Is Zesty Orange Chicken (Or Any Chicken) the Remedy to Seated Meal?

by Catherine Zhang ‘26

Short answer, no. 

Long answer, chicken parm might be the short-term relief, but no chicken is a long-term corrective. 

The problem with seated meals is not just the food; it is that our current system contradicts its community-gathering goal. I assume that there are several purposes of seated meals: first and foremost, a great opportunity for the whole community to get together; second, allowing people to build connections with others, ideally people outside of their regular social circles; third, ensure sugar intake because chocolate chips are only good during seated meals. 

In reality, if you sit in the main dininghall, your advisory is likely to cluster at one end of the table, while staring at another advisory. Food is often depleted before you even have a chance to dig in. It’s loud, boisterous, and you can barely have a conversation without getting interrupted by others. Small dining hall, in my opinion, except that some of the tables are tilted, is the best place to be in. But if you sit in Hinkle, you will likely have to cram yourself in such a limited space, constantly worrying about hitting the person behind you if you move your chair, or even just finding a way out. Finally, if you sit in the hallway, you benefit from being able to dismiss early, but you feel secluded from everyone else. I mean, who wants to eat in the hallway? 

And those are just the issues with the space, not to mention the limited food options and lack of proper utensils (sometimes). Let me draw the lines, though. I am not a hater of seated meals. I appreciate having the opportunity for the whole community, but I think the execution does not meet its purpose. 

So what is fundamentally paradoxical about seated meals that causes grudges in the community? 

The issue is, if we are claiming that we are an “intentionally small” community, why do people still have to sit in the hallways? If we are prioritizing fostering community connections at these events, why do we still end up talking with people in our advisory? And of course, why are we served with either fried chicken nuggets glazed with some sauce or braised beef most of the time? 

As for the first matter, that is up to the administrations to decide, which will certainly have to come with major changes at St. Mark’s. But what I am suggesting is that we need to re-imagine the spaces we have for dining. At least, provide a cozy, not-overcrowded setting for people to catch up, to talk, and to connect. A community is only stronger when people care for one another, and in this case, an undistracted conversation starter will do the job. 

Second, there needs to be a new system of table assignments if we are hoping to make community members interact with each other, especially people with whom they don’t normally interact. One promising solution can be putting everyone’s name (faculty included) into a random group generator of 47 groups (that is how many tables we currently have during seated meals), with some advanced setting of a number cap for each group according to how many can sit at a table and rotation throughout the year. There will be awkwardness and discomfort at first, but it will help spark conversation and foster new relationships. 

Finally, there needs to be a balance between community input on meal choices and dining service. It is hard to satisfy everyone’s taste buds and personal preferences, but the dining service can improve the situation by taking in more suggestions from community members, thus diversifying the menu. Ideally, there should be more food options, which depend on the dining service budget.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the idea of a seated meal or its purpose. But this longstanding tradition at St. Mark’s needs better execution as we move forward. If we truly believe in the power of a small community — not just the idea of it — then changes are necessary. Because right now, we are gathering the whole school together just to sit apart.