SOUP, FISH AND EFFICIENCY

Nothing has been heard of the replies to that circular letter sent to students some time ago in an attempt to discover why more men were not eating at Memorial Dining Hall and Cafeteria. Perhaps the few men who still maintain interest in those eating places despaired of improvement and so did not trouble to reply. Or, perhaps the replies were unmentionable.

The Cafeteria, which has just closed, ends, one would judge, a not too profitable season, while the Dining Hall is serving something near one-fourth the number of men it served last year. If the management expects to reopen these restaurants next year, and to run them at a reasonable cost without loss, some improvement is necessary.

Even taking into consideration the thoroughly understood difficulties under which the places operate, it is hard to believe that they have been operated efficiently. The cost at the Dining Hall is not particularly low and the quality of food is poorer than that served in restaurants on the Square at the same price. The Dining Hall has failed to meet the competition which the Union, the various eating clubs, and the cafeterias on the Square have offered.

Criticism of the Cafeteria has been even more sharp. Men eat there only because of its location and its prices. The secondary quality of its foodstuffs, the poor and tasteless cooking, the very apparent inattention on the part of the staff and the student waiters to fundamental details of cleanliness, are such as only to be borne through the necessity of time and purse. And when for all this one pays only a trifle less than one would on the Square, the reasons for eating there disappear.

The two halls, run efficiently, would serve a definite purpose. One wishes that less reliance were placed on the fact that charges are put upon the term bill. Even this lure is forgotten when one is daily confronted with unpalatable food.