Lesley C

Well back up a bit there Steve. Sure all the top chefs swap staff all the time. But how do you get that first big break? Here in Quebec (I'm not sure about Canada) it's most likely from your cooking school teacher because the courses are in French, so the networking between the hotel school here and two and three star restaurants in France is quite strong. Once you get your first big "in" the rest is up to your performance in that restaurant. This is even more so, I think, in France where chefs really encourage you to leave after a year and work your way to better restaurants. In Quebec, and I'm just guessing in the States, chefs like to hold on to their staff. When I worked in France my chef called his friends at Fauchon, Belin, Pelletier etc. to find his crew jobs at the end of the season. But my cooking school teacher got me that initial break. Also, those foodservice/hotel type positions that stipulate a degree are highly coveted because the salaries are so high and they come with benefits. I've seen good chefs decide to work in cafeterias and hospitals after years of busting their buns for little pay in fancy restaurants, especially in the early nineties when the economy here was so bad and hotel restaurants were still good.

Hmm. It all depends on the professional experience and the school. Two years at the Olive Garden would be little (or no) help getting you a job at Jean-Georges, whereas 2 years at a reputable cooking school might. Then again, two years working for Michel Bras would get you into that Jean-Georges kitchen faster than 2 years at the CIA. Then again, you probably wouldn't get into the Michel Bras kitchen without some sort of recognized cooking school on your CV. If I were hiring a pastry assistant, I'd probably go for the kid who went to school. If he/she only had two years pastry experience from some shop or restaurant on his/her CV, he/she might only be able to recreate what they did on the job. Of course this is all hypothetical. In the long run you hire the person who you want to spend 12 hours a day working alongside.

slkinsey, superb wrap-up. But I'm not so sure about the bit about cooking school educations not particularly highly valued in the professional world. I ran into many students in professional classes that were only there to get certification because jobs in hotels and many institutions required a diploma. Also in France, you just don't run into that many chefs who didn't get their CAP (Certificat d'Aptitudes Professionels). In Quebec and France, professional cooking school diplomas are government documents. When I graduated from cooking school, I received a second high school diploma from the minister of education. This doesn't seem to be the situation in the States. For instance, a CIA diploma has no government ties or public education credits. Is that correct?

Hi Patrice, Can you tell us more about the dessert tasting menu, number of courses and such?

Well yes but they aren't any good. There are those cheesecake type places. But they haven't aged well over the years and the best one, Franni's, closed last winter. There's a Starbucks in its place .

Jersey 13, not to get too off topic, I'll PM you.

Right now if I wanted to go to a restaurant just for dessert, I'd go to Les Chevres. I'm not sure if they allow that though. Maybe guru or Patrice will enlighten us.

sandra, the majority of amateurs have day jobs and just don't have the time to dedicate to such a program. And most amateurs want to learn to cook, not necessarily learn to cook like a chef. You want to learn to cook like a chef but you don't seem to want to be a chef. I still find that a bit odd, certainly commendable, but c'est la vie. I still think you are the exception to the rule because a relaxed, primarily demonstration type course, is the norm for amateurs.

I never had a good meal at Soto. But I'm all for expensive sushi. I wouldn't even bother with the cheap stuff.

slkinsey is right. If I was condescending or arrogant I wouldn't have lasted a week as a teacher. The worst aspect of teaching amateurs is the lack of time and continuation. You just can't get that much done in a three hour class. Soba, the big difference between school and work is the way you spend your day. When you're in cooking school the program changes every day. At work it's the same routine day in and day out. Right after school, I started working in a terrific pastry shop. It was great at first but I soon realized we were just making the same things over and over and over again. After about three months on the job I knew my life would be wasted working in such conditions. The word tedious hardly begins to describe the life of a pastry shop commis. The learning stops real fast and then it becomes routine. I used to watch guys have cake icing competitions because they were so bloody bored. You know what it's like to spend every Tuesday of your life icing hundreds of birthday cakes, every Wednesday making hundreds of Fraisiers, every Thursday brushing corn starch off liqueur centers, or every Friday filling thousands of mini quiches, baking hundreds of tuiles, or rolling tens of thousands of cheese straws. I do, and that's not learning. That's torture.

That isn't necessarily true. I learned a hell of a lot at cooking school and I ran into a lot of bullshit artists in the work place. You just take the best of everything around you. Then, after about ten years of absorbing all the good stuff, you start feeling like you know something about this profession. Fresco, I don't drink beer, but I will go for a glass of rosé

Hmm. Well I guess it’s because I see cooking in two ways: home cooking and professional cooking. I remember a great French chef I knew who told me the minute he placed his toque on his head every morning he became a chef, and when he walked out and took it off, he was back to being himself. I’m married to a professional pastry chef who has never made a slice of pastry at home in the twelve years we have lived together. He’s very passionate about what he does, but he doesn’t see any need to bake at home after a long day’s work. When I taught pros I was very serious, very disciplined and very tough with the students. They thrived on it. When I taught amateurs I felt I was putting on a three-hour show. They seemed so demanding, which made sense considering the cost of the courses. Questions were endless but they were often happier to see me demonstrate than pick up a rolling pin. People were shy to jump in and time was short. And God forbid you skip the break. I grew to loath teaching amateurs because I couldn’t be honest with them. They paid to be in class, so how dare I tell them their tart looked like crap or their piping skills were laughable. You make comments like that to professional students all the time, in fact it’s essential to their progress. But with amateurs I felt honesty was often the worst policy. One thing that always drove me nuts in amateur classes was the wide range of interest in the group. I had some serious students in those classes who eventually went on to professional schools and careers as chefs. I also had people who showed up to class to find dates, chat and drink wine. I sympathize with serious amateurs because I’m sure they have a problem finding a course that isn’t a waste of their time. If the teacher tries to be tough in consideration of the serious students, the socializing students protest. And if you’re overly friendly, the serious students give you dirty looks. When you teach in technical schools you can throw kids out of class, send them to do dishes, or tell them their attitude sucks. You do your best to recreate a professional-kitchen atmosphere in class. With paying amateurs you have to be Emeril. Maybe this explains why serious amateur students are opting for schools like the Cordon Bleu.

When I went to cooking school I thought I'd be surrounded by privileged kids like me who had already traveled quite a bit and had grown up reading Gourmet magazine. I was shocked to see my class was full of kids who knew nothing about white truffles and extra-virgin olive oil but who decided they wanted to cook for a living because hospital cooks make a starting salary of $15/hour. I was soon to learn that kids like me were in the minority and the reality of the profession was people who saw cooking as a job, not a calling or a passion.

Actually most of those kids are pros today. And they were quite good and serious in class. They didn't know much about the finer points of gourmet food, but that isn't crucial for beginners. That comes up in more advanced classes. Beginners are busy chopping, making stocks, learning meat cuts and the like. Unless that education was started at home, how could you expect them at the age of 17 to know about cheeses other than mozzarella and Cheddar? And don't forget the majority of chefs aren't working in four-star restaurants and hotels. Not so in my experience. Chef recipes are a bit of an inside joke for food writers. There's an art to writing a proper recipe and I have never encountered a chef who knows how to do it (unless he or she is a cookbook author and was forced to learn). It's all a bunch of this and a bunch of that, quantities are sketchy and the recipe usually makes enough to feed 20. Chefs' recipes are also usually very time consuming and use ingredients or equipment home cooks may not have access to. Have a look at a pastry chef's recipe. It's just a list of ingredients, not necessarily in the right order, with weights next to each. The recipe usually makes huge batches and there is hardly ever a word of instruction underneath. I have hundreds of recipes from Fauchon and there isn't a single method in the bunch. There's a reason Pierre Herme works with your friend Dorrie Greenspan, and my guess is that it isn't all about translation (though I'd hope by now, as a prolific cookbook author, Herme can write a recipe designed for an amateur chef).

Well if your local vocational schools are crap, then you obviously have to look for alternatives. A plastic lobster doesn't sound too good, but I wouldn't like to see a bunch of beginners ripping those babies apart without a proper demo on that plastic lobster first. You can't say what's good for each person but you can help people guide their energies into a program where their time is well spent. For people changing careers, time is crucial because they want to get back on the work force ASAP. I don't think it matters much how well you can cook before you go to cooking school. Even those with extensive professional cooking experience who enter cooking school (usually for professional certification) must attend class, go through the motions and pass all the exams. I've noticed classes where the experienced students are quickly surpassed by the people who have natural dexterity. The field evens out after about a month. The best thing you can bring to cooking school is knowledge about food. I was shocked at cooking school to be surrounded by kids he didn't know the difference between Brie and Stilton. But they probably still don't.

Agreed, it may be a bit of an exaggeration to say it would get her nowhere. But a school like La Varenne would get her somewhere a heck of a lot faster. I'm a food writer who attended professional cooking school, but I'm in the minority. I've met a handful of food writers who attended professional cooking school and few who followed their years in professional cooking school with years of experience working as a professional chef. Is it a good idea? Yes. Is it the best option? I don't think so. Of course cooking school is a great asset for a food writer. I told this person to attend one with her specific career goals in mind. If she wants to be a food writer, she should attend La Varenne, as almost all of the upper echelon of female food writers in the U.S. have spent time at this school (look at their alumni list, it's a regular who's who of the food writing community). You won't learn much about recipe writing at a professional cooking school. In fact, you learn just the opposite, how to cook without using recipes. But at La Varenne you'll learn just that because there is an internship designed specifically for future food writers. As I have stated before, IMO, anyone who plans to be a chef should attend professional cooking school because the curriculum is designed for that person. If you have different goals in mind you should find the school best suited to your needs.

Oh and when you cut your finger at the publically-funded cooking schools in Quebec or France, they rush you to the local hospital and bandage it up for free. Of course, when you receive your first pay cheque working as a professional chef in Quebec or in France, you notice half your pay is deducted in taxes. You can't win them all.

Boy, this has turned into a very interesting and compelling thread. EGullet at its best. Reading through all these replies, I'm starting to believe the expensive cooking school is an American phenomenon. In Quebec there is no paying school that offers professional cooking training. Zero, none. If you want to pay to go to cooking school, you would have to go to the new Cordon Bleu in Ottawa, the New England Culinary Institute in Vermont, or sign up for a hotel management course that includes a short cooking module. But you would never get the quality of education, contacts, or facilities you would see here in the government-funded hotel school (which is presently being renovated at a cost of several million tax payers’ dollars). And in France, schools like LCB and La Varenne are frequented primarily by foreigners. I'll bet no one can name a famous French chef who attended LCB in Paris or La Varenne in Burgundy. These are excellent schools for amateurs or those interested in food careers (God knows, every top American food writers seems to have attended La Varenne), but hold little weight in French professional circles. That may be changing, but it was certainly the case 10 years ago. Last year I ran into an aspiring food writer who didn't know if she should enroll at the CIA, work for Charlie Trotter or attend La Varenne. I told her to run to La Varenne ASAP. Professional cooking school would have gotten her nowhere. La Varenne will open every door that counts.

Yes, but Julia Child never worked as a professional chef. In fact, that is her forte, that is what made her JULIA CHILD.

Everyone begins at cooking school as an amateur. In fact, many students who may have already worked in a professional kitchen are often told they have to re-learn certain techniques. As for the more advanced classes, there are usually pre-requisites for acceptance. For instance, I couldn't take my chocolate course until I passed two years of pastry and baking. Here in Quebec, professional cooking is a course that offers a high school diploma with a specialization in cooking. The cooking schools are free as are all tech voc courses such as hairdressing, mechanics, and wood working. The majority of the chefs who cook in the province went through that same -- free -- system. They don't even pay for their equipment -- including knives (though most students soon purchase their own). There are people from all socio-economic backgrounds in these courses. That includes ex-cons, immigrants who don’t speak any of this province’s two official languages, as well as recipients of welfare and unemployment insurance. Students range in age from 16 to 60+. Everyone is on the same footing, and everyone is taught the same basic program. They all must complete an exam at the end of each module (garde manger, pastry, breakfast, sauces, meat, fish etc) to be awarded a diploma. The basic cooking program is called "Institutional Cooking." These classes are geared to students who will end up working in hospitals and cafeterias. It's basic stuff and the ingredients used can be very low-end. But everyone must begin there. I can't imagine why anyone who would not want to be a professional cook could stand these classes, mainly because they are very time consuming. Once this step is completed, students can opt for specialized classes like Nouvelle Cuisine, Pastry for Restaurants, Catering, etc. Sure, many students drop out. BUT few and far between are the students who enroll in these classes who simply wanted to learn to cook. There might have been catering aspirations hidden in there somewhere and a lot of curiosity, but rarely a hobby-like interest (I consider anything you do outside your line of work a hobby). More often you run into kids who go into cooking classes who just aren’t sure what they want to do. If I could put my opinion in a very simple way, I'd say classes meant for professional chefs teach you how to work, how to produce large quantities of food. It’s only in the specialized courses that things get interesting. On the other hand, classes for amateurs usually get right to the heart of the matter -- teaching you how to cook. More power to you if you want to spend on classes at an elite school. My complaint is with schools that charge high prices for students who want to cook for a living. The entry fees are very high, and starting salaries are usually very low, which makes student loans almost impossible to repay. I want to make it very clear that I never chastised anyone for choosing cooking as a second career. I’ve have taught many students who have been to university or who have had already worked in another field (or both) and I admire the fact that they are following their dream. I've also always been a firm believer that a good cook will never be out of a job. The topic of this thread is “are professional schools for amateurs as well.” I still say no. If you want to learn cooking as a hobby, not as a job you intend to be paid for, you should attend a private cooking school, and by all means an expensive one if that is your will. That course should be as thorough and detailed as you wish. Students should be treated with respect and a firm hand, but I see no need for exams and stages at the end of such a course. If you intend to work as a professional chef, I think you should enter a vocational program, which doesn’t cost an arm and a leg, designed for professional chefs. There should be rigorous exams at the end of each module and recognized certification at the end of the course. If a student intends to follow a professional cooking class for strictly personal reasons, that is certainly an option. BUT I think their time would be better spent in a more focused program that didn’t include 30 hours of kitchen management, 20 hours of accounting, 20 hours of menu writing, 10 hours of hygiene, and 10 hours on tools and equipment.

Suzanne F, I don't think I've written anything offensive enough on here to warrant an apology. What's wrong with saying you people? I just mean "you people" the ones making the arguement. What's the harm there? And really, I have no socio-economic prejudices. I'm from Canada. Our social structure and government-funded institutions are very different than those in the States (I didn't say better, I said different). OK, I've made my points. It would be interesting for the sake of arguement to get the opinion of a few professional chefs in this debate which has gotten a bit hot under the collar. I, for one perhaps, still think it has merit. Edited, to keep the door open

There is no resentment. I have never met an amateur pastry chef who even comes close to professional abilities. I see no problem fostering talent; I've fostered plenty of young chefs and have taught hundreds. Have you? Anyway, I didn't think that was the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is whether cooking classes should mix future professional chefs and home cooks. My answer is still no. The type of training is not the same. It’s not about the quality of education. It’s about the type of education and the goal behind such courses. And a few answers to the rest of your arguments: You don’t have to be poor or struggling to be a chef, but professional cooking should be a profession open to those who might not have the funds or grades to attend university. These elite schools are off-limits for that group. And I have news for you, most Michelin-starred chefs are working to pay the astronomical bills they face in their restaurants. I’d go so far as to see these guys have to work even harder to pay the bills. That wasn’t my point. What I said was “you all say you can hold your own as good home cooks next to the pros, but I just don't buy it. You might have noticed that your brunoise is more perfect than the chef's brunoise, but all taken, the knowledge, experience and advanced technique just cannot be compared.” You can learn a great deal with a good teacher. But the technique gained through practice makes a great chef. Talent can only get you so far. Unless you are catering through your home kitchen, I don’t see how you would gain that kind of technical experience and practice. I just don’t understand why you think a home cook could ever face the pressures of a professional chef? Are dinner parties as tough to get through as the dinner rush in a restaurant? I’m all for personal satisfaction but how could you have real competitiveness without salaries and promotions at stake? And aren’t you just always competing against yourself? Inner city neighborhoods aren’t filled with people who have time to spend in a 30 week program learning to cook. Inner city neighborhoods are filled with people who could use excellent government-funded culinary schools to teach them how to cook professionally, not for personal, but professional gain. I agree that everyone deserves a great education, and that is precisely why I’m against elite schools like the FCI, CCI, CIA and LCB that feed off people who are forced to cough up thousands for a culinary education. (Sandra, you still haven’t told me how much LCB’s Grand Diplome costs.) The French apprentissage system is far superior, where a student goes to a state-funded school for a few weeks and spends an equal amount of time in a professional kitchen. These kids (some as young as 15) aren’t just there to learn to cook, they’re there to learn their future métier. Anyone can enter the professional world of cooking. No one is taking that away from you. I just don’t understand why a school like LCB would cater to amateurs and professionals at the same time. Sure, give the amateurs a kick-ass 30 week course with great teachers and fine ingredients. For the money you’re forking over, that should be a minimum. I’m all for it. But for the kids who don’t have a choice and who don’t have the money, open more public-funded professional schools with good teachers that focus on rigid rules, discipline, hygiene, management, food science, accounting, and cooking everything from hospital Jello to beef Wellington. Oh and there should be time spent in the dish pit (you learn a lot in the dish pit). I’m confused about something Sandra, in some posts you sound like you’re at LCB for your own interest, and in other posts you sound like you’re interested in working in a professional kitchen. Which is it?

OK, but some here are making claims that amateurs and professionals have equitable skills or should learn the same skills in the same schools. I say, completely false. I take pottery classes, but there is no way I'd compare my skills or intentions to those of a professional potter. And when people are dropping big bucks, they aren't supporting the profession, they are supporting elite schools that charge outrageous sums to teach people how to cook. Can someone here tell me how much the Grande Diplome sets one back?

Strict yes, brutal no.

Oh please It's called discipline, and it works. It also weeds out the people who might disintegrate in a professional kitchen.