Jump to content

gfweb

participating member
  • Posts

    12,113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gfweb

  1. Slightly off-topic, but not really... I remain amazed at how many chefs are willing to expose themselves on TC. Sure 100K is a big prize, but it ought to be clear to all by now that it isn't a random drawing and you have to be good and have a bit of luck to win it. By my count at least half of the chefs end looking like clowns each season. These people were predestined to be weeded out and went home with future bosses and patrons seeing their crapitude weekly. I'm sure a lender would check out anyone with TC on the resume before making a business loan, so it could hurt them that way too.

    I would be very surprised if very many (or any) chefs have actually hurt their careers by being on Top Chef—even the ones eliminated early. In contrast, the TC experience benefits far more than just the winner. In addition to Michael, I suspect that Bryan, Kevin, Jennifer, and Eli, have all done themselves a favor by being on this show. That's at a minimum; even Robin and Mike I. are probably better off, or at least no worse off, for having done it. It's true that there's an element of luck to this show, but there's an even greater element of skill. Michael, Bryan, and Kevin seemed to be the best chefs all season long, and sure enough, they're the ones who made it to the final.

    The bigger issue with Top Chef is that it requires a pretty substantial time commitment (I believe at least 6 weeks), during which you have little to no contact with your family and live in the equivalent of a frat house, your every move watched by a camera practically day and night. If you're eliminated early, you still have to stick around for the entire shoot. Those conditions, more than anything, are what keeps worthy contestants away.

    I think that you have drawn the line pretty accurately. South of Mike I they all looked pretty bad (except maybe Ashley). Over the course of a career, I could see missed opportunities adding up to the 100K they might've won.

  2. Slightly off-topic, but not really... I remain amazed at how many chefs are willing to expose themselves on TC. Sure 100K is a big prize, but it ought to be clear to all by now that it isn't a random drawing and you have to be good and have a bit of luck to win it. By my count at least half of the chefs end looking like clowns each season. These people were predestined to be weeded out and went home with future bosses and patrons seeing their crapitude weekly. I'm sure a lender would check out anyone with TC on the resume before making a business loan, so it could hurt them that way too.

    I guess the root of the problem is a lack of self awareness. How does one know when one sucks?

  3. looking at this as a general training question...

    Is it better to train somewhere with a single teacher or one with many teachers? If the single mentor is a good teacher with a wide breadth of knowledge, then that'd be OK; but otherwise the multiple teachers give broader knowledge.

    Looking at ROI, if I were going to start in the business I think that I'd do a lot of free labor in a lot of kitchens and take individual courses in areas that wouldn't be covered eg business law, culinary accounting/cost control, sanitation. They would come relatively cheaply compared to the full degree.

    Looking at goals...if the plan is to work in a kitchen and be a competent cook then any route would work if you worked hard, the cheaper the better. If a career in corporate hospitality is the goal then a degree of some sort would probably be a good idea.

    But what do I know? I'm not in the business.

  4. Perhaps, but to be fair throughout the series no scores were given when chefs were asked to go.

    My reading of the score would be that all the ICs wanted Garces, and probably 2 of the judges. And Jeffery was probably just adding some drama before voting for Garces. He isn't stupid after all.

  5. I am not sure what I think of this. Gotta test it.

    But I suspect that there will be a wave of protest saying that the old way is the best....well because it just is.

    I recall the fairly recent NYT piece on boiling pasta in minimal water and, even worse, adding the pasta to the water when its cold. There were any number of replies on eG saying that this had to be a bad way to cook and that the poster would never ever do it themselves.

    Similar posts in response to a method of cooking french fries starting with cold oil. Heresy and blasphemy!

    Not that every new way is better, or that one should believe everything that is printed, but without innovation there is no progress.

  6. I've not been to the philly Delfriscos, but I have been to the ones in DFW and have always been pleased. A shame it isn't good up here.

    My two nominees for worst steakhouse are both in DE. Conley-Ward (tiny ill-cooked portions and lousy service) and Sullivan's, which is a chain, I believe. Solidly mediocre.

  7. there are so many ways that these sorts of study can be misleading. The soda could be an epiphenomenon... a factor that is linked but not causal. For example fat hypertensive people try to lose weight by drinking diet soda. Obesity ad hypertension are both causes of kidney damage and the diet cola just a marker for the real risk factor. Another issue is that there are many different sweeteners of varying structure and presumably potentially varying effects on the kidney. The study did not appear to differentiate. If all were of equal renal risk then that is strong inference that they finding is an epiphenomenon.

    I have plenty of examples of bogus statistical correlation eg rock music and oil production...banana imports and genital cancer etc etc

    I'd wait for confirmation.

×
×
  • Create New...