Review needs to reevaluate priorities

To the Editor:

This letter will be short and angry. I was deeply disturbed by aspects of your last issue, specifically by what you as an organization consider important and how you view your place within the wider community. I refer to the fact that your front-page headline was "Students awakened by burning fire." Ignoring the childish redundancy of "burning fire," what really bothered me was that page four carried a brief, less developed article. It covered, quickly and without much interest, the deaths of two Oberlin town residents, a young girl and an elderly women. The deaths of two human beings got page four, half a page, because they weren't college students, and therefore, unimportant. At least that's what the Review seemed to be telling its readers: that the story of a young girl who died trying to save her grandmother is less important than the rude awakening of several college students. I find it disgusting and disgraceful.

-Josh Gepner, College senior

Dr. Jones' nature walks are a continuing legacy

To the Editor:

The recent death of professor emeritus George Jones deservedly received front page mention in the March 13 issue of your paper, but the report contained an important factual error. Dr. Jones unfortunately became unable to lead his customary local nature walks in the last few years of his life. However, the traditional weekly outings have continued, under the leadership of a few dedicated former pupils of Dr. Jones. Walkers meet at 2 p.m. almost every Sunday in the parking lot behind Kettering, and car-pool to local woods and rivers. Students, faculty and local residents are all welcome to join the walks, which are truly the continuing legacy of Dr. Jones that your headline suggested.

-Hannah Nendick-Mason, Town resident

Meal plan offers choices at a cost

To the Editor:

(This is an open letter to the student body and CDS staff)

When I got my housing packet in the mail a week or so ago I was pleasantly surprised to see that a 21 meal-per-week plan was no longer my only boarding option. I was strongly considering choosing the 14 meal plan until I stumbled upon the Oberlin Review of 6 March, 1998, wherein I learned that each of the three boarding plans for the upcoming semester would have the same cost. A little voice in my head (the same little voice that told me to be a math major) alerted me that something was awry. After reading Leah Lipsky's letter in the commentary section I decided to perform the math a little more rigorously:

The new meal plan is going to cost "at least $200 per year lower than the current $3,192 yearly fee," according to the 6 March article on the new boarding plan ("Students and Staff Discuss Meal Plan Concerns," Margo Lipschultz). For the sake of easier math let us assume the new board plan will cost $3000 a year. There are about 13 board weeks in each semester, which is 26 board weeks per year. For a 21-meal plan, this is 546 meals per year, for the 14-meal plan, 364 meals, and for the 7-meal plan, 182 meals. The 14 and 7-meal plans also include $200 and $400 in flex dollars per semester, or $400 and $800 per year, respectively.

Now let us assume for the sake of simplified economics that these flex dollars came to the students as a large rebate check, as opposed to a debit account usable only in dining halls, snack bars, and on-campus convenience stores. This would mean that the cost for a 21-meal plan remains $3 000, the cost for a 14-meal plan is reduced to $2600, and the cost of a 7-meal plan becomes $2200. A little bit of long division shows us that the 2 1 -meal plan has a per-meal cost of approximately $5.50 (rounding to the nearest nickel); the 14-meal plan costs approximately $7. 15 per meal-, and the 7-meal plan an astonishing $12. 10 per meal.

Even assuming we could purchase further meals with flex dollars at $5.50 apiece (an additional 73 meals for the 14- meal plan and 145 meals for the 7-meal plan), this gives us an average cost per meal of $6.90 and 9.20 for the 14- and 7-meal plans respectively.

Compare the $3000 cost of each of these meal plans with the expected cost (at $5.50 per meal, plus flex dollars) of $3000 for the 21 -meal plan, $2400 for the 14-meal plan, and $1800 for the 7-meal plan. One must wonder how this is an improvement over the old system. While those who choose 21 meals per week do indeed save about $200 over last year, those who choose otherwise seem to be paying dearly. It is true that we have more choices, but is it truly at a lower cost?

-Andreas Orphanides, College junior