The_Rambler_1976-05-14

              STATE ONIVEKSn* .
OOLIEGE Of- T K H N m
farmingoaie. w j m -
hnM ly ynr Maidatiry Actiiity Fn is distribitii ly the %M
VOLUME 46
NUMBER IS
MAY 14, 1976
CLINTON DINING
HALL SURVEY
WE WANT FRESH FRUIT"
The Food Processing Tech-nology
sophomores, as part of
their course work in FT-204,
Quantity Food Production,
worked in the Clinton Dining Hall
this spring. Aware that there has
been dissatisfaction with the
college food service in the
'residential halls, the students and
Mrs. Julie Rae Friedman, Prof.,
Food Tech Dept., decided to
survey the students to determine
specific complaints about the
meals and to solicit suggestions
with the aim of improving the
quality of food.
A survey form was drawn up
using qustions they felt might be
helpful in determining specific
needs and requests of the students.
The form was devised so that the
answers could be placed on an
IBM answer sheet and computer
scored. The questionnaire
contained 160 questions -
admittedly a long questionnaire -
yet pretesting led to the belief that a
relatively short time was needed to
answer the questions; over half the
questions only required a **like",
"dislike" or "don't know this item**
response to a list of foods. The
other half attempted to determine
student's opinions of serving
hours, cleanliness, quality of the
food, etc.
Su IV cy forms were diftributed at
lunch in the Clinton Dining Hall
on Thursday, March 11, 1976, by
the Food Tech. students who
explained the purpose of the
questionnaire. An explanatory
letter had previously bMn sent to
the KA's and posted in the
dormitories. Posters were made
and hung in the dining hall
entrance so that students would be
aware of the survey. The
cooperation of the students was
excellent - many came over and
requested forms before they were
eveti handed out. Interest was high
and many students offered written
coiniDcnts in addition to
completing the survey form.
Because of the length of the form
and tlie limited time some students
have at the lunch hour, some SO
students did not complete the
entile questionnaire. The results
being reported here in percentages
are c omputed on the basis of the
percentage of students responding
to .1 particular question; thus, the
opinions of those students not
completing the entire question-nan
e were included for all the
qiK-stions they answered.
Written comments were
solicited as well, and many were
received. Many students indicated
that they hop^ the questionnaire
w«>uld lead to better food.
ANALYSIS
I he questionnaire was answered
by 363 students, in full, or in part,
or these, 60% were freshmen, 37%
sophomores and 3% special
studenu. All but 9% were between
the ages of 18 and 21. They were
divided evenly between females
(49%) and males (31%). AU but 3%
were citizens of the United Sutes.
A flve^ay naeal plan seemed to
be the most popular as 71% held
these, the otiMf 29% hold a seven-day
meal plan. Slightly more than
half of the students living in the
residential halls leave the campus
on weekends.
BRKAKFAST:
1. Serving Hours: (6:30 a.m. to 9:05
a.m.) were considered too short by
56% and adequate in length by
42%.
Thirty percent of the students
regularly go to breakfast. 26% go
fairly often while 29% seldom eat
this meal and 14% never do. Of the
students who seldom or never eat
this meal, 50% said they skip it
because they would rather sleep
later, 10% said their schedule
didn't allow it, 29% said they did
not like the choice of breakfast
items offered and 11% dont like to
eat breakfast.
Almost 70% felt that there was
no delay in service for this meal.
Written comments indicate that
the problem is not one of duration
of the meal period, but the hours
chosen; many requested a later
breakfast schedule.
2. Percentage results for preferred
foods at breakfast were as follows.
Percentage indicates those that
liked the food item.
91% Fresh FruiU
87% Juices
85% Doughnuts
81% Cold Cereals
80% Coffeecake
79% Hot Chocolate
77% Eggs
71% Canned Fruit
66% Bacon
63% Biicuiu
62% Toast
59% Sausage
54% Hash Brown Potatoes
51% Pancakes
44% French Toast
38% Hot Cereals
Written comments appeared to
bear out these figures. French toast
was described as "awful", "soggy"
and "has brown specks in it."
Pancakes are "too thick", "maple
syrup is too thick", "ustes bad"
and is " u n b e l i e v a b l y gross."
Scrambled eggs should be made
fresh. Asked for more fruit.
Lt'NCH:
Lunch at Clinton is served from
11:00 to 1:15 and is served from
four different lines: ( I ) hot food
line, (2) hamburger - hot dog line,.
(3) soup and sandwich line, (4) low
calories and sandwich line. There
are a number of choices, especially'
since students have a wide choice
of sandwich fillings and breads.
Over 80% of the students eat at
Clinton regularly. The majority
felt that the lunch hours are
adequate. Almost 80% like the
hot line/sandwich line system.
The amount of food at lunch was
considered adequate by 62% and
appropriate by 53%. Over 70% felt
that they had to waid too long to be
served at this meal.
Over half of the students at one
time or another had eaten the low
calorie lunch, but only 8% eat it
regularly and 18% said they ate it
fairly ohen. One might question
whether this is because the low
calorie choices are not popular or
whether students are not
concerned with weight control.
(4) Precentage results for preferred
sandwich fillings at lunch were as
follows. Percentage liked:
7S% Anierican Cheese
70% Swiss Cheese
68% Ham
64% Tuna Salad
63% Peanut Butter A Jelly
56% Bologna
55% SaUmi
54% Chicken SaUd
50% Corned Beef
50% EuSaUd
?7% Liverwurtt
18% Pimento Loaf
From these results it would seem
that liverwurst and pimento loaf
are not popular and other
s a n d w i c h f i l l i n g s o c u l d be
substituted occasionally: • roast
V . .
beef, turlc^ and pastranu might
prove popular.
(5) The percentage results for hot
lunches were as f o l l o w s.
Precentage liked:
69% Pizza
67% Spaghetti
67% Hamburgers
h6% Soup A Grilled Sandwiches
64% Cheeseburgers
59% Macaroni A Cheese
Hof Beef Sandwiches
'^ft'^o Barbeque
S4% Sloppy Joes
53% Hot Dogs
53% Pepper Steak
47% Chow Mein
41% Beef Stew
^5% Beef * Chicken Pies
32% Chicken Croquettes
30% Reuben Sandwich
21% Planution Shortcake
Bevenigct: Milk (41%) and soda
|(40%) were two most popular
'beverages at lunch. Coffee or tea
received approval by only 7% and
fruit drinks by 2%.
Dtsaarls; (Lunch/Dintr) - The
perceniafe restihs for dtMVtt were
u follows. Percentafe liked:
86% Fresh Fruit
85% Ice Cream
79% Cookies
71% Canned Fruit
69% Apple or Other Fruit Crisp
65% Fruit Pies or Tarts
65% Jello
64% Cream Pies
61% Puddings
56% CusUrd
56% Cake
DINNER:
Dinner is served at Clinton
Dining Hall from 4:30 to 6.00 p.m.
with two choices of entree, a low
calorie dinner and a vegetarian
dinner being offered. According to
the survey, 75% of the students eat
dinner, regularly at Clinton, and
15% eat there fairly often.
Dinner hours were judged to be
adequate by 46% of the students
with a majority (51%) feeling that
these hours were too short. Written
comments by several said the hours
are too early and should be
extended until 7:00 p.m.
ooaL
THREE FACULTY
MEMBERS WIN AWARDS
A l b a n y , May 6—State
U n i v e r s i t y of New York
Chancellor Ernest L. Beyer has
announced selection of 87
SUNY faculty members for
$500 Chancellor's Awards for
Excellence in Teaching
This is the fourth year in
which Sute University has
recognized teaching excellence
and innovation by providing
o n e - t i m e cash awards to
p r o f e s s o r s selected by a
University-wide committee and
r e c o m m e n d e d by u n d e r -
graduate students, faculty and
administration at the 64 State
University campuses.
C h a n c e l l o r Boyer looks
u p o n the r e c o g n i t i o n of
superior teaching through th^
awards announced today and
t h r o u g h other University
p r o g r a m s , s u c h as D i s -
tinguished Teaching Professor-ships,
as among the most
important achievements of hi$
tenure. The programs support,
a belief expressed in Dr.
Boyer's inaugural address that
excellence in teaching is the
h a l l m a r k of a u n i v e r s i t y 's
success.
Most of the 15,000 full-time
faculty in the State University
are eligible for consideration
for a Chancellor's Award for
E x c e l l e n c e in T e a c h i n g.
Faculty who have completed
only one year of full-time
teaching are eligible. Criteria
f o r s e l e c t i o n include easy
a c c e s s i b i l i t y to s t u d e n t s,
constructive attempts to help
s t u d e n t s a t t a i n a c a d e m ic
e x c e l l e n c e , d e m o n s t r a t ed
mastery of teaching techniques,
and scholarship in a field or
discipline.
T h e S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty
Research Foundation provides
the funds to support the
Excellence in Teaching award
program. The project is one of
many Research Foundation
p r o g r a m s w h i c h s u p p o rt
scholarship, research, training
and allied activities by SUNY
faculty members.
Chairperson of the joint
c o m m i t t e e which reviews
nominations for the Chan-cellor's
Excellence in Teaching
awards and for Distinguished
Teaching Professorships is Dr.
M a r i l y n n S m i l e y , d i s -
tinguished teaching professor
of music at the College at
Oswego.
This year's Excellence in
T e a c h i n g h o n o r e e s f r om
S.U.N.Y. at Farmingdale are:
Dr. Harold J. Highland,
chairman of data processing;
Dr. Stanley L. Lamberg,
professor of medical labora-tory
technology; Dr. Philip
Silverstein, professor of dental
hygiene.