A skilled amateur cook

[mojoman]

Hello fellow foodies,

I did a search and did not find any threads that address my current query.

How do you define a skilled amateur cook?

Here's my proposal.

Level 1: Can follow very simple directions (such as Campbell's Soup or Top Ramen)...absolutely no knowledge of cooking terminology (e.g. saute) required.

Level 2: Can cook things like bacon and eggs without burning them or serving them raw (eggs may be overcooked to a foodie though)

Level 3: Can make a Sandra Lee menu

Level 4: Can follow a recipe with explicit instructions such as how to make chocolate chip cookies.

Level 5: Can execute any recipe cooked on a stove.

Level 6: Can execute any recipe cooked in an oven.

Level 7: Can make a good dish from looking at a picture with a description of the ingredients and techniques (e.g. "Dinner" thread)

Level 8: Can make a good dish by tasting in a restaurant, then experimenting.

Level 9: Can ad lib a pastry (sufficient understanding of the chemistry to make it up)

Level 10: Can look in a fridge and OK pantry and make something restaurant-grade without consulting any reference (i.e. knows basic proportions for pastry, bread, sauces, etc.)

By my "Richter Scale," I am a level 8. Feel free to add intermediate levels (e.g. Level 3a (Can make a Rachel Ray menu).

[andrewB]

Hello fellow foodies,

I did a search and did not find any threads that address my current query.

How do you define a skilled amateur cook?

Here's my proposal.

Level 1:  Can follow very simple directions (such as Campbell's Soup or Top Ramen)...absolutely no knowledge of cooking terminology (e.g. saute) required.

Level 2:  Can cook things like bacon and eggs without burning them or serving them raw (eggs may be overcooked to a foodie though)

Level 3:  Can make a Sandra Lee menu

Level 4:  Can follow a recipe with explicit instructions such as how to make chocolate chip cookies.

Level 5:  Can execute any recipe cooked on a stove.

Level 6:  Can execute any recipe cooked in an oven.

Level 7:  Can make a good dish from looking at a picture with a description of the ingredients and techniques (e.g. "Dinner" thread)

Level 8:  Can make a good dish by tasting in a restaurant, then experimenting.

Level 9:  Can ad lib a pastry (sufficient understanding of the chemistry to make it up)

Level 10:  Can look in a fridge and OK pantry and make something restaurant-grade without consulting any reference (i.e. knows basic proportions for pastry, bread, sauces, etc.)

By my "Richter Scale," I am a level 8.  Feel free to add intermediate levels (e.g. Level 3a (Can make a Rachel Ray menu).

←

...and what's the point of this?

[paulraphael]

The different levels should be associated with diffferent colored belts.

If you enter someone's kitchen and their belt indicates a higher level than yours, you have to bow.

[MattJohnson]

The different levels should be associated with diffferent colored belts.

If you enter someone's kitchen and their belt indicates a higher level than yours, you have to bow.

←

[cakewalk]

Hello fellow foodies,

I did a search and did not find any threads that address my current query.

How do you define a skilled amateur cook?

Here's my proposal.

Level 1:  Can follow very simple directions (such as Campbell's Soup or Top Ramen)...absolutely no knowledge of cooking terminology (e.g. saute) required.

Level 2:  Can cook things like bacon and eggs without burning them or serving them raw (eggs may be overcooked to a foodie though)

Level 3:  Can make a Sandra Lee menu

Level 4:  Can follow a recipe with explicit instructions such as how to make chocolate chip cookies.

Level 5:  Can execute any recipe cooked on a stove.

Level 6:  Can execute any recipe cooked in an oven.

Level 7:  Can make a good dish from looking at a picture with a description of the ingredients and techniques (e.g. "Dinner" thread)

Level 8:  Can make a good dish by tasting in a restaurant, then experimenting.

Level 9:  Can ad lib a pastry (sufficient understanding of the chemistry to make it up)

Level 10:  Can look in a fridge and OK pantry and make something restaurant-grade without consulting any reference (i.e. knows basic proportions for pastry, bread, sauces, etc.)

By my "Richter Scale," I am a level 8.  Feel free to add intermediate levels (e.g. Level 3a (Can make a Rachel Ray menu).

←

...and what's the point of this?

←

Well what's the "point" of this entire website??!?!? It's not unusual for people here to try to define something food-related in order to come to a better understanding of what it is.

I think levels 7-10 go beyond "amateur." For me, one of the distinctions would be "following a recipe" and "replicating a recipe on one's own."

[Dave Weinstein]

I'd move baking into a separate scale, but that's just me.

[Restorer]

I think the problem of comparing different cooks is much more complex than a simple scale of levels. At the very least, there should be separate scales for different styles of cooking, or types of skills. To follow the colored belt analogy, being a third-degree black belt in karate doesn't mean you know anything about jiujitsu.

Also, I can provide an example that doesn't quite fit into the scale. My grandmother doesn't cook, but can follow some simple directions to make, say, TV dinners. She can make drip coffee from whole beans without directions, but has so far refused to switch to the burr grinder/french press system she was given. Her ability to follow directions is limited, though, as anyone who has had her Christmas dinner knows - a precooked supermarket finish-in-the-oven dinner. Despite the clear instructions all over the package, she proceeds to turn the turkey to jerky, burn the mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes, and stuffing, and create rock hard rolls. The gravy and cranberry jelly were fortunately edible. I don't know if she falls under about a 1.5 or a 0.75, depending on how you quantify "very simple".

Also, I think there's a huge jump between levels 4 and 5, and I think 7 should go between them. It takes a skilled and experienced cook to make any recipe. Just look at the fried chicken cook-off thread and see how much trouble we go through to manage oil temperature for pan-fried chicken.

There have been threads on how to judge professional chefs that I think could provide some ideas for how to judge amateur cooks.

[Kim Shook]

I think the problem of comparing different cooks is much more complex than a simple scale of levels. At the very least, there should be separate scales for different styles of cooking, or types of skills. To follow the colored belt analogy, being a third-degree black belt in karate doesn't mean you know anything about jiujitsu.

Also, I can provide an example that doesn't quite fit into the scale. My grandmother doesn't cook, but can follow some simple directions to make, say, TV dinners. She can make drip coffee from whole beans without directions, but has so far refused to switch to the burr grinder/french press system she was given. Her ability to follow directions is limited, though, as anyone who has had her Christmas dinner knows - a precooked supermarket finish-in-the-oven dinner. Despite the clear instructions all over the package, she proceeds to turn the turkey to jerky, burn the mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes, and stuffing, and create rock hard rolls. The gravy and cranberry jelly were fortunately edible. I don't know if she falls under about a 1.5 or a 0.75, depending on how you quantify "very simple".

Also, I think there's a huge jump between levels 4 and 5, and I think 7 should go between them. It takes a skilled and experienced cook to make any recipe. Just look at the fried chicken cook-off thread and see how much trouble we go through to manage oil temperature for pan-fried chicken.

There have been threads on how to judge professional chefs that I think could provide some ideas for how to judge amateur cooks.

←

I have a similar example. One of my grandmothers couldn't cook at all. Anything she attempted was awful. Except for once a year. Her Christmas dinners were legendary. No variance in the menu - turkey, oyster stuffing, bourbon sweet potatoes and cheese stuffed baked potatoes. Other offerings at the holiday table consisted of canned peas and an awful fruit salad made with canned fruit cocktail and, of course, the obligatory brown and serves - often burnt. The last three dishes were up to her usual standard, but the first four were fantastic - and not easy things to make, certainly. Where would she fall on this list?

Kim

[slkinsey]

I'm with Dave. I think it's possible for someone to be an extremely advanced home (or even professional) home cook and not be particularly skilled at pastry and baking.

[andrewB]

Well what's the "point" of this entire website??!?!? It's not unusual for people here to try to define something food-related in order to come to a better understanding of what it is.

I think levels 7-10 go beyond "amateur." For me, one of the distinctions would be "following a recipe" and "replicating a recipe on one's own."

←

to define something food related is very much what this site is about. i just don't understand the relevance of trying to define one's self and their capabilities in order to better understand food and cooking. i think its a bit self inflating is all...

Edited May 29, 2007 by andrewB (log)

[srhcb]

I'd say that what defines a skilled amateur at any "level" would be the ability to improvise.

SB (pretty good improvisor )

[mrsadm]

Why would we attempt to define levels of amateur cooks, when there aren't good accepted levels of professional cooks? I realize there are some advanced - what do you call them - not degrees but certifications - given by passing exams (I'm thinking of the one given by the CIA, described in one of Michael Ruhlman's books) - but other than that, I've never seen a chef with a "rating".

[The Old Foodie]

Why would we attempt to define levels of amateur cooks, when there aren't good accepted levels of professional cooks?  I

←

I dont think we have to take this idea too seriously. I think it is a great idea for a thread - I am sure the idea is to provoke discussion, not end up with absolute definitions. Is it?

For myself, I am a sturdy 7, can sometimes manage an 8, and sometimes I wing it and turn out a decent impromptu cake (pastry I do pretty well for a non-professional I am told). So do I average an 8? .

To me, one major difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional is much more consistent in what he/she turns out, whereas the rest of us can have good-cook days and abysmal-cook days.

[melkor]

I think this is a great idea and should be expanded, 1 - 10 scores for each cuisine should be required in everyones signature on eGullet and the site should allow you to filter out posts from people who score lower than 8 on Dutch cuisine.

Seriously? Professionals can't agree on what makes a good cook or who is one, what purpose would it serve to segment amateur cooks? Some of the worst cooks I know can improvise better food than the Olive Garden serves, does that make them 10s? If you're a 10 do you get to wear a toque when you go to the grocery store?

[Lilija]

I could be a solid 9, if we subbed out pastry, and said "dish".

Besides the occasional pie, cake or cookie, I am no dessert maker. I can, but I choose not to, too often, so I don't focus on learning the science of it.

I can wing an entire meal, improvising, ad-libbing, and come up with something incredible and restaurant worthy. I think it's partially because I read so many cookbooks, I have a wealth of recipes memorized, and often the stuff I "wing" are hybrids of my favorites. I could even come up with some dessert, if you don't mind some mascerated fresh fruit, or booze, custard or some fresh whipped creamy something.

I also feel 9ish, because outside of advanced baking, I have a very good working knowledge of food science basics. Enough to make anything from an elaborate sauce from scratch, some awesome barbecue, a braise, casserole, stew, different soups, or whatever without a recipe, except for what's in my fridge.

9 trips me up, because of pastry. If I made pastries very often, I could probably be close to a 10.

As the ratings stand, I'm an 8.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Lilija (log)

[Daddy-A]

I'm with Dave.  I think it's possible for someone to be an extremely advanced home (or even professional) home cook and not be particularly skilled at pastry and baking.

←

Conversely, one can be a wiz at pastry, and be able to burn water. I've been witness to both.

A.

[hitmanoo]

This is a separate thing all together. There are some people who are flat out average cooks, with the exception of a few dishes at which for whatever reason they just excell.

Be it a family recipe, a special interest dish, what have you, the specific creation can be repeated and is with little exception consistant and delicious. However, stray from that comfort zone just a little bit, and it's right back to average at best...

I have a similar example.  One of my grandmothers couldn't cook at all.  Anything she attempted was awful.  Except for once a year.  Her Christmas dinners were legendary.  No variance in the menu - turkey, oyster stuffing, bourbon sweet potatoes and cheese stuffed baked potatoes.  Other offerings at the holiday table consisted of canned peas and an awful fruit salad made with canned fruit cocktail and, of course, the obligatory brown and serves - often burnt.  The last three dishes were up to her usual standard, but the first four were fantastic - and not easy things to make, certainly.  Where would she fall on this list?

Kim

←

[FistFullaRoux]

It's not where you would rate yourself, it's what others would rate you. Plus, as mentioned before, the ability to improvise. Why master pastry when there are so many options in the freezer section, or non-pastry items?

eta: There's also current practice and the ability to muster up any of these skills at a moments notice. I have made puff pastry from scratch before, but if someone bet me $50 that I couldn't do it right now, one shot? I would probably lose.

Edited May 30, 2007 by FistFullaRoux (log)

[doctortim]

I'd agree that the ability to improvise well is what takes an amateur cook to the next level -- both in terms of the skill and experience it requires but also simply in impressing people.

After a reasonably short time in the kitchen, it's possible to approach most recipes without being intimidated. The recipe might say to sauté a diced onion for 5 minutes until lightly golden, but you know enough to look at the pan and give them another 5... that sort of thing. Most people who are interested in cooking (rather than just cooking to get by) can do this, and improvise a bit around the recipes and the combinations they know.

To improvise a great meal from an unplanned selection of ingredients is more difficult. Of course whether it's truly improvisation or not is debatable -- I would argue it's still just experimenting with things you've seen or made before, only with a few more years under your belt and more experiences and combinations to draw on.

[djyee100]

I don't think this a frivolous question, or even an ego-inflating (or deflating) question. After all, people who write cookbooks have to think about the skill level at which they are pitching their recipes--especially now, with basic cooking skills less prevalent than they were 30 or 40 years ago.

When I assisted cooking classes several years ago, I noticed the beginners were people who hadn't mastered the basic cooking techniques: boiling, poaching, and steaming; saute, shallow fry, and deep fry; grill or broil; and roasting. They were often uncomfortable with cooking, and inconsistent in their results. Proper seasoning with salt and knife skills were always an issue. In fact, their lack of knife skills frequently slowed them down and made them even more uncomfortable. I routinely advised them to take a knife skills class to improve their cooking!

Past the beginner stage, though, I noticed that people's skills were eclectic. They were comfortable with cooking, but they pursued the food that interested them, so they could be very skilled with some dishes and not so good with others. Some common problems still emerged at this (intermediate?) level: cooking with artichokes or fava beans; filo dough; risotto; cleaning shellfish; and whipping egg whites. Put a * next to "whipping egg whites." I wish I had a dollar for every student who showed up in class because he or she had tried to make a molten chocolate souffle, as viewed on the food channel, and flopped on the egg whites.

I don't know how I would define an advanced cook. Maybe you just know them when you see them. They cook just about anything, all the time, and it seems nothing fazes them. They're also very good at correcting their cooking mistakes on the run.

I agree with others that baking might be another animal in the world of cooking skills. I've known many fine cooks who were not good bakers. Yet all the good bakers I've known were also very good cooks. Don't ask me why.

[Pierogi]

After a reasonably short time in the kitchen, it's possible to approach most recipes without being intimidated. The recipe might say to sauté a diced onion for 5 minutes until lightly golden, but you know enough to look at the pan and give them another 5... that sort of thing. Most people who are interested in cooking (rather than just cooking to get by) can do this, and improvise a bit around the recipes and the combinations they know.

←

I'm not so sure. I think it depends on the "creativity gene" right/left brain thingie. Which side of the brain goes with what, sorry I don't remember the wiring right now. It's late, and it was a long day at the factory.

But.....my best friend is an accounting graduate. Works in computer programming and went back to school for a math degree. VERY which-ever-side-of-the-brain logic goes to. Me, I'm a liberal arts major, took one college-level math class and ran SCREAMING from any more.

Her take on cooking......"why can't they be more clear? What's medium heat? How brown is brown? What's small dice......why can't they give us dimensions in inches or millimeters?" Me.........I just *know*. It's intuitive. For me. Not for Vicki.

Me, I'm probably a 7.5 on the OP's scale. I'm good, but don't trust myself w/o instructions and/or guidelines. I really really need to work on that........

eta, final thought...I hate when I keep thinking after the fact.....

Edited May 30, 2007 by Pierogi (log)

[mojoman]

The constructive points are well taken. I guess what I was getting at was:

1. What are the core skills to develop to become a good home cook?

2. In what order did those of you who are skilled home cooks develop them?

It was not about rating myself...that was a poorly conceived construct on my part.

As evident from my "rating scale," I developed/am still working on the ability to prepare:

a. Super simple boxed foods first (you might have to measure a couple cups of water and boil it).

b. Simple no-recipe dishes like bacon and eggs (requires essentially no knife skills, easy to tell when done)

c. Fairly simple recipes requiring several raw ingredients (requiring the use of a knife and more of a judgement about doneness)

d. More complex recipes requiring several cooking techniques

e. Recipes where you "season to taste" (no specific quantities given).

f. Pulling odds and ends out of your fridge and making something tasty with several cooking techniques

g. Recreating a dish you ate without the recipe (requires you to identify ingredients, determine what techniques were used to cook, order of cooking, etc.)

h. etc.

As someone said, one of the main differences between a pro and a home cook is consistency. On a good day, I have done all of these and on a bad day, I can overcook an egg (soft boiled). And, I'm not sure if e and f are in the right order but sometimes I undersalt a dish because I'm afraid to ruin it by oversalting and you can always add more salt at the table.

Pastry and candy are totally different animals and, I agree, I should not have included it in the construct.

So, what skills do you think you've developed and which ones do you need to work on? What skills have been hard to develop?

Edited May 30, 2007 by mojoman (log)

[Prawncrackers]

I think there is a point somewhere in this thread! There is a distinction between technical skill and great food. Everyone would agree that great food doesn't necessarily have to involve great skill by the cook. Great food comes from knowledge, experience and maybe a little talent. The first two come with time and we all have the third in varying quantities (relatively speaking of course). Indeed, I've chosen these three qualities but there are undoubtedly more. The skill of a cook merely facilitates these aspects. This is a truth that’s bears out when you think that the most skilful professional chefs can still produce a plate of food that you find unappetising. Brilliant technical skills are valuable but are not the be all and end all to producing good food.

Having said all that... it is obvious that a certain level of skill is desirable and the desire to improve ones level is too. But there are just too many facets to cookery to measure it quantifiably. For example, I could prepare from scratch a Chinese banquet but I've never cooked myself an Indian curry that I've ever enjoyed (tried many times but can't get the balance of spices right!). I can fillet most fish and butcher most meats confidently but I'm hopeless at puff pastry (I'm alright at sweet paste though).

So on your scale I'm between somewhere between a 4 and a 10

[paulraphael]

As an amateur I have a limited amount of time to practice compared with someone who cooks or manages a kitchen and plans recipes all day. So I have to choose between being a jack-of-all-trades/master-of-none and being more of a specialist.

My inclination is that I'm not interested in bothering with cooking unless the food is going to be great, or at least interesting. So I lean in the specialist direction. I usually choose projects one at a time and work on them for however long it takes to nail them.

So my repertoire is small, and it grows very slowly. There are a few categories of food that I feel I've mastered to my satisfaction, a few that are in progress, and a few that I haven't touched. So there are some things I can improvise with a lot of confidence and little thought, some things that are more of a learning adventure, and some things that will force me to lean over a cookbook like a beginner.

And there's another set of choices involving complexity. Some people equate good food with impressive food--which often means complex food. I find from eating out that it takes a pretty high level chef (many notches above my usual price range) to put together a whole repertoire of food that is both complex and good. And personally, I find complex, impressive looking, but mediocre tasting food to be a major letdown.

So with my limited time resources, I focus on the simple, direct, and delicious. Working with fewer ingredients and flavors to balance can cut months off of the time it takes me to develop a recipe. I'm just as happy to dispense with the flash, learn something simple and tasty, and move on to the next project.

These kinds of choices must be common even if they aren't always conscious. And it means that assigning a skill level to someone won't necesarilly reveal what they've mastered vs. what they haven't even tried.

[The Old Foodie]

The constructive points are well taken.  I guess what I was getting at was:

1.  What are the core skills to develop to become a good home cook? 

2.  In what order did those of you who are skilled home cooks develop them? 

It was not about rating myself...that was a poorly conceived construct on my part.

As evident from my "rating scale," I developed/am still working on the ability to prepare:

a.  Super simple boxed foods first (you might have to measure a couple cups of water and boil it).

b.  Simple no-recipe dishes like bacon and eggs (requires essentially no knife skills, easy to tell when done)

c.  Fairly simple recipes requiring several raw ingredients (requiring the use of a knife and more of a judgement about doneness)

d.  More complex recipes requiring several cooking techniques

e.  Recipes where you "season to taste" (no specific quantities given).

f.  Pulling odds and ends out of your fridge and making something tasty with several cooking techniques

g.  Recreating a dish you ate without the recipe (requires you to identify ingredients, determine what techniques were used to cook, order of cooking, etc.)

h.  etc.

As someone said, one of the main differences between a pro and a home cook is consistency.  On a good day, I have done all of these and on a bad day, I can overcook an egg (soft boiled).  And, I'm not sure if e and f are in the right order but sometimes I undersalt a dish because I'm afraid to ruin it by oversalting and you can always add more salt at the table.

Pastry and candy are totally different animals and, I agree, I should not have included it in the construct.

So, what skills do you think you've developed and which ones do you need to work on?  What skills have been hard to develop?

←

Maybe the way to think of this is that each of your 10 steps are not one-after-the-other progress, but more like individual skills that you "tick off" - so that your "7" might have a different mix from my "7".