COLUMN: A reality check for residences

From Roberto Mantaro Samaniego's, "Kill the Octopus," Fall '98 From Roberto Mantaro Samaniego's, "Kill the Octopus," Fall '98WARNING: This column contains explicit violence and gratuitous Economics. Discretion is advised. Specifically, there appear to be many shortcomings in the plan to increase the number of graduate associates. Applicants are too few, the current selection process is inadequate and GA compensation will be inequitable -- all problems that could have been avoided had GAs themselves been consulted from the start. First, some background. Broadly, GAs are graduate students who live in undergraduate dorms, providing academic and general support. Their compensation is a package of free housing and five weekly meals, valued at about $6,900, according to the Office of Academic Programs and Residence Life. The lack of applicants is a simple matter of economics. The University demands a fixed number D of GAs every year: D = "demand for GAs." Naturally, applications will increase if GAs are better rewarded, so supply S is nice and upward sloping. Simple. D and S cross at the "market wage" W. If GAs are paid $W, exactly D applications are received. Historically, the number of applicants A exceeded the number of positions, suggesting that actual GA compensation was more valuable than W. Paying GAs more than W is prudent because a surplus allows administrators to screen out undesirable applicants via rigorous interviews Suppose demand for GAs increases to D*, as required by reform. Provided D*