At Davison Hall—or “Dave,” as many students affectionately call our campus’s only dining hall—a curious pattern has emerged: either your GET account is flourishing beyond expectations or your balance is dwindling far below where it should be. Where is the middle ground? Upon careful review, this troubling trend’s root cause has become clear: the College’s dining system, managed by AVI Foodsystems, has repeatedly failed to charge students correct prices for meals, leading to both over- and undercharges that create financial worries for some students.
Last semester, I noticed this odd trend; where many of my friends opted for single-item meals, wary of the prices, some carried trays piled high with pizza, pasta, and pastries. Somehow, though, the lavishly dining students’ balances reflected much more frugal habits, while the thrifty students’ sums seemed to display excessive spending. I began to keep track of my own and my friends’ purchases, comparing the totals from the month of November in our GET apps to the posted value of our meals and, upon review, more than one third of purchases contained pricing errors.
I limited the scope of my inquiry to items of known value—no salads or fruit—to ensure that price discrepancies could be accurately identified. Of 47 purchases I made, 16 were found to be erroneous, an error frequency of 34.04%. These inaccuracies ranged from minor discrepancies of a few cents to more substantial miscalculations exceeding $7 per transaction. Though some discrepancies resulted in undercharges, the overwhelming majority leaned toward students paying more than anticipated. The frequency of error was similarly reflected in the other accounts I audited and, while in my case the total sum of over- and undercharges only amounted to a few dollars in the month of November, some students were not so lucky. One account was overcharged by $62.63 during the 4-week period, amounting to an overcharge of 10.23%. Over the course of a 15-week semester, a similar rate of error would result in the student having a 7.56%—approximately $235—deficit in their dining funds.
When I informed this particular student of my findings, they expressed surprise. “I thought I had less money than I should have had,” they told me, “but I didn’t realize it was that much.” I asked them why they hadn’t questioned some of the totals in the moment, especially when I noticed a $5.99 surplus charge on a single purchase of a 16-ounce fountain drink, and they commented that “I didn’t think it would be an issue. They typed [my purchase] into the register and told me to swipe, and I assumed it was the right amount.” This student, like many others in their position, resolved to eat less in order to save money. “College is already so expensive,” said the same student, “I don’t want to have to call my mom and tell her I’m out of money… It’s already a lot of money just for me to go here.” No student should have to choose between a balanced diet and a balanced budget, yet that is exactly what is happening. Some students—who largely rely on meal plans as an essential food source—are being forced to skip meals entirely as a budgeting strategy.
On the other hand, some students begin ordering excessive quantities of food once they realize the fullness of their accounts—a misguided attempt to “game” the system. Knowing that their funds will not carry over to the next semester drives many students to purchase much more food than they need or want, leading to perfectly good food going to waste. This creates a stark contrast: while some students feel compelled to ration or go hungry, others are throwing untouched meals in the trash simply to avoid losing their dining funds.
I met with Esther Reed, Resident Director of AVI Foodsystems, in November, to discuss my findings and review the itemized list of my purchases for the month. Some errors were straightforward: an extra $3.99 for an unordered piece of chicken, or a $0.10 upcharge for a 12-ounce drink confused for a 16-ounce. Others were more perplexing. On November 20, I purchased the Cajun Turkey Breast ($4.99) and Teriyaki Tofu ($3.99). I was charged twice for the turkey but, more curiously, I was charged an equivalent $3.99 for popcorn in lieu of tofu—an item that was not on the menu. After initially attempting to isolate the issue to a single cashier—although it soon proved to be a problem on a systemic level—Reed outlined the service’s plan for addressing and resolving the discrepancies. “We are working through an intense re-training program for all of our cashiers,” she told me, continuing that the new semester would see more managers in the dining hall “to spot check cashiers through the day to be sure we are catching any opportunities to coach our team.”
Unfortunately, despite these assurances, the inaccuracies have persisted into the new semester. Of 33 purchases (which, once again, excluded items of uncertain value) made during the 11-day period between January 21 and 31, 8 were found to be incorrect—nearly one in four. While this is an improvement from November, it is not nearly enough.
Rather than addressing these inconsistencies by implementing transparent checkout procedures—such as receipts, clear pricing displays, and verbal price confirmation—AVI has controversially chosen to tighten control over student meal plan use by instituting ID checks. This measure, ostensibly intended to limit misuse of dining funds, has instead subverted many students’ only recourse for securing meals once their balances run dry. Borrowing a friend’s card has long been a last-resort option; however, the new ID checks effectively prevent this practice, abandoning students without any safety net when they run out of funds. This new policy does not fix—or even acknowledge—the systemic issue of pricing inaccuracies. Instead, it further restricts students’ ability to eat on campus, worsening an already-frustrating situation.
Overcharging isn’t just an inconvenience—whether intentional or not, it is a form of exploitation. Students who run out before the end of the semester must purchase supplementary “Hawk Bucks”, their financial vulnerability acting as yet another lucrative revenue stream for the College and AVI. For many students, the first indication of a problem comes when they find their meal plan balance unexpectedly depleted or, in rarer cases, surprisingly full; by the time they identify errors, it is too late to resolve them.
If you notice that you have been charged inaccurately, contact AVI Foodsystems as soon as possible. Ask for your total at the register before swiping, and advocate for yourself. These
discrepancies at Dave are not just small errors—they are symptoms of a much larger, systemic failure; AVI’s mismanagement of meal pricing continues to create financial stress and unnecessary barriers for students trying to access meals. And, until these problems are truly addressed, students will continue to pay the price for a broken system.