Are professional schools for amateurs as well

[Lesley C]

Note: This topic started as an offshoot from the Girl Cook thread.

I've often heard that about Cordon Bleu. And I know a few rich girls who went over to London or Paris before university to learn how to cook.

[sandra]

I've often heard that about Cordon Bleu. And I know a few rich girls who went over to London or Paris before university to learn how to cook.

While this is true, is there anything wrong with it? Is there a reason why someone who can afford Le Cordon Bleu should not go to LCB to learn to cook, wether for their husbands or themselves?

There is nothing that says you HAVE to become a chef after gradutaing LCB, just as there is nothing that says you have to become a historian just beacuse you majored in History at university....

[Suzanne F]

Yeah, there's a huge dose of reality. That excerpt shows that it's not only male graduates of big-name culinary schools who have pokers up their . . . whatevers. And that "girls" can have lousy attitude, too.

(That said, I will probably read it -- from the library -- when it comes out. Not gonna spend my $$ on that stuff.)

Sandra: right on. People all have their own reasons for going to culinary school; none is "more valid" than any other, and none means that the school is good or bad.

[Lesley C]

Sorry Suzanne F, I do not agree.

Certain cooking schools are geared towards training professional chefs, while others teach people how to cook. Not the same at all. If you went to Le Cordon Bleu expecting something you didn't get (for a pretty penney) you certainly would walk away disappointed. When I went to professional cooking school, we didn't learn how to make one apple pie, we learned how to make six. When we made stock, we made gallons of the stuff not a single pot, and when we made chocolate truffles, we made 300.

Get it?

[malachi]

There are different programs at LCB.

My memory is that she is very explicit about the fact that she was in a program that (while perhaps not truly designed for wealthy housewifes-to-be) was attractive to a non-professional audience.

[sandra]

I still don't understand why a housewife to be cannot have the same training as a chef, is she not worthy of chef training b/c she will not work in a restaurant?

At LCB we have made the 300 truffles, we have also tunnel boned 55 pigeons at one time for a special dinner, we have also learned to make endless litres of stock - we have also poached one egg at a time until it is perfect - all skills that would benefit anyone who wants to cook seriously, even a "just a housewife"

I'll probably read this book just so I can fume my way through it!

[malachi]

Your post implies that these "non-restaurant employee" students are being in some way denied full training when in fact the truth is that they are choosing to not pursue it.

To clarify -- anyone can choose to pursue the complete training by choosing the appropriate program(s). You are not required to then go into food service as a profession. It's just that certain programs attract a certain audience -- and that audience then chooses to sign up for those programs.

[Suzanne F]

So, Lesley, we disagree. The issue is not the quantity you or I learned to make, but the techniques or skills. Whether one cooks 500 gallons of stock or 5, the needed skill set is the same. One bones out a chicken the same way whether one is making ten ballotines for a hotel buffet or a company dinner for hubby and his boss.

If one went to LCB -- or any for-profit school, for that matter -- and did not get the training one expected, I cannot say that it was totally the fault of the school. It's not as though one is getting a free ride and can (literally) afford to take whatever they give. When I was looking for a school to attend, I look at four of them in NYC. I observed classes, I got copies of the curricula, I spoke to faculty members and students. I did not make my decision merely on the reputation or sales pitch of the school. I had a very clear idea of what I needed to learn, and chose the school at which I would have the opportunity to learn it. One, in fact, that has only professional programs. I had some classmates with a very different attitude; some of them were there because Mommy or Daddy or the State was paying to keep them off the streets for a while, or to make them employable. But I really don't care what happened to them; I got what I wanted out of the program I took, and that's all that matters to me.

All I'm saying, really, is that if one has done full research on the program before choosing it, there is no reason why one should feel short-changed. There is no "tracking" at this level; we choose of our own free will and our ability to pay. What one's fellow students think and do is immaterial to one's own experience and learning.

To get back to the book: if what malachi says about the protagonist is correct, then she has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER to bitch. If SHE chose a program that attracted non-professionals, of course she got less professional training; just having LCB on her certificate says nothing about WHAT SHE LEARNED regardless of what she was taught. Nor does it qualify her for anything. Believe me, I've worked with plenty of XXX graduates who could not cook their way out of a papillote. But who had attitude to spare simply because they had a piece of paper that had their name and XXX on it. To which I say, B F D

[KNorthrup]

most of those in the fictional heroine's class were rich South American girls learning to cook for their husbands.

What happened to charming elderly barons with perfect fashion sense and astute observations about souffles? May as well stay home.

[sandra]

Right, my program at LCB is the Grande Diplome program, which, in Paris is pretty much what you can take - this is program completeley geared to training the professional - in my basic cuisine class there were chefs to be, there were some housewives, there were carreer changers, there was even a high level solicitor who had just retired at the age of 60 and was completely bored at home - he had never cooked in his life, but was willing to give it a go...

Clearly, even a chef's training program as intense as this attracts "the common housewife" ...

In the case of the book, I no only take issue with the housewife commen, as I am one, but with the South American issue, which I am one as well... What excatly does this author know about South American housewives and their motivations? Probably a little bit less than I know about the motivations of the 50 year old Japanese lady currently in my Superior Patisserie course (?)

Does it all matter?

It doesn't matter what course anyone chooses, it can be the most intense of training courses or the most relaxed - any course can attract any audience...

Suzanne: Too right! You've cleared on batch of consomme, you can clear a million!!

[Lesley C]

Well, I still think you're wrong.

I've taught people who want to be pros and people who want to learn to cook. The discipline just isn't the same. And the program isn't the same. Amateurs and professionals make for a lousy mix. Sandra, do you ever work in the dish pit at LCB?

Working in large quantities is not only about technique, it's about speed, one of the most essential qualities of a chef but certainly not a priority for a home cook. Do you think French chefs taking their CAP exams are working next to housewives? No way.

I'd go so far to say it's disrespectful to the profession to combine classes with people who want to cook professionally and those who are learning to cook.

But this is a whole other thread. I don't even think aspiring chefs should pay to go to cooking school. They should be government funded, like mine was and the French programs are. Public education. That way kids who come from less privileged backgrounds can try their hand at professional cooking without having to cough up thousands to attend LCB or the CIA. Do you think Joel Robuchon or Jacques Pepin could have paid for a CIA education? The majority of French chefs come from working class backgrounds. Are there any kids with working class backgrounds at LCB?

Professional cooking is a blue collar profession. It shouldn't require an elite education. Save the expensive schools for the rich housewives and debutantes.

[Suzanne F]

But this is a whole other thread. I don't even think aspiring chefs should pay to go to cooking school. They should be government funded, like mine was and the French programs are. Public education. That way kids who come from less privileged backgrounds can try their hand at professional cooking without having to cough up thousands to attend LCB or the CIA. Do you think Joel Robuchon or Jacques Pepin could have paid for a CIA education? The majority of French chefs come from working class backgrounds. Are there any kids with working class backgrounds at LCB?

Professional cooking . . . shouldn't require an elite education.

Well, I certainly agree with you on that!

I'd go so far to say it's disrespectful to the profession to combine classes with people who want to cook professionally and those who are learning to cook.

Ah, but can't we lay the "blame" for that on the schools, that just want to make money? That's what I meant about knowing what you're getting into before you start any training program.

As for some of the rest of what you said -- yes, definitely deserves its own thread.

[maggiethecat]

What happened to charming elderly barons with perfect fashion sense and astute observations about souffles?  May as well stay home.

Ahhh..can you be referring to "Sabrina" here? How I adored the Baron.

[Jinmyo]

Working in large quantities is not only about technique, it's about speed, one of the most essential qualities of a chef but certainly not a priority for a home cook.

I think it is.

A chef can do in 30 minutes what it takes the average home cook two hours to do. There's the answer to this "thirty minute meal" nonsense. Not cutting corners but learning how to cut and move from task to task and place to place efficiently.

[fresco]

"Not cutting corners but learning how to cut and move from task to task and place to place efficiently."

Especially true for the households where everyone works--the ability to move quickly, methodically and decisively to prepare a meal that is pleasing and varied from day to day means the difference between living well and just getting through life.

[Lesley C]

Sorry Jinmyo, I again -- respectfully -- disagree.

Home cooks should work quickly and efficiently, yes so true. But a commis or pastry commis is paid by the hour. They have to work very quickly. There is simply NO comparison. The best pastry chefs I know pipe so quickly with a pastry bag, that their hands are a blur. Advanced knife skills are essential for a chef, and a rare luxury in the home cook. Few home cooks can work at such speeds. And why should they? Teach them to pipe in rows to save space on the tray, or the difference between chiffonade and julienne, but why bother showing them how to handle a 2l capacity piping bag, or how when you are kneading mass quantities of bread, you should use ice instead of water.

Home cooking and professional cooking are night and day. This is especially so in pastry.

OK, sorry this should really be a thread...

[fresco]

Home cooks may not require quite the speed or prowess of the pros (piping filling into hundreds of pastries is not part of the job description of you're doing it for yourself, your family and the occasional few guests) but a sense of urgency is an underrated quality in the kitchen when most households have two careers.

A.J. Liebling once said that as a writer, he was "better than anyone faster and faster than anyone better", not a bad job description for anyone who has to routinely rush home from work, often late, and prepare something pleasing enough to compensate for the rest of the day.

[KelMH]

"Professional cooking is a blue collar profession. It shouldn't require an elite education."

Yes, but don't you think that the "elite education" is unfairly given more weight than pure experience or skill, and is therefore necessary for chefs? Is it "required" to be set apart?

Aren't the "housewives and debutantes" taking up the space and energy of the school when professional chefs truly need that space completely? The professional chefs are unfairly put in a position of resentment and disadvantage with the amateurs being at a school like LCB.

[sandra]

Lesley I disagree on SO many points!!

First of all, LCB has pot washers, no one works the "dish pits" and for another record, the Grande Diplome program is available to anyone who wants to take it, it is the same for all - and the chefs DO NOT differentiate between types of students...

Secondly, the people who go to LCB must know at least how to cut an onion, otherwise they would never survive basic, so someone who has never cooked is out of the picture anyway - people who go there already know how to cook...I knew how to cook when I got there...

Speed - why should a home cook not work as fast as a kitchen chef? Is there a rule that says things have to take longer at a home? NO

Working class - yes, there are many, many students who come from working class or below, I have two friends whose parents in India spent all their money to send them here - there are also very rich chefs to be, as well as rich and poor "amateurs" as you call them - yes professional cooking may be blue collar, but there are plenty of chefs who are not blue collar out there - you cannot generalize like that, putting people in boxes is a very dangerous thing....

As far as mixing pros and amateurs - what happens when the housewives start doing better in school than the chefs to be? I recieved distinctions in all my courses so far, while several students aiming t be chefs did below average or failed.... maybe that's why the "pros" don't always like to be around the "wives"...

And why should advanced knife skills be a luxury in the home cook - if the home cook wants to take the trouble to learn - who is to say no?

If you were to translate what you are saying into other fields of education it might sound something like this:

"Well let's see, this student is not going to be a professor, therefore we should only teach him to read in a most basic level, forget the Shakespeare, forget the good stuff, beacuse he doesn't need it and doesn't deserve to learn it" does this sound right???

Now, for the record, before you go after me - I have worked in kitchens and I fully intend to now go and continue doing stages as and when I want, I have not had a problem doing this before, nor do I forsee any problems again - I will work because I want to and I will work for the experience - I can also tell you I know for a fact that I work better than some of those "pros" I graduated with, I have heard this form several chefs...

All of this does not make me any less of of a "pro" than anyone else...

When I first arrived at LCB I did not tell anyone my "status" or motivations, yet I found a lot of the students resenting the fact that there were people there who were obviously taking the course for fun, and could afford to do so...why? jealousy maybe? Is it wrong to pay a lot of money to do something you like to do? again - NO

fresco, Jinmyo, yes, yes and yes!

As for KelMH - I don't even know where to start with your post without being incredibly rude, so I'll leave it...

[Lesley C]

I will work because I want to and I will work for the experience

Yes but not because you have to, and that's the difference.

I could argue this to death, BUT this thread is in the wrong place for it to have any relevance. It's not just about what we think, this debate should be open to all.

Many good points raised, but frankly it's a bit wasted buried in this topic.

Note: This thread has been moved to a separate topic where it should no longer be buried.

Edited June 30, 2003 by Bux (log)

[fresco]

It shouldn't take much to make this a separate thread.

Correct. It is now a separate topic.

Edited June 30, 2003 by Bux (log)

[Nikki]

This is an interesting thread, good debate.

Sandra, I think it's excellent that you've been able to pursue an education that is important/pleasurable.

I must agree with Lesley though and state that you've missed one point. There is no reason why anyone who has the funds necessary be denied access to LCB. I think it's excellent that you have the choice. Not everyone has the choice. The question is how accessible the LCB school is to people of various socio-economic status. It's not positive that anyone should have to sacrifice a life's savings to go to this school. The school itself should examine how accessible it is, and how to make itself more accessible. For example, as Lesley stated, subsidies for those who cannot afford the full tuition.

In my opinion, the important question is not "why" you're in the school (for home cooking or professional cooking) but "who" is allowed in? If the answer is: "only people with money", that is not equitable access.

[sandra]

Nikki, the school is open to anyone, and yes, there are ways people can attend without paying full price - you can take the basic cuisine or patiss, a 10 week course, and then work 10 weeks in the basement kitchen, this goes as partial payment for a cuisine course or full payment for a patiss course... and so on fo rthe full course...

It is not only open to people with money, at all... and it is not substantially more expensive than other schools in London - except of course the community colleges, where I have been told that the lobster demos is conducted witha plastic, yes, plastic lobster! Very educational, no?

Lesley, why does having to and wanting to make a difference? Also, I have sent a PM to "TPTB" in an effort to move this thread...

[KelMH]

Sandra,

I didn't mean to be "extremely rude" with my post. There are obviously two sides to this argument, and you've presented your side well.

[jango]

Aren't the "housewives and debutantes" taking up the space and energy of the school when professional chefs truly need that space completely?  The professional chefs are unfairly put in a position of resentment and disadvantage with the amateurs being at a school like LCB.

As an overly enthusiastic amateur who's taken some pretty tough courses alongside some experienced pros, I would say that it's a little premature and prejudicial to presume that all the pros are going to succeed and all the housewives look like blithering idiots.

Sometimes it's a matter of attitude, innate talent, and willingness to learn which propels a student forward. If a "pro" is so busy stewing in resentment because his pigheaded ego has been shattered by the mere presence of such a lowly creature as a "housewife" in his class, he's just a snivelling little twerp.

Sandra, great post.

- Jane