The Cost and Quality of Food at ERAU University - Example

Abstract This document is a report that deals with the cost and quality of food in the university. ERAU University has been used to illustrate the realities that relate to the quality and cost of food in the university. Various kinds of methodologies have been adopted to gather the required data for this report. The survey is one of the approaches that have been used to gather details about the students’ feedback regarding their feelings about the food being sold in the campus. At the same time, the interviews with various stakeholders have also been used to provide information about the cost of food in the university. The report is divided into various sections. The methodology part gives details about the approaches used to gather the data that have been used. The facts section gives the real figures of the survey in relation to the various aspects being investigated. The analysis part of this report provides a detailed evaluation of the facts presented. Introduction Many cases of students expressing high degree of dissatisfaction have been reported in several universities and other institutions of higher learning. Many people will associate this with poor administration in these institutions. This has led to poor service delivery in very many institutions of this kind. From the findings that have been established in the past, one of the weighty issues relate to the cost of living in most campuses. Many will try to associate the increase in tuition and boarding fees to the overall performance of the economy. Nevertheless, it is important to investigate the variances that relate to the cost of living in the universities. In this report, the focus is upon an aspect of the cost of living in universities. This is about the cost and quality of food in universities. The food being sold in ERAU is not satisfactory in terms of quality and price. The healthy aspect of meals in such learning institution cannot be ignored at any point. One wonders if this university is aware of the significance of healthy meals to students. This is one of the reasons this report has been prepared in order to address some of the concerns as a way of improving the overall students’ life in campus. This report relies upon a number of secondary sources to expose the state of meals and their respective prices in this university. The main secondary source in this report is the online materials. Indeed this is used as a sample to showcase the state of affairs in other universities. Interviews and surveys have been conducted in order to gather the required information regarding this report. Having been in this university for the past few years, I attest that indeed the service provision in relation to catering services is not satisfactory. With the compilation of this report, I am convinced that the management will read it and seek to correct the current situation. The current situation is questionable in spite the fact that the management has consistently painted a completely different picture of the current state of affairs. Inasmuch as the management has related the increased cost of food in ERAU to increased cost of living, the quality of food is not proportionate to the price. Methodology General Overview of Research In this report, a lot of data was collected for computation. This data was collected in relation to the research problem in this particular research. The aim was to gather the appropriate information that adequately addresses the issue of nutrition culture in ERAU. All this is based on the link that exists between what people consume and who they actually are. From studies that have been carried out in the past, people cannot be any different from what they consume. This is expected to form the basis upon which improvements will be made in order to meet the students’ needs. Primary Sources The main primary source that has been used in this report is the online survey. Students were given a chance to participate in the survey regarding the food being consumed in ERAU. This survey was conducted SurveyMonkey. Through this platform, it is clear that those who participated most are students. This is expected because of their population. Secondary Sources On the other hand, a lot of secondary sources have also been used in this report. This will benefit from a range of sources. Some of the sources include the literature from other writers. These writers have explored a lot in this topic and therefore they present a rich content in relation to cost of food in universities. At the same time, questionnaires have been used to assess how stakeholders feel about this issue. Bias Position In approaching this research, I am concerned about certain issues. The first consideration is that I am approaching the entire research from the perspective of a student and a consumer at the same time. The fact that I am dissatisfied with the nature of services being offered means that I am likely to be a bit biased and this may indeed affect the quality of this research. In this case, I have minimized the level of biasness through selecting impartial data collection sources. For instance, using online survey presents an impartial feedback. Assumptions Another consideration in preparing this report is the assumptions. Where literature has been used, I have assumed that the universities that were used were operating in an environment related to what this university is operating in. At the same time, assessing the prices of food must be in tandem with the cost of living during that particular period under consideration. Constraints One of the main challenges during this research, just any other findings, is the representativeness of the sample used. As expected, the sample is supposed to be representative in any research involving sampling. In this case, there are doubts on the representativeness of the sample selected. Based on the population of students in this university, the number that participated is definitely very small. This could easily undermine the quality of this research. Facts The information that has been presented in this section has been used as the basis of the analysis that follows in the next section. This information relates to the data gathered both through the primary and secondary sources. This is from ERAU and other institutions of higher learning in the country. Other universities that have been used in this report include Arizona. In this survey the category of participants that has been well represented is the student body that is represented by 84.38%. These are students at different academic levels in ERAU. The staff of ERAU was represented by 9.38% while the faculty was represented by 6.25%. 0% was represented by a category referred to as others. Student Status During the participation, it was a requirement for students to specify their year of study. From that data, it is established that the following categories participated: freshmen, sophomore, junior, senior and post graduate. The participation per category is as follows: freshmen at 17.24%, sophomore at 17.24%, junior at 20.69%, senior at 27.59% and finally post graduate at 17.24%. Living Location There were two main categories of participants based on where they live. This is either residing in campus or off campus. The percentage of those students residing in campus was 31.2 while the percentage of those residing off campus was 68.75. In this question, all those who participated gave their feedback. In relation to meal plans, very few students had meal plans and this are most likely those who stay in campus. Money Spent This question was asked to assess the level of expenditure by students when they are on campus. In responding to this question, one participant skipped. From the data gathered, the largest percentages are those who spend between $5 and $10 on campus. This constitutes 35.48%. Those who spend less than &5 were represented by 6.45%. Those who spend $10-$15 are represented by 32.26%. Those who spend more than $15 on campus are represented by 25.81%. When students consume food off campus, the expenditure is a bit different from when they spend in campus. When they are off campus, a majority of the participants spend between $5 and $10. This is represented by 46.67%. Those who spend less than $5 are represented by 6.67%. Those who spend %10-$15 are represented by 26.67% while those spending above $15 are represented 20%. This shows some minor variations in terms of expenditure when on campus as well as off campus. Satisfaction This was aimed at providing data on the level of satisfaction in relation to the food sold in campus. From those that were surveyed, those who were strongly satisfied were 3.23%. Those who were satisfied were represented by 32.26%. On the other hand, those who were dissatisfied were represented by 48.39%. Finally, those who were strongly dissatisfied were represented by 16.13%. The trend portrayed shows that the proportion of those who were dissatisfied is higher than those who were satisfied. This in itself points to the fact that indeed service delivery in this university is wanting. Food Distribution Points There are several food distribution points in the university. As expected, the preference for various centers is determined by the quality and price of the foods served in those centers. In this case, the distribution points include the Student Center Food Court, the Landing Strip, Starbucks, Chick-fill-A, All you can eat Buffet, Einstein’s Bagels, and Propeller’s Café. From the data that was gathered, it seems like Starbucks had the highest frequency. This denotes that the center has very good service providers. Reasons for no buying There are so many reasons that have been advanced for not buying the food sold in a campus. This is a challenge to the administration and specifically the concerned persons in this issue to make the required adjustments to ensure that service provision is improved. Most of the students who do not buy from the campus have lamented quality as one of the concerns. Poor quality is one issue that is scaring students and other stakeholders to opt to purchase food products outside the campus. Another concern was off course the price of the common food products (Palacio & Theis, 2005). The complaint of the rising cost of food products is keeping many students away from food outlets in the university. Apart from considering improving the quality of food products, there is also need to diversify the various kinds of food in order to provide more food varieties for the students and other stakeholders. Health of the Food on Campus This is another aspect that was assessed in that particular survey. The question was framed to allow the participants express their feeling on the health aspect of the food offered in campus as opposed to those offered outside campus. Unfortunately, many believed that the food offered in the campus was not any better than that offered outside. Out of those participants who responded to this question, almost 78% believe that the food offered in campus is not any richer health wise as compared to that bought outside. The remaining about 22% are the ones who believe that indeed the food offered in campus is better in health. In relation to the meal plan, there are those participants who have meal plans while others do not have such plans. A meal plan communicates a lot in relation to how an individual consumes food over the week. In this university, the data collected indicate that the percentage of those who have meal plans is 43 while those who do not have a meal plan is 57. For those who have meal plans, it is easier to decide where to eat from at specific meal times. Those who do not have such plans are likely to be a bit haphazard in terms of where they choose to have their meals. Analysis While the section above was meant just to convey the data that was gathered from the survey that was conducted online, this section is meant to provide a detailed analysis of that data. The aim is to evaluate how the prices and quality of food in ERAU interact and the subsequent responsiveness to demand. The analysis is undertaken with the understanding that the student is the most important constituent of this university. From the statistics that have been given, it is clear that the students constitute the largest percentage of those who participated in this survey. Moreover, this analysis will be seeking to assess the authenticity of excuses provided by the management on the reasons for the increased prices. According to management, the increase in the prices of foods in ERAU is caused by increase in cost of living. Seemingly, this is debatable considering the fact that the prices of foods outside are lower than those offered in the campus, which is detrimental to the student’s options of feeding (Santora, 2003) Student’s Life The percentage of participants provides a lot of information. There is evidence of low consumption for younger students. This highlight the fact that most students are not used to the poor quality of food. It seems like most students come from good families and seemingly struggle to cope with this quality of food. From the trend that seems to be portrayed here, it shows that the more students stay in the university, the more they get used to this poor quality food. Junior and senior students seem to be the main consumers of the university foods. If the university cafeterias were serving quality food, the response could be easily detected by the freshmen (Strohbehn & Gregoire , 2001). They were expected to love this food from the time they are admitted. Level of Expenditure The degree of expenditure by students when they are on campus and off campus speaks a lot (Bolton & Shankar, 2003). The students seem to be spending more when they are on campus as opposed to when off campus. From the data provided, when the students are on campus, over 57% spend over $10. On the other hand, when the students are off campus, only 46% spend over $10 during the same period. Deshpande and collegues states that ( 2009), such variation highlight the fact that indeed the food sold in the cafeterias in the university is more costly than that sold outside. While on campus, the consumers are forced to consume lower quantities at lower prices for survival purposes and at the same time forced to pay for meals up front whether they use them or not. The Level of Satisfaction The level of satisfaction with the services offered by the catering department in the university is very wanting. The satisfaction in this survey deals with the prices, quality, serving, hygiene, comfort, etc (Sulek & Hensley, 2004). When these aspects are compromised by the catering department, the student will definitely be dissatisfied. From the survey, the students and other consumers are not satisfied with the services they are receiving. This data indicates that over 60% of consumers are dissatisfied. This shows that the quality of services being offered in the university by the catering section is not even average. While the percentage of those who are strongly satisfied is only 3.3%, the percentage of those who are strongly dissatisfied is 16.13%. This is a bit alarming considering the role played by this department in the university. In a university where stakeholders understand the significance of balanced diet and healthy meals, it is unfortunate to record these levels of dissatisfaction. This shows that there is need not only to improve the quality of services, but also carry out a rebranding program to clean up the tainted name of this entity. Healthy Status of Food Offered This is where students gave their opinion on their take on the food offered in campus. The perception that is created in the minds of consumers is actually based on the nature of services and the taste as well as the ingredients in the meals. From the survey, over 78% are not convinced that the food served on campus is healthier than that served outside. This means that 78% believe that food served outside is healthier than that sold in campus. This is quite alarming considering the expectation from stakeholders on the meals served in campus. Such meals are supposed to undergo various checks to ensure that they are healthy enough to be consumed in a learning institution. This is because students and other stakeholders ought to consume healthy food in order to perform well in their respective responsibilities (Qin & Prybutok, 2009). The Meal Plan The meal plan is essential for planning what to consume with respect to the need for balanced diet. This means that consumers can manage a balanced diet if they plan on what to consume. From the survey that was carried out, the percentage of students who have a meal plan is 43 while those without constitute 57%. From this data, there is likelihood that the catering section has not taught the student the need for such a meal plan. If the university would have carried out a comprehensive awareness campaign on the need to have a meal plan, those with one could be almost 90%. With such, it is easier to convince these students that the university is offering the meals that best meet their balanced diet. This is one of the indicators that indeed the service delivery of this institution is wanting. Reasons for Not Purchasing When those students who do not purchase food from the university were asked to give a reason in support of their decision, many concerns regarding the quality of food were once again raised. A large percentage of them decried the poor quality as the number one reason they do not purchase food from campus. This, according to me is not a surprise when discussing about our university. It once again beats logic to imagine that the quality of food being offered outside is somehow better than that being offered in the university. This being an institution of higher learning, the quality of food ought to be prioritized. This is because the stakeholders of the university are individuals who are learned and therefore quite cognizant of the importance of healthy and balanced diet. Therefore, when such response is given by the students over the quality of food, it becomes somehow funny that restaurants outside are in position to prepare healthier food as compared to the one being prepared in campus. Frequency of Purchase The frequency at which those who eat on campus purchase food also signifies something. It conveys an overall trend of purchasing which means that most of them simply buy for convenience. This is to imply that a large percentage of those who buy food from campus are motivated not by the quality of food being sold, but just for convenience. From the results about the frequency of purchase, almost in all outlets where food is sold on the campus the percentage of those who have never bought food in campus is the highest. Such results indicate that probably those who buy food in campus are driven by convenience. This makes a lot of sense when one realizes that many of those who purchase food in campus reside within the campus. As a result, they probably buy because it is easily accessible as they do not have to walk a long distance in search of food. This is becoming clearer that indeed the quality of food being sold in the campus does not meet the basic healthy living requirements. The university therefore must put in some measures to deal with this situation at hand. Conclusion and Recommendations From the survey that was conducted and in line with how the data has been synthesized, it is possible to conclude that indeed the quality of food offered in ERAU is poor. In addition, the meals are highly priced leaving many students the option of getting food from outside. The university ought to improve this situation that is forcing many students to prefer consuming food from outside. The university must first of all understand the importance of consuming healthy foods by both the students and staff. In addition, the management of the university ought to be aware of the financial constraints that students in universities face so as to adjust the price of meals appropriately. This is expected to be a completely new dimension being applied by the management as strategy of attracting students to buy food offered on campus. In order to effectively undertake this, the management of the university must design a rebranding strategy that will be used to turnaround the perception of students regarding meals sold in the university. This is meant to turn around the tainted name of the entity and design a new outlook. In the new outlook, the needs of students must be highly prioritized. References Bolton, R.N. and Shankar, V. . (2003). An empirically derived taxonomy of retailer pricing and promotion strategies. . Journal of Retailing, 79 (4) , 213-24. Deshpande, Sameer ,Basil, M. D. & Basil, D. Z. (2009). Factors influencing healthy eating habits among college students: An application of the health belief model. Health Marketing Quarterly,26(2) , 145 –164. Palacio, J. P., Theis, M. . (2005). Introduction to Foodservice (10thEd). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Qin, H. and Prybutok, V. R. . (2009). Service Quality, customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions in fast-food restaurant. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1 (1) , 78-95. Strohbehn, C. and Gregoire, M. . (2001). Innovations in school food purchasing: Connecting to local food.Journal of Child Nutrition and Management, 25(2) , 62-65. Sulek, J. M. and Hensley, R. L. . (2004). “The relative importance of food, atmosphere and fairness of wait”. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,45 (3) , 235-247. Santora, M. (2003). Food and man at Yale: Remaking college cuisine as a holistic experience. New York Times, p. A11 Read More