When you read any study that is designed to address an issue, what matters is not only the recommendations made or the conclusions drawn, but the data collected and analyzed. When you question a study, you question the data and its analysis, whether it be a Harvard Business case, 301 project or Wall Street Journal piece. The data is everything.
When a study lacks the credible data to support its findings, you are likely to discard it as anecdotal, irrelevant or simply bias. Here in lies the obstacle our Student Government Association now faces.

SGA’s most recent self-promoted triumph, its Sodexo Quality Improvement Report, may in fact be one of its most meaningless works to date. With 21 pages packed full of recommendations and comparisons with other school board programs, the report is a huge effort in hopes of fixing the perceived problems with Dining Services here at Bentley, but the report has rather serious flaws.

While the report valiantly attempts to address what must be considered a hot button issue for students across campus, the quality and value of the food they eat daily, the report lacks what all government and private policy recommendations require: credible data to support the recommendations. While the project group that yielded the report obviously worked hard, its preference for personal anecdotes and conversations instead of a formal surveying of the student body is troubling.

Yes, we are thrilled to see SGA engaging students on the personal level, sharing Lizzy’s Ice Cream and getting personal feedback on the meal plans, but that cannot be the end of the data collection.

How on earth can any policy maker take a simple handful of stories and use that as the sole justification for change? While these anecdotes have a purpose, raw, large-scale data must be collected so decisions can be made for the Bentley community as a whole.

Take this hypothetical example: One student comments to an SGA senator that he prefers Dijon mustard to yellow mustard. That is all SGA apparently needs to advocate for a campus-wide change of mustard?

Could you imagine a company making changes to policies or operations off of the anecdotal comments of a single employee? The ensuing chaos of constant change would bankrupt just about any firm. Sure, people have brilliant ideas, but when you’re suggesting overall change to meal plans and food venues enjoyed by thousands, the suggestions of the few will become the reality of the many using SGA’s misguided approach. Business students at a top 25 business institution should know better.

Why did SGA not conduct a mass survey about food offerings on campus? Past successes with such surveys show that it is a worthwhile endeavor and would yield tangible, credit statistics from which to make recommendations. Even a survey that could be handed out at the public forums could have sufficed, providing the personal contact but with a standardized, valid method of data collection. If you don’t have valid data, you can’t have a valid analysis. Without credible analysis, your report is simply not credible.

Instead, SGA chose to litter its report with phrases ranging from “Many people” and “several students” to “most students,” etc. How many students does “many students” exactly imply? 20? 200? 2,000? If taken to the extreme, even the base assumptions of this report can be challenged. How can SGA say that Seasons’ quality is the top concern for students without being able to say exactly how many students view this as their top concern? Where are the percentages to back up anything substantiated by this report?

When Bentley administrators and Sodexo managers read this report, what possible conclusions can be made from such broad qualitative statements? In the end, these individuals will have no idea what issues are actually most pressing for students because there is absolutely no statistical backing to any of the report’s statements; time will be wasted, mistakes will be made and positive change stagnated.

At the end of the day, we applaud SGA for trying to improve the quality of a basic necessity that their constituents consume, but in rushing this report to completion, the vital step of valid data collection from the student body was a corner cut, and will ultimately doom this report to falling far short of its admirable goals.

If we take haphazard approaches to solving problems, the end result will itself be haphazard. We expect more from our Student Government. Don’t you?