Because of the way the site works, I can't simply edit in an addition, it'll show up more like an addendum, which makes sense.

How's this for addition text?


Another issue that has been repeatedly raised by many students is the timing of this new rule. This decision has been implemented by McMaster well after most students have already signed residence agreements, and many have already purchased fridges. A modification to the residence agreement such as this should have been given appropriate notice and most certainly should have been presented to the students in advance. At the very least this should have been presented as a change coming into effect in the 2011-12 school year. Many have suggested that this late implementation was an attempt to avoid an appropriate discussion process, especially as the IRC has stated that they were neither informed nor consulted on this decision. Regardless of the reasoning, this was certainly an inappropriate level of notice, and regardless of whether this new rule will indeed be implemented after due and proper process, it most certainly should not be until the 2011-12 school year.




It's not great, I write much better when in snark mode.

Any polysci or lit majors want to offer a re-write? Thanks a ton.

Really glad I'm not in res this year. Last year, my fridge and my roommate's fridge were constantly full. Sharing would have been impossible 0_o. Late nights, my fridge was my only source of food, not to mention all the times I wanted real food and not the commons food I was forced to eat thanks to the meal plan. And I never would have paid to rent one when the cost is so high comparatively.

Ok, I've added a section about the timing of the new rule to the petition, so I think it now addresses pretty much all the concerns I've seen raised so far.

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

I think the petition is kind of focusing on the wrong issue. What it should be addressing is the fact that the university didn't mention this until after everyone signed up for residence, and therefore shouldn't be implemented until the 2011-12 school year.

It isn't that McMaster wants you to have a Coldex fridge, it's that they would rather you not have a fridge at all. I think the probable reasons behind why they're doing this are pretty valid.

Well, McMaster clearly didn't take a look at the economics of the situation.

I'm gonna take a wild guess that since almost all residence students are angry about this, residence students consider a fridge to almost be a necessity. This means the price elasticity of demand for fridges is pretty inelastic.

Well, by banning all other producers of fridges, they are essentially reducing the number of producers to 1 - Coldex. This causes a decrease in supply, and when supply decreases, then quantity demanded decreases and price increases.

Well, the price increase is fairly obvious - it costs almost the same amount to rent a fridge as to buy a fridge. But what's really important is the fact that the demand for fridges is inelastic. This means any percent change in price causes a smaller percent change in quantity demanded.

I wish I could draw a graph, but anyway, although price increases, the quantity demanded will not decrease AS MUCH simply because the demand for fridges is inelastic! In addition, I've seen quite a lot of students here saying that they'd resort to breaking the rules and bring their own fridge anyway (just goes to show how much of a necessity the fridge appears to be for residence students, thus showing how demand is really inelastic!).

This means that not nearly enough students will skip buying a fridge, thus not having that much of an environmental effect, effectively throwing McMaster's argument down the drain.

Hurray for high school economics.

Originally Posted by TheCrucible

Well, McMaster clearly didn't take a look at the economics of the situation.

I'm gonna take a wild guess that since almost all residence students are angry about this, residence students consider a fridge to almost be a necessity. This means the price elasticity of demand for fridges is pretty inelastic.

Well, by banning all other producers of fridges, they are essentially reducing the number of producers to 1 - Coldex. This causes a decrease in supply, and when supply decreases, then quantity demanded decreases and price increases.

Well, the price increase is fairly obvious - it costs almost the same amount to rent a fridge as to buy a fridge. But what's really important is the fact that the demand for fridges is inelastic. This means any percent change in price causes a smaller percent change in quantity demanded.

I wish I could draw a graph, but anyway, although price increases, the quantity demanded will not decrease AS MUCH simply because the demand for fridges is inelastic! In addition, I've seen quite a lot of students here saying that they'd resort to breaking the rules and bring their own fridge anyway (just goes to show how much of a necessity the fridge appears to be for residence students, thus showing how demand is really inelastic!).

This means that not nearly enough students will skip buying a fridge, thus not having that much of an environmental effect, effectively throwing McMaster's argument down the drain.

Hurray for high school economics.

Goddamn I'm getting tired of this site screwing up when I post a response; here is round two at typing this out...

Anyway, I wouldn't say the demand for fridges is really inelastic. The majority of people bringing fridges to residence are doing so just because they're allowed to do so. Only a minority of that group actually bring fridges because they feel they need them. Jack up the price for renting one, and all the people that wanted them just for drinks say "screw it".

I think you're underestimating how lazy most students are . Not many people will go to the trouble of attempting to smuggle in a fridge. I know I sure wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

Goddamn I'm getting tired of this site screwing up when I post a response; here is round two at typing this out...

Anyway, I wouldn't say the demand for fridges is really inelastic. The majority of people bringing fridges to residence are doing so just because they're allowed to do so. Only a minority of that group actually bring fridges because they feel they need them. Jack up the price for renting one, and all the people that wanted them just for drinks say "screw it".

I think you're underestimating how lazy most students are . Not many people will go to the trouble of attempting to smuggle in a fridge. I know I sure wouldn't.

Ahh, well, I suppose you're right, considering I haven't lived in res yet and all I have to go by are these posts on this forum.

Either way, I'm still upset. I was hoping I could have brought my brother's fridge that he used during his undergrad, but looks like that isn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by TheCrucible

Ahh, well, I suppose you're right, considering I haven't lived in res yet and all I have to go by are these posts on this forum.

Either way, I'm still upset. I was hoping I could have brought my brother's fridge that he used during his undergrad, but looks like that isn't going to happen.

Well, we don't know yet. IRC is currently contacting Housing about it, so fingers crossed.

Originally Posted by TheCrucible

Ahh, well, I suppose you're right, considering I haven't lived in res yet and all I have to go by are these posts on this forum.

Haha ya. I'd say only a small fraction of the school knows about macinsiders, and only those who care about anything post.

Either way, I'm still upset. I was hoping I could have brought my brother's fridge that he used during his undergrad, but looks like that isn't going to happen.

Maybe you could disguise it as something. Maybe get a different box and pack clothes on top, telling the guys moving it it's a desktop computer and monitor underneath.

Brief update: I am meeting with IRC President today for a concerted effort on this from the MSU and IRC. You should hear more by mid-week.

I emailed the residence people when we were informed of this new rule, and this is the email I got in reply today:

"Thank you for your note. I appreciate your perspective on this policy matter and the timing of same. We thought long and hard about this and considered the potential impacts as you have described and took the decision to proceed."

First of all, I'm not quite sure what "the timing of same" means. Somewhat baffling.

More importantly, by thinking "hard and long about this," they have effectively acknowledged my complaint about how they should not be able to unilaterally change the rules on us and still "took the decision to proceed." They have provided no logical refutation of our complaints despite "thinking" about them.

I hope the IRC helps us get rid of this policy asap.

Originally Posted by McIntyre

Brief update: I am meeting with IRC President today for a concerted effort on this from the MSU and IRC. You should hear more by mid-week.

What were the results of this?

Maybe they're still arguing over it? That would be a good sign.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the school is going to take the most logical action and announce that the rule won't be in effect until next year, but they'll announce this after August 13 so most students will have already rented a coldex fridge if they wanted one for the year...

Expect an update tomorrow on the MSU Website. We are still in talks.

But then next year, you wouldn't be able to bring in a new fridge; effectively wasting the money on your own fridge and being forced to rent Coldex for how many ever years
In a sense, you do "lose" a bit more because now you have a fridge you can't use, though that can also be seen as a positive