On Monday night, Kresge Auditorium was filled with good-natured banter, verbal pats on the back, smiles, and even a hug. It was hardly the atmosphere I’d expected from two senior advisors to the presidential campaigns (R. James Woolsey on behalf of Senator McCain and Jason Grumet for Senator Obama) debating energy policy in front of a collegiate audience. Instead of outlining realistic policies and challenging the opposing viewpoint, both speakers steered the debate along a bland, albeit cheerful, tack.

Representatives from both presidential campaigns met on campus last Monday and were asked how their candidates would define success in the energy sector at the end of two terms as president. In spite of the night’s rhetoric about oil-free, renewable energy ambitions, their responses were surprisingly subdued.

This past Monday, I munched on a chocolate glazed donut and sipped on iced tea (lemon and sugar) from Dunkin’ Donuts. I had a $5 foot-long Spicy Italian sub from Subway after my 5.111 lecture. And after pistol practice, I grabbed a cheeseburger from the Cambridge Grill.

MIT stands among very few institutions in the nation regarding how it prepares its students for their future. A solid, practical education ensures that we can adapt and take care of ourselves after we graduate from college. Personally, I assume that such preparation includes the skills necessary for daily sustenance.

It is the duty of every institution to take measures to ensure the health and wellbeing of its students. While MIT does make significant efforts to encourage healthy living, it has yet to find a substantial solution to the issue of campus dining.

The Tuesday, Oct. 7 article “McCain, Obama Policy Advisors Debate Future of U.S. Energy” incorrectly quoted a Barack Obama surrogate as saying that Obama’s energy plan called for the removal of all energy subsidies. He supports the revocation of existing subsidies for oil companies — not for all companies.