerly butcher in the Harvard Union, and Joseph Stefani, Business Representative of the Cooks and Pastry Cooks Union, Local 106, in which many Harvard kitchen workers are enrolled, stated positively that Mr. Westcott is known as a shrewd buyer. To check more specifically on the lowness of the prices paid by Mr. Westcott, the Committee contacted Mr. Rose, an executive of the New England Dressed Meat and Wool Company Plant. On examining a list of prices which Harvard paid for meat on a given day, Mr. Rose pointed out that for the most part these prices ran one or two cents below the market wholesale price for that day. Although he did not know Mr. Westcott or his reputation as a buyer, Mr. Rose said that there was a great deal of competition for Harvard's business and that consequently the college necessarily obtained very good prices. His estimate was that Harvard gets the best quality meat at very low prices from jobbers with excellent reputations. To check on prices from another angle, the Committee compared a list of prices paid by Harvard for meat, butter, and fish on a certain day with the sale prices quoted by a number of large wholesalers and jobbers in Boston. Again it was found that the University buys at a considerable saving over the open market price.

In regard to the quality of the food purchased, it must be pointed out that the elaborate and diverse grading system used in the wholesale food trade makes both price comparison and quality estimate a difficult talk. Harvard does not buy the finest or "luxury" grade of foods. But the food purchased for the dining halls is good.

A conclusive check on Harvard's food purchasing efficiency could have been made only if it had been possible to discover what other large institutions in the Boston area have to pay for raw food. All that the Committee could find was that Harvard buys at a considerable saving over the price quoted in the market. It is not impossible that other large institutions, with a purchasing power comparable in magnitude to Harvard's, may purchase food at an even greater saving over the market price. Admitting that its findings are far from being absolutely conclusive, the Committee nevertheless believes that Harvard buys good quality food at low prices.

IV

Preparation of Food

The Committee did not have to conduct an exhaustive investigation in order to discover that the general feeling is that much of the food served in the dining halls is poorly prepared. Complaints about cooking are traditional at Harvard as well as at other institutions. What the Committee attempted to do was to determine to what extent the complaints are chronic and unavoidable, and to what extent they could be removed by better preparation and more careful choice of dishes.

By checking on a number of occasions the amount of food returned to the kitchens uneaten, the Committee came to the conclusion that certain dishes reach the students cold and flavorless. Particular offenders in this respect are certain vegetables: broccoli, string beans, celery, spinach, brussels sprouts, and cabbage, to name but a few. For example, at lunch on February 27 in Leverett House 42 orders of lima beans were returned to the kitchen uneaten or barely tasted; 196 people were served at lunch that day. On the preceding day at lunch in the same dining hall, 40 orders of parslied potatoes were sent back uneaten when 208 people were served. At Eliot House on that same day 238 people were served, and 49 orders of stewed tomatoes were returned to the kitchen. The Committee believes after canvassing a large number of students that the preparation of these vegetables and of bacon and eggs is such that it would be impossible to operate the dining halls without a guaranteed patronage.

The cause of this situation is twofold: persistent serving of unpopular dishes, and incompetent cooking. The first problem is a simple one to solve. At the present time Harvard has no dietitian. The menus are made up entirely by Mr. Robertson, the Head Steward in the Kirkland House kitchen. While this is in no sense intended as a criticism of Mr. Robertson's judgment, it is only fair to point out that he has many other responsibilities, and that to the best of the Committee's knowledge, Harvard is one of the few colleges which has no resident dietitian devoting his entire time to planning menus.

The second problem, incompetent cooking, is not so easily met. Partly it is inherent in the mass-production of meals. But nevertheless the Committee believes there is room for improvement in the cooking. The root of the trouble lies in inexperienced and inefficient cooks. As an example of this, it was pointed out by Mr. Stefani, himself an experienced cook, that the broccoli served in the Union is prepared by a man who has had no outside cooking training, and is cooked in such a way that about 50% of the flavor and food value is lost. There is reason to believe that this sort of incompetency is not limited to a single instance.

The Committee finds, therefore, that the choice of dishes served in the dining halls is often poorly made and in a number of cases the food is prepared with carelessness and incompetence.

V

Choice of Extra Dishes

It is the opinion of the Committee after studying figures on costs compiled by Mr. Durant and after sounding out student opinion on the subject, that the economy which would be effected by eliminating the alternate dishes always available in the dining halls (fruit salad, second portions, club sandwiches, ice cream, etc.) would be far too small to justify the corresponding reduction in the variety of food offered to students.

VI

Waste

As a preliminary check on the amount of waste involved in dining hall food which is not eaten, the Committee held a check on February 21 to determine the amount of bread and butter thrown away after being returned to the kitchen. At lunch that day in Leverett House observers found that 62 rolls were thrown away, two leaves of bread, and 50 cakes of butter. The food thrown away was returned to the kitchen completely untouched; the butter was still in bowis with ice and water, and the bread was still on the bread plates.

Finding ample evidence to indicate that a broader survey was advisable, the Committee asked Mr. Westcott's permission to conduct similar checks in all the House dining halls. This permission was readily granted.

The Committee then checked five more meals in Leverett House, three in Adams, two in Eliot, two in Lowell, three in Dunster, and one in Winthrop. In Adams and Eliot it found the same kind of waste as in Leverett. For example, in Adams House at dinner on February 27, 230 slices of bread were thrown out; at Eliot House that same night 91 slices of bread were thrown away. But in the other Houses the Committee found no waste, but ample indication that waste was general; obviously the order had come down from above to indulge in some window-dressing for the Committee's benefit. For example, the waitresses had to be told repeatedly not to throw butter away, but to save it, thus proving conclusively that when no one was there to check up, the butter was wasted. The waitresses took the economy drive as a big joke, and freely admitted that they ordinarily threw away left-over bread and butter and had never before been instructed to do otherwise. On the day the Committee checked in Lowell House, two waitresses reported that only a few days before five whole pies had been removed from their tins and thrown away.

The Committee then talked to Mr. Robertson, who denied that bread and butter were ever thrown away, and said that not more than one per cent of the food cooked was ever wasted.

In speaking to Mr. Moore, former Kirkland House kitchen employee and now butcher at the Boston City Club, the Committee was astonished to learn that in his opinion 10 to 15% of all the meat cut in the House kitchens is wasted through incompetent butchering.

The Committee's conclusion is that the examples of waste cited above are indicative of widespread inefficiency in the preparation of food at Harvard that would never be tolerated in a restaurant that had to cover its costs without a guaranteed elientele. It appears that the dining hall authorities do not know that certain dishes have deteriorated greatly when served, or else they condone unsatisfactory methods of preparation and serving and do not care to improve them.

VII

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Committee is convinced that the present board rate is not a reasonable charge for the food and service given. The Committee concludes: (1) that the quality of the food as served could be greatly improved by better preparation and more careful choice of menus, and (2) that the rate could be considerably reduced without lowering the quality of the food. Just how much the rate could be lowered is impossible to determine in advance. But it is worthwhile to cite estimates made by men thoroughly familiar with the set-up and operation of the dining halls. One estimates that the same food and service could be provided for $7.00 a week (for 21 meals) instead of for $10.00 as at present. The other, not quite so optimistic, feels that the rate for 21 meals could be reduced to $8.50. Quite possibly these estimated reductions are exaggerated, but they indicate clearly the substantial savings to House residents which could be effected through greater efficiency.

The administration of the dining halls is a very complex business. Annually $500,000 worth of food and supplies pass through the hands of the man who is in charge of the dining halls. Without the greatest care and constant supervision laxness and waste are bound to creep in. On the basis of its investigation, the Committee makes the following recommendations, designed to eliminate these defects:

1. The appointment of a dietitian to be permanently attached to the staff of the dining halls, in order to insure balanced and sufficiently varied meals of good quality.

2. The hiring of an expert in the adminstration of large dining halls to make a survey of the present setup at Harvard with a view to improving its efficiency.

The Committee believes that if the Houses are to remain attractive social units, and if the important idea back of President Conant's "dinner-table education" is to continue to be effective, students must not be allowed to feel, and with justice, that they are being over charged for the food served to them. Respectfully submitted.   Student Council Committee on Board in the Houses   Henry A. Burgess '40, Chairman   Langdon Burwell '41   Seth C. Crocker '41   John V. Frank '41   William C. Hurtt '40   Robert A. James '41   James D. Lightbody Jr. '40   Charles O. Porter '41   Morton G. Wurtele '40