paul o' vendange

I can say that from my experience, which includes both sides of the swinging kitchen door, there is no comparison. It is true that a senior back of house member, i.e., executive chef will likely make more than a front of house server with same number of years experience, as the latter's salary is effectively "frozen" and indexed on the check averages, but most BOH folks are not executive chefs. Most places I have worked, from swank L.A. places (For Hans Rockenwagner, among others) to Chicago, FOH makes a killing over BOH. Egregiously so. When a bad night for FOH means less than $200, or roughly $26 an hour, and a bad night for BOH means, well, a bad night, as in no matter how slammed or fried we get, we're still pulling in $9-13 an hour, then, yeah, that blows. And lest one thinks the labor bullshit about BOH not getting paid for O.T. is just that, bullshit, think again - I worked for a since-closed up-and-coming joint for a then-up-and-coming rising star in the L.A. scene, who had the balls to drive around in the JAG daddy bought for him while he bounced - bounced, a month's worth of pay, at 90 hours per week. Forget no OT; more, no pay. Never paid the straight time back. And this is not unusual. As to whether this is a market glitch or not, tips do not come out of owner pockets, so they don't care. In fact, many places, placing servers on salaries and appropriating the tips to themselves, do doubly well. So, from a strictly capitalist viewpoint, no, there is no market glitch. They can get away with it because people will work for it. But from a social good standpoint, it blows. Utterly.

Yep, agree, the little cornichons/acid a good way to cut the richness. Didn't eat with mustard but will for Round 2... Here's what I made it with: 1/2 # rabbit legs (reserved from rabbit roulade earlier in the week), 1 duck breast, weighing about 2 oz; 1/4 # pork butt, the duck liver, which was a little over 2.5 oz; and an egg white, which was about 2 oz. Therefore, total meat and egg: about a pound. 9 oz. fatback. The other duck breast, I split lengthwise and pan seared with FL's "squab spice," which I had reserved from when I made the squab and figs, earlier last month. The squab spice consists of: cinnamon, coriander, clove, quatre epice and black pepper. So, the forcemeat spice ratio: for one pound of meat, 1/3 tsp quatre epice, 1/4 tsp black pepper, 1.5 tsp salt. I boiled a small quenelle and cooled to taste, and it tasted spot on, again, luckily. Merveilleuse!

On its way, Xan! This is actually the first terrine I have made, and luck of the draw, it really was very good. Pulled together from a few different folks - Madeleine Kamman gives a good description of proportions, and in the book, Soul of the Chef, Brian Polcyn's Master Chef Certification Exam, his duck terrine. Really nice to see the pink-seared duck breast with a luckily (luckily, as I guessed on spice ratios) well-flavored forcemeat, and the shiitake slices were beautiful. Rich, though!

After resting 48 hours, eating rabbit/duck/shiitake terrine prepared Friday with cornichons on the side. Marvelous.

Chicken saute with tomatoes, artichoke hearts, stock, tarragon, shallots. Rutabega/turnip/bacon gratin Aussie shiraz for now, when it's done, Jekel Chard. Still more (the end) of the peach lavender sorbet.

A robust goblet of a robust Aussie Shiraz.

Looking at my shelves, only about 30-40 total - but they include Escoffier, LaRousse, Bocuse, McGee, Keller, Peterson, Kamman, Child, CIA, David, Pepin, Soltner, Sokolov, Saulnier, Hazan, Dornenburg, Ruhlman... In other words, if I never acquire another, I will die before tapping these out. Well, of course, there is Ducasse, Girardet, Robuchon... Damn.

Chef, thanks for the Seattle heads-up. I love the NW and perhaps my family and I will end up there post-FCI. Cheers.

Lesley, CIA offers both an Associates and Bachelor's degrees.

Chef Fowke, thank you indeed for such an exhaustive, wonderful report. I am on a self-prescribed Bourdeaux tour these days, but my spiritual home is the Rhone, with Gigondas as king, and I have not had the wines you mentioned. Congratulations on such a successful event (and on your other ventures).

Classic rabbit/duck terrine (rabbit reserved when I made rabbit roulade earlier this week), garnished with seared duck breast, shiitakes, and pistachios. Cooling now for tomorrow, with toast points and an orange-bourbon glaze. Edited to reflect, that would be, er, shiitakes.

O.K., one more post. This is from Dan Barber's comments in the FCI article with him: "The FCI is a great example, as a lot of things are, that you get out of it what you put into it. And if you're the type of person who is going to be late to class, and not follow up on your assignments and you're only interested in some sexy presentations and the exciting later-level involvement, The FCI is probably not the school for you. "But it seems to me if that you can bring to it an excitement and a passion for learning at a time when you just have nothing else to do but learn…to me, I would LOVE to go back and do that again….I'd say if you're the type of person who puts a lot of energy and commitment and involvement to what you do, then it's a great, great environment in which to learn." Now, the beer.

I say we all get a case of pbr. And Steve, you have spurred me on to do such a thing.

Soba, c'est la vie. Simply my experience, which goes back to 1990. It is considerably different, and is not inaccurately represented from my empirical vantage point. But I am deeply surprised to hear that most associates in your firm are in it to pay off their undergrad and law school debt in 2, 3, or 4 years? I just did an empirical study, at my firm (granted, not rigorously statistical). 5 people asked, mix of established senior partners, new partners, young associates. "What do you think is the average time to pay back law school loans" [did not ask of these plus undergrad loans]: The consensus was a minimum of 10 years, and that at a huge monthly outlay. Enter family or other financial encumbrances, and that 10 can stretch to much, much longer (one did say, "8...but I'm just taking a stab"...but he is a senior partner and his school was paid for; another associate said she definitely thought the pay-out/pay-in ratio was only going to get drastically worse, therefore expecting much longer payback times). Anyway, I'm glad your experience and that of your firm's lawyers is different. Hell, may all people be thus satisified in their work. ---- Steve KLC - just for the record (god, this is beginning to sound like a trial for all of us, isn't it?), Dan was not one of the guys I spoke with. But he lists FCI as his education, as does FCI list him on their alumni page. Again, what you have had to say is valuable to me, and I leave (I think) this thread with much more than I have come in with. Edited to add: I agree with you wholeheartedly that the nature of the instructor matters above all else. Which is what led me, in a former iteration, to devote 1 1/2 years training as an uchideshi - literally, inside, direct student, a disciple, if you will, to a Japanese Aikido master. But then, that is most definitely another thread. Oh, and sorry, Steve, didn't fully answer you. We are coming en masse - wife, son, and 2 ridiculously oversized labradors - to NY. We shall see what happens after. We want very much to spend time in France.

Soba, most of the ones that "chewed them up and spit them out" were IT-intensive firms. I know, as I worked nights; one of them, in particular, I knew the young associates came in early morning and were there when I left, after midnight. And they were there on weekends. If they weren't, they were out. The other stuff, respecting the life of an attorney, has been my general observation (and apparently that of attorneys, at least in substantial number, judging from the profession's own admissions, which I referenced above). The vitriol was mine, and I regret the heated edge, as I said. But I stand by what I think to be an inherently flawed system which I believe values billable hours over professional growth, or job satisfaction. My main argument was that if we are looking at pay-in v. pay-out, in a strictly dollar sense, law school and the private culinary schools are not a universe apart (to say nothing of the "soft-variable" utility considerations, such as personal fulfillment).

Steve KLC, thanks for the reasoned thoughts, and Fat Guy, agree, it got out of hand; I regret my part in the vitriol. You have given much to think more deeply on, I honor your vast experience and for that I am grateful. Steve, I was a little unclear on your Dan Barber paragraph. I mentioned him as an FCI grad, '93, who is obviously doing well. And, unless I am mistaken, the school Michael Antony attended was the Ecole Superieure de Cuisine Francaise, which offers their bilingual program at 16,700 euros, or about $20,000, for the 9-month training program, offering the Ferrandi curriculum, the same one which FCI used when the Founding Chefs established the curriculum there, again, if I am not mistaken. As you have taught at FCI (and, your partner Colleen is an FCI graduate), the both of you would obviously know. Bruce Sherman, of North Pond, Chicago, also attended this program. I would agree that to draw from those we see on covers is not indicative of the many unknowns (or as yet unknowns); but I think this applies everywhere, in every industry (actors from the actor's studio who are headling movies, much less making a living, anyone?) and, in this world, whether one started out in the kitchen or paid for an education. Everything else aside, I think all that matters is sincerity of heart. Everything else is revealed for what it is, as the grind is too damned hard.

Is it really that low? I have an occasional day job (the arts market being what it is) at a mid-sized but certainly not top-shelf NYC law firm... and I happen to know that the first-years make over $100k/year. And I also know that this is not considered an extravagant salary in the biz. Of course, your figure may reflect the fact that there are way too many law schools turning out way too many lawyers and the business is so glutted that the median is being pulled down by the people who end up working for podunk practices in little midwestern towns. SlKinsey, yep, this is the median, not the mean, and looking at the U.S. Dept. of Labor website: http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm This is for recent grads, not the total lawyer workforce median, which is closer to tuition levels, mid-90's. Broken down, first year medians are even worse, if you want to work public sector. 34's. I think you may be spot on as to the statistical weighting of regional differences, except that there are less lawyers of any salary practicing in those areas. Read on, however: "If you go to law school, you will probably spend over $100,000... After graduating you will probably work a great many hours for a decent salary in private practice (the average lawyer's salary in the U.S. is about $40,000), or a great many hours for a poor salary in public service (prosecutors, for example, often make as little as $25,000). Frankly, if financial gain is your overriding interest, you won't enjoy law school and probably will not do very well...unless you go to an inexpensive state school, it can take 10, 15, even 20 years to pay off your law school loans " This is from Fairleigh-Dickinson University: http://alpha.fdu.edu/~peabody/pllawschool1.html I know one of the just-made (contract) partners in our firm told me he expects to be paying for the next 20 years. And he didn't betray a joke-smile (he did tear up a bit). My point is that I think it generally silly to say "it costs this much, and it pays this much afterwards...fools!" because this paradigm utterly dismisses other things besides money in the equation. Happiness and job fulfillment, as I said, for one.

Entirely Indulgent. My apologies: Oui, je sais, je sais. Où on peut trouver des médecins américains: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36504e116da1.htm Mais, vous avez Robert LePage aussi. Est-ce que vous avez vu son Hamlet? Mon dieu!

Steven - I know there are 100's of good schools nationally offering vocational training, in many different occupations (many of them here, in Chicago), and I think they are wonderful for the folks who want to go there and who would benefit. I know it was off thread, but I have always wished we could catch up with our cousins in other industrialized nations and offer a more institutional, national arts program (institutional in the sense that the content they offer, as opposed to what they offer, matters, and that they will survive any political regime or social paradigm). But then, that is the subject of another thread.

Lesley, I think we may have found a point of agreement. In the States, little is seen as a "social good," valued by the citizenry such that we support paying for it through taxes, to the same scope as a national or even regional <<l'école de L'hôtellerie-restauration>>, or a <<Centre national des Arts>>. It's our way, it's our social history, it's in our fabric. I bemoaned this at one time, mourned it and moved on (I wanted to see a National Theatre - Tony Randall has tried, and seems is valiantly pushing on).

Put alot into this dinner. Glass. Juice. Damn summer flu! (or the "schools thread," can't figure out which).

Fat Guy and Steve KLC: Gents - I am not as concerned about raw cost as I am about value. I know the difference, but thanks for looking out for me, as a $25,000 a year short-term intensive career changing program that smart college educated amateur cooks with the bug consider all the time is a snaky bastard of a devil, and we deluded claptrappers could sure use the help. As to the financial hardships endured by graduating entry-level cooks, c'mon, boys: Average legal tuition debt load: upwards of $84,000. Average monthly tuition repayment: app. $1000. Median annual salary, graduating attorneys: $52,000 Source: UW, for one. Any search on the web will yield the doleful stats. Forget doing legally altruistic, public work. The debt load more and more proscribes any idealistic choices, and almost demands entering the private sector, which leads to the next point. As to the delusions endured by the hopelessly misinformed: Fat Guy, let us in on the paradisical life led by young associates, will you, as I was under the distinct impression they instead largely stumbled, many doe-eyed and high of heart, into a circumscribed, life-destroying hell, and sadly discovered that any hope they had of contributing something of real value to their profession (much less their loved ones, or the world at large by doing their profession), irretrievably lost to the realities of the private sector track. A quick query on the web yielded the following on job satisfaction among young lawyers: "A third of the respondents reported that they were strongly considering leaving their current jobs, and another 31% were willing to consider it" ... In his article "Career Choice and Satisfaction in the Legal Profession", Mark Byers reported that the most commonly cited single reason for choosing a legal career is intellectual satisfaction, closely followed by the needs for social service and economic reward -- 'doing good and doing well' ... Today, considering the increasing disparity between income in the private and public sectors, the growing costs of a legal education, the plethora of attorneys, the increasing competition within the profession and the resulting demands for more productivity and specialization, it is no surprise that lawyers feel less independent, influential, well rewarded or intellectually stimulated in their work..." http://www1.shore.net/~cpdl/dissatishtm.html I can tell you that I have worked for many law firms. In many of those law firms, the associates were only so much chattel, and if they weren't willing to put in the 20 hour days, 7 day weeks (which you rightly pointed out earlier), they were out, and the next piece of meat was brought in. If they did survive, many turned into the miserable, burned out and wholly inhuman asshole partners that had "mentored" them down this flower-strewn path. I think that's tragic, and I hope this changes. I count many friends among them, many fine people, and I've seen many lost to a structure which destroys their sense of worth. In short, I find your arguments about the worthlessness and disingenuousness of schools, peopled in the main by deluded wannabes, misguided, to put it mildly. Steve KLC, sorry, I find in particular your "harsh chic" crap simply boring. Anthony Bourdain's got talent, and the compassionate spark to lead his razor. I go to him for "dose of reality" shots, thanks. Bottom line: We all make our fate, and we all live with it. I see no one here acting as proselytes for school, simply declaring their right to do what the hell they want to with their time, money and lives. School provides one avenue, not the only one; an avenue, however, which I for one find useful at this stage of life, as I've said. I intend to make the experience my own, knowing it's only the beginning. Late in the game? Expensive? Yes. But better than dying saying "what happened?" All of this can be summed up in three words: Are you happy? Oh, and long ago, in anticipation of this admittedly somber decision, I read voraciously, and did call a few chefs, older guys like me, graduates all of one of several of the "expensive/intensive career-changer" schools you spoke about, and all with brains and drive (again, being all "smart college educated amateur cooks with the bug"). They unequivocally said, yeah, it was worth it. They haven't given permission to use their names, so I won't; but two of them are doing very well, having won national recognition in Food & Wine, or by the James Beard Foundation. Many more who I haven't talked to are in similar company of career changers who attended these "elitist, amateur-diluted schools," as any look at chef bios will tell you (Blue Hill, anyone)? Edited for television

Jinmyo wrote: Actually, Steve, I was not sure what Jinmyo meant by the above. Sorry, should have been more clear and posted the quote. I am not sure whether Jinmyo means that wine sauces require butter, or that the butter technique used by Fish may have been at issue. For thickening, I agree butter is not needed, if starch is used as liaison, but agree with you and would use a bit of butter regardless - evens out any rough corners from wine acidity.

Has to be butter? Do you mean has to be the butter technique, or the recipe (or wine sauces require butter?). Presume you mean the former.

Actually, I spaced out and overlooked you were making a butter-based reduction. I would tend to agree with Aquitaine. Provided your reduction has proceeded enough (and not completely liquid - most of my wine sauces are almost a glaze by the time I "monte" la beurre), keeping the temp low (and steady), and carefully incorporating the cold butter chunk-by-chunk would probably do it.