Raising the Rents

Mrs. Bunting's decision to charge off-campus Radcliffe students the standard board fee next year has, as might be expected, elicited from those independent souls-a cry in defense of their freedom. In Mrs. Bunting's mind, the question of independence is eclipsed by a much more relevant one--money. And when one is trying to keep a college running in the black, this is only fair.

In trying to determine fair board fees, Mrs. Bunting has one constant to deal with: the cost of maintaining dining-hall facilities for both dormitory and off-campus residents. Though the off-campus girls eat only one meal in the dorms, they should still share the cost of kitchen labor and other expenses, which comprise about 60% of the board overhead.

The just way to handle the situation would be to compute the cost of maintaining dining-hall facilities, excluding food. The girls that live off campus compose about 25% of Radcliffe's population. Their board fee should therefore be 25% of this "non-food" kitchen overhead plus the cost of one meal per day. At present, however, the off campus residents pay about of the total board costs--obviously nowhere near a fair share. Moreover, they get better rooms than the dormitory residents for the same standard fee. No wonder Mrs. Bunting can't make ends meet.

Mrs. Bunting, however, has rejected a proportional readjustment. One can only speculate why. In the first place, such a readjustment would make bookkeeping more difficult. Furthermore, it is rumored that she is trying to condition all the girls to on-campus living, which will be practical in two years, when the fourth house is completed. She has therefore resorted to a levelling process which will ensure equality--at the expense of justice--and at the same time meet the rising overhead.

Next year's arrangement will therefore be unfair to those students who moved off campus in order to escape dormitory regimentation. The girls who are unable, because of class schedules, or those who simply don't want to take the trouble to return to Radcliffe for each meal, will be forced to buy two extra meals each day while they subsidize those who eat in the dorms.

Mrs. Bunting has some very workable alternatives open to her. On the one hand, she could increase the room and board fees for both on and off-campus residents. She has mentioned this possibility, and has claimed that the only alternative to changing the room-and-board structure would be to add $130 to the room rate and $35 to the board rate, making the total cost of room and board $990 in the off-campus houses and $1335 in the dorms. She said she was "very worried" about such a sharp increase in fees. But one wonders about this logic when, reluctant to add $165 to each student's expenses, she increases the expenses of one fourth of the girls by $434, and throws in two unwanted meals to justify such an increase. Moreover, she overlooks the fact that the room-and-board of dormitory residents would not have to soar to $1335 if the off-campus residents were charged proportionately more for the greater benefits which they receive. Radcliffe loses $41 per year on dormitory students and $340 per year on off-campus students. This disparity could be cut down in other ways than charging a flat room-and-board fee.

One other possible solution would be to treat the off-campus houses as cooperatives and drop the board fee for them altogether. The reduced food costs and labor expenses would lower the overhead accordingly.

It would thus seem that Mrs. Bunting has chosen the worst possible method for meeting rising costs. Her proposed change will not only change the style of life, but also drastically increase the expenses, of a large proportion of the students. On the other hand, the budget must be balanced, and the students that cost the most should pay the most. Those girls that "don't want to have anything to do with the dorms," as one Cliffie stated, should not forget that their ability to live in a homey atmosphere is currently financed at a loss to the College and that, if the College is to function, the off-campus residents must pay proportionately more for their domestic advantages.

Mrs. Bunting, however, has rejected a proportional readjustment. One can only speculate why. In the first place, such a readjustment would make bookkeeping more difficult. Furthermore, it is rumored that she is trying to condition all the girls to on-campus living, which will be practical in two years, when the fourth house is completed. She has therefore resorted to a levelling process which will ensure equality--at the expense of justice--and at the same time meet the rising overhead.

Next year's arrangement will therefore be unfair to those students who moved off campus in order to escape dormitory regimentation. The girls who are unable, because of class schedules, or those who simply don't want to take the trouble to return to Radcliffe for each meal, will be forced to buy two extra meals each day while they subsidize those who eat in the dorms.

Mrs. Bunting has some very workable alternatives open to her. On the one hand, she could increase the room and board fees for both on and off-campus residents. She has mentioned this possibility, and has claimed that the only alternative to changing the room-and-board structure would be to add $130 to the room rate and $35 to the board rate, making the total cost of room and board $990 in the off-campus houses and $1335 in the dorms. She said she was "very worried" about such a sharp increase in fees. But one wonders about this logic when, reluctant to add $165 to each student's expenses, she increases the expenses of one fourth of the girls by $434, and throws in two unwanted meals to justify such an increase. Moreover, she overlooks the fact that the room-and-board of dormitory residents would not have to soar to $1335 if the off-campus residents were charged proportionately more for the greater benefits which they receive. Radcliffe loses $41 per year on dormitory students and $340 per year on off-campus students. This disparity could be cut down in other ways than charging a flat room-and-board fee.

One other possible solution would be to treat the off-campus houses as cooperatives and drop the board fee for them altogether. The reduced food costs and labor expenses would lower the overhead accordingly.

It would thus seem that Mrs. Bunting has chosen the worst possible method for meeting rising costs. Her proposed change will not only change the style of life, but also drastically increase the expenses, of a large proportion of the students. On the other hand, the budget must be balanced, and the students that cost the most should pay the most. Those girls that "don't want to have anything to do with the dorms," as one Cliffie stated, should not forget that their ability to live in a homey atmosphere is currently financed at a loss to the College and that, if the College is to function, the off-campus residents must pay proportionately more for their domestic advantages.