<p>Do colleges make money off dining halls and student housing? If so how much do they usually make if you were to make a ballpark estimate?</p>
<p>Typically schools contract out food services. They then sell meal plans to the students and they pay the food service vendor a per meal rate. For instance, your meal plan may equal out to $7 a meal and they may pay the vendor $4 or $5 a meal, keeping the difference.</p>
<p>Pinnum, where did you get the data on how much vendors are paid for meals?</p>
<p>But most college meal plan are all-you-can-eat and most college students eat plenty. Do the school still make profit on meal plans?</p>
<p>And what about housing? Is housing profitable like football to colleges?</p>
<p>I rather suspect that my daughter’s university is coming out ahead on dorm rooms by charging a pair of roommates about $2000/month for 180 sq. ft.! </p>
<p>But I also think that’s the wrong way to look at this issue. If housing and dining bring in more money than they pay out, that “profit” just offsets a “loss” in some other area of the university, such as disability services or maintenance of classroom buildings.</p>
<p>The commuter meal plan that my child has works out to just over $8.00 each meal. Not bad considering that an equivalent all-you-can-eat would be miles from campus, and would probably come to more than that with taxes, etc.</p>
<p>However if this “meal” is converted into snacks at a campus snack bar, it’s value is $5.60, and that value is used up at once. Run your bill over $5.60, and you are sacrificing two $8.00 meals for $5.61 in snacks.</p>
<p>So yes, someone is seeing a profit. Probably the company that has the contract with the university. For now my child is under orders to only use the meal card for real honest-to-goodness meals in the dining hall, and cash or a credit card at the snack bars.</p>
<p>The contractors have to be making a profit, or they wouldn’t operate at that campus. But I don’t think this is a big money-making area for schools. That said, it is important to their bottom line that they have high participation in dining plans. The overhead costs of building and maintaining the space need to be spread out over a lot of customers.</p>
<p>Most schools I’m familiar with simply aim to break even on dining and housing services. They don’t want these areas to be a drain on central university resources, but they don’t look to turn a profit, either. Typically, however, room and board fees generate a small surplus over annual operating expenses to create a revenue stream to fund capital improvements in housing and dining. The University of Michigan, for example, is in the middle of a program to renovate all its dorms, one per year; 2% of annual room and board fees are set aside for that purpose.</p>
<p>Remember that any meals not used are are sacrificed, giving that money to the school. As far as the vendor goes, think of them in comparison to all you can eat resteraunts with the difference being that they are not responsible for infastructure. Their payment does not include facility rental fees like a resaurant would have to include in their pricing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the school factors a certain percentage of unused meals into the price it charges for the meal plan, just as it factors in a certain percentage of bigger-than-average eaters. So it’s really just a cross-subsidy: light eaters and meal-skippers are partially subsidizing the chowhounds. It drove my D1 crazy as a petite vegetarian with a light appetite that she paid just as much per meal for her salad or peanut butter sandwich as the hulking athletes who would gorge themselves on meat at every meal, often going back for seconds or thirds. It got her off the meal plan by her second year.</p>
<p>Bclintonk, you are confusing the food vendor with the school. There is a distinct difference and the vendor is the one that determines how to price to cover food costs while the school (under most agreements I have been privy to) are the ones making the money off skipped meals.</p>
<p>I think that the schools contract out the food, which is how the vendor makes a profit. The school probably about breaks even. But that is a complete and total guess.</p>
<p>UW Madison does their own and makes a “surplus” which is retained as a reserve to update and renovate the buildings and equipment.</p>
<p>So basically, no there isn’t that much profit being made on meal plans. </p>
<p>And what about housing? Does housing make the school profit at all?</p>
<p>I’m just wondering why some commuter schools push for students living on campus. I don’t think it really makes the students more studious. It probably does the opposite. Is the “student life” really that important to the school? I guess it allows intramural, sports, clubs and student organizations to have more events and do more things. That may help the students grow as an individual and meet people.</p>
<p>It sounds to me like schools build on their student life just to attract students who might go to another school. That money could better be spent on more important thing like more elaborate student activities, more professors and courses, special guest speakers, new building and facilities, higher quality equipment, library support, study abroad programs. It doesn’t have to be all research support but research is what drives the “prestige” of a school. </p>
<p>I don’t get why struggling schools try to get rid of a commuter campus name. Does it really matter if layman think a school is all that because it has housing…the only people that matter are grad schools and employers…not billy bob from the local Cheeseburger joint.</p>
<p>trolololololololol</p>
<p>On campus housing can be owned and operated by the school, the school’s foundation, an outside firm, or a combination of any or all of them.</p>
<p>As far as making money, it depends on the school and the model used. It does help to build a campus culture and help with retention rates which help school rankings. Also, if we are talking about the US News rankings, student housing, and the money spent on housing, helps to raise the school’s rankings. </p>
<p>Your questions are pretty narrow and it sounds like you’re upset about having to live on campus. All freshmen should in my opinion and I prefer schools that do not have a commuter culture and where students all walk to campus. But that is only based on my knowledge of many schools, student success, and campus finances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is likely that the majority of college students attend commuter schools – community colleges and local state universities. However desirable (including academically) a residential college experience may be, it appears to be considered an unaffordable or unattainable luxury by many.</p>
<p>Though many say it is a luxury they can’t afford, I am of the opinion they pay for it either way. They just don’t know the value they are missing by attending a school that lacks such a culture. </p>
<p>Note: that isn’t to say I don’t think community colleges are not a great option and a useful tool for saving money. But I do think that a community college, coupled with a local commuter school to finish the degree is a very poor choice. Community College in one year is idea.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, many college students either do not share your opinion, or do not have the choice because they cannot afford the residential college experience (but can afford to commute to the community college or local state university). Also, non-traditional students may already have established lives (e.g. work, family) that may not fit well with moving into the freshman dorm. Yes, they may be giving up something by commuting to a commuter school, but is that necessarily worse than not even being able to go to college at all, if all of the college options were more expensive residential colleges?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not everyone has other realistic choices, even if they wanted to go to a residential college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many 4-year schools that accept significant numbers of transfer students from community colleges prefer them to come in as juniors – i.e. after two years’ worth of courses at community colleges.</p>
<p>Funny, you mention the student’s views on value since that is what started this thread. But we all know that most students are not educated consumers and are not prepared to evaluate ROI. You’re kind of making leaps if you think anyone advocates non-traditionals moving into freshmen dorms.</p>
<p>Yes, not everyone has those options but a lot do. Also, a lot of people see very little utility from their degree within the first year or two of graduation, due in large part to these short term views on making the best financial choices.</p>
<p>Yes, four year schools prefer to accept community college students that have completed an associates degree, and I agree with them. However, I find that most students that turned down a four year school to attend a community college could complete their associates in one year. Start by taking summer classes after high school graduation, take 18 credits both semester, take winter break class and summer classes and transfer in the fall. The assumption being that they are near a large community college campus and not a small regional one that has limited offerings. But the financial aid that is offered in one year is not enough to justify delaying progress on your degree, or the prospect of summer work is not enough to justify delaying entering the workforce a year earlier, making a higher wage, after spending two or three years in residence at a quality academic institution.</p>
<p>But to each their own… I just prefer the kids I know that have used community college as a money saving stepping stone to the Ivy League and Elite Liberal arts than I do to the kids who spend three years at a community college then go to the local university and simply complete their classes.</p>