Are professional schools for amateurs as well

[beans]

Lesley, whenever the phrase "you people" pops up, it is viewed as a red flag.  Let's just say, you owe many people here an apology.  And may I also suggest that you examine your own socio-economic prejudices?

I second that.

[jersey13]

I have never met an amateur pastry chef who even comes close to professional abilities.

When I read this, what jumped out at me were the memories of all the restaurants I've eaten at in the USA , Canada, Europe and Australia where the desserts were just appalling. And I thought of many desserts prepared by very competent amateurs which were stunningly good.

In the final test (that is - the actual product) there is not such a stark contrast between most ordinary professional pastry chefs and very skillful, well-practised home cooks.

For some odd reason, professional abilities among pastry chefs don't always result in consistantly fabulous desserts.

I'm with you on that jango. Some of the worst desserts I've ever had have been made in restaurants/cafés, etc, by what I presumed would have been "professionals". Some of it would leave you begging for Betty Crocker to appear and save the day.

[malachi]

So you're saying that training chefs is  unique and requires a uniquely brutal approach?

Looking back on it, my realization is that being trained as a chef was far less about being taught to cook and far more about being taught the realities of working in the profession. So yes - brutal indeed. The yelling, the "who chopped these carrots - King Kong?" All the "move back home and get a job at 7-11" and the pressure, the failure, the expectations... they were all designed to both weed out those who would fail in a restaurant kitchen and expose those who didn't truly desire the life. Some looked into themselves and said, "I can't take it." Some said, "It's not worth it." And others said, "fuck them - I'll prove I have what it takes. I'll prove I'm a Chef."

Would that experience be valuable to someone who did not have the intention of working in food service? Maybe. I don't know.

[Fat Guy]

You chefs are a bunch of pussies compared to litigators at any major law firm. I love all these complaints about 80 hour weeks. Try 100 hour weeks using your brains every minute. Try a level of psychological abuse, sleep deprivation, and intellectual humiliation beyond the wildest stories in Kitchen Confidential, in a secret extra innermost circle of Dante's Inferno, and more degrading than being in the employ of Ebeneezer Scrooge.

And man was it annoying in law school to have dilettantes dragging down the rest of the class, with their self-indulgent questions and their bright-eyed desire to learn for the sake of mid-life intellectual fulfillment. The school accepts them because they pay full-freight tuition, thus allowing the school to make an extra buck at the expense of everybody else's educational goals.

I'm surprised to see this being personalized, as though this is Lesley's idiosyncratic, unorthodox, highly personal opinion. Lesley is just saying what most people who do something for a living believe -- not just in cookery, but in all professions.

Sure, you get the occasional hobbyist who can hold his or her own with the pros. Probably anybody posting on eGullet has a high likelihood of being one of those exceptions that prove the rule. But it's just not the norm.

[Suzanne F]

EDIT-ION: This post was written based on Lesley C's original post, which has since been replaced with another. Which is why what I quote here is not to be found where it used to be.

Wow, so much for honesty and sticking up for my profession.

Guess I'll keep my opinions to myself from now on.

Go out on a limb with this crowd and next thing you know they're sawing off the branch.

And Suzanne F, I don't think I've written anything offensive enough on here to warrant an apology. 

Why keep your opinions to yourself? Because quite a few people disagreed with you? I think you sparked a worthwhile discussion, that should probably continue with or without you. There are still so many facets of this question to talk about, especially your excellent point that one who desires professional culinary training in North America should not have to lay out vast sums of money, but should be able to get state-sponsored schooling. (Not necessarily, as some here interpreted it, at state-run schools, but at whatever school, public or private, offers the best training. Although one of the best culinary training programs here in NYC is, in fact, part of the City University.)

Then there's the behavioral-psychology issue of "What makes for the strongest motivation? Someone telling you that you should be motivated because your possible future livelihood depends on it [NOT, when you talk about CIA, LCB, etc. grads], or you yourself wanting to learn the most and do the best?"

And the sociological issue of "How could it possibly be all right to dump on housewives and debutantes, no matter how much money they may have at their disposal? Is that not un-sisterly?" And that it is not only "inner-city" people who need decent job training: what about all the rural folk displaced from the family farm by mega-agri-business? Or someone in the Rust Belt or a former mill towns or defunct clothing factory, now out of work because multi-national corporations prefer to pay pennies a day to workers overseas? Are they just supposed to shrivel up and die?

As for your last statement: I found your "rich housewives and debutantes" categorizations incredibly offensive, and I am by no stretch of the imagination in either group. Similarly, your intimations that those who study to be professional cooks are all a dedicated lot was just ridiculous, and unfair to the few who DO or did make the effort to get full value out of their training (count me in that latter group). And your "I'm really quite surprised to see how little you people respect this profession" slap was totally unwarranted. Here in this part of North America, "you people" is not by any means an accepted way to address ANYONE. It smacks of class and racial warfare, "us" against "them," and all those nasty undemocratic feelings that we in the U.S. deny ever, ever having (hah!). And in addition, that whole statement is patently false. You seem to forget why most of us are here on eGullet: to discuss anything and everything having to do with food. It seems to me disingenuous to make a distinction among members between those who are "professionals" (i.e., get paid to cook or to work with or about food and drink) and the non-professionals, who may, in some instances, have much deeper study and stronger credentials of knowledge than many "pros" in the industry as a whole.

Edited July 1, 2003 by Suzanne F (log)

[jersey13]

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.

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.

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).

Okay, general question here: Are there no student loans in these programs? If not, how about regular loans? The majority of university students graduate with a debt because they couldn't afford to finance their education with their $8/hour summer jobs. Why does someone who wants to cook instead of teach or design bridges for a living have to be treated differently? Elite schools in any discipline are off limits to all but a minority of people who can either pay out of pocket, get loans or earn scholarships. I have friends in their mid thirties who are still paying off school debts and I'm not talking Harvard or Yale. Plenty of people can't "afford" their education, but there's a remedy to that if loans, etc aren't available: work, then enter school.

As for the the Michelin starred chef he/she may work harder, but he/she chose this life.

I can certainly agree with the idea of opening more publicly funded programs, but let's face it, if the program is so superior at a private institution, then that's why people are spending the money. And so long as people are willing to spend the money, these institutions will continue to thrive.

Overall I don't think you can discriminate based on motive because you don't know that the people who claim at the beginning that they aspire to be professional chefs, will in fact pursue that goal at the end of the program. If a candidate demonstrates the necessary skills to be accepted to and successfully complete a program, be it physics or baking, then what that person does with the knowledge is his/her own business. Just ask yourself how many people get undergraduate degrees in one discipline only to wind up doing something completely different after graduation.

Even those who have the fire in their belly at the start may realize along the way that they can't hack it , but I can't see how to weed them out from the get go.

Edited July 1, 2003 by jersey13 (log)

[beans]

You chefs are a bunch of pussies compared to litigators at any major law firm. I love all these complaints about 80 hour weeks. Try 100 hour weeks using your brains every minute. Try a level of psychological abuse, sleep deprivation, and intellectual humiliation beyond the wildest stories in Kitchen Confidential, in a secret extra innermost circle of Dante's Inferno, and more degrading than being in the employ of Ebeneezer Scrooge.

*********

Lesley is just saying what most people who do something for a living believe -- not just in cookery, but in all professions.

Steve -- I couldn't agree more with the litigators I have worked with in the 12 years when I was once immersed in the practice of law. And what many never understand, those 100 hour work weeks are the billable hours at that.

However, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that culinary schools should be filled with only those to be paid for a living being a chef. I stand firm on questioning the "socio-economic prejudices" presented herein by Miss Lesley.

edit: sloppy proofreading

Edited July 1, 2003 by beans (log)

[nerissa]

You chefs are a bunch of pussies compared to litigators at any major law firm. I love all these complaints about 80 hour weeks. Try 100 hour weeks using your brains every minute. Try a level of psychological abuse, sleep deprivation, and intellectual humiliation beyond the wildest stories in Kitchen Confidential, in a secret extra innermost circle of Dante's Inferno, and more degrading than being in the employ of Ebeneezer Scrooge.

And man was it annoying in law school to have dilettantes dragging down the rest of the class, with their self-indulgent questions and their bright-eyed desire to learn for the sake of mid-life intellectual fulfillment.  The school accepts them because they pay full-freight tuition, thus allowing the school to make an extra buck at the expense of everybody else's educational goals.

I'm surprised to see this being personalized, as though this is Lesley's idiosyncratic, unorthodox, highly personal opinion. Lesley is just saying what most people who do something for a living believe -- not just in cookery, but in all professions.

Sure, you get the occasional hobbyist who can hold his or her own with the pros. Probably anybody posting on eGullet has a high likelihood of being one of those exceptions that prove the rule. But it's just not the norm.

Who in god's name would go to law school for intellectual fulfillment?

And so what if they did, or do? As long as the teacher doesn't mind it, and is competent to keep the lecture/discussion on track, and talented enough to use whatever irrelevant question to delve into a relevant topic, I would not mind.

EDIT: Just saw Jersey 13's post. Couldn't agree more that you shouldn't discriminate at the outset according to one's education goals. You never know.

We all know at least 1 moron who went to an Ivy and learned squat, and another moron who went to a third rate state school and got a fantastic education. Your education is up to you.

Edited July 1, 2003 by nerissa (log)

[jersey13]

Sometimes middle agers and seniors who audit courses are more on the ball than the room full of undergrads surrounding them.

[Fat Guy]

Who in god's name would go to law school for intellectual fulfillment? 

And so what if they did, or do?  As long as the teacher doesn't mind it . . .

It's not about whether the teacher minds it; it's about whether the school's reason for existence -- to train lawyers/chefs/doctors/engineers/whatever who are going to practice in their fields-- is being fulfilled. These aren't liberal arts programs where you go to learn for learning's sake or to become a well-rounded renaissance-man-type individual; these are professional and vocational programs. We had this problem in law school all the time: there were like five people in our class who were just going to law school because they were rich and bored. For the most part, they consumed a ridiculous amount of instructor attention, they asked too many irrelevant, self-indulgent questions, and they didn't fit in to the social structure of the class -- nobody wanted them in study group, etc. For us, it was a vocational program; for them, it was an academic program slash early-retirement hobby. And yes, there was one guy who "got" it: he was very conscious of his status and tried to fit in. I'm sure there are people like that in every context. But most of them are just in the way.

[Fat Guy]

Sometimes middle agers and seniors who audit courses are more on the ball than the room full of undergrads surrounding them.

They are always more on the ball in that context: in liberal arts programs, it's great to have older, wiser students who are there to learn not just to do the bare minimum. But in vocational and professional programs the goals are different, and whether they're young or old the hobbyists are often a hindrance to the rest of the class.

[jersey13]

But then that brings us back to the question of admittance based on motivation. Do we accept these people on a trial basis and then turf them for asking one too many "self indulgent" questions?

[beans]

Who in god's name would go to law school for intellectual fulfillment?

You'd be surprised nerissa.

Besides -- what is wrong with that? At least with law school there are various educational standards one must have achieved in order to apply, be accepted and partake in the education -- previous undergrad transcripts, LSAT, etc. Those measures of educational performance are what entitles one to comprehend, study and learn the discipline. They've earned it.

As for your last statement: I found your "rich housewives and debutantes" categorizations incredibly offensive, and I am by no stretch of the imagination in either group. Similarly, your intimations that those who study to be professional cooks are all a dedicated lot was just ridiculous, and unfair to the few who DO or did make the effort to get full value out of their training (count me in that latter group). And your "I'm really quite surprised to see how little you people respect this profession" slap was totally unwarranted. Here in this part of North America, "you people" is not by any means an accepted way to address ANYONE. It smacks of class and racial warfare, "us" against "them," and all those nasty undemocratic feelings that we in the U.S. deny ever, ever having (hah!). And in addition, that whole statement is patently false. You seem to forget why most of us are here on eGullet: to discuss anything and everything having to do with food. It seems to me disingenuous to make a distinction among members between those who are "professionals" (i.e., get paid to cook or to work with or about food and drink) and the non-professionals, who may, in some instances, have much deeper study and stronger credentials of knowledge than many "pros" in the industry as a whole.

Suzanne -- well stated. I'm with you.

When I take the financial and emotional plunge to the culinary school of my choice, I'm going to have the fire inside that will drive me to my usual standard of perfection. Yet, I'm unsure if I will pursue a paid position of being called "chef." Don't know. The crystal ball cracked when I left working for all of those lawyerly types....

[Fat Guy]

But then that brings us back to the question of admittance based on motivation.  Do we accept these people on a trial basis and then turf them for asking one too many "self indulgent" questions?

They should be offered a program of study oriented to their needs. Students don't know what their specific educational needs are. Instructors are supposed to know that because they have the knowledge and experience. There's no reason someone who is studying law for intellectual fulfillment needs to learn about the CPLR and all that nuts-and-bolts stuff. Let them study it in a liberal arts environment with professors who will really get at the reasoning behind Supreme Court decisions, have all day to argue the finer points of the philosophy of law, and otherwise wish to depart from the "black letter" approach.

[jersey13]

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. How do we :

A) Determine the student's true motivation

b)Ensure that it will not change after the completion of the program?

There are pains in the ass in every class regardless of their true motivation to pursue their education.

And, how can we determine that a "hobbyist" won't develop the "pro/vocational" mindset during the course of study?

I'll be the first to admit that most students don't have a friggin' clue what their needs are, but what stops them from flat out lying?

[rdailey]

Sometimes middle agers and seniors who audit courses are more on the ball than the room full of undergrads surrounding them.

They are always more on the ball in that context: in liberal arts programs, it's great to have older, wiser students who are there to learn not just to do the bare minimum. But in vocational and professional programs the goals are different, and whether they're young or old the hobbyists are often a hindrance to the rest of the class.

FG- Isn't it really the instructor's responsibilty to control this sort of problem and maintain the focus of the class? Do you think schools like LCB and CIA would tolerate students that hinder the curriculum?

Lesley- It is my understanding that CIA Greystone and a few other culinary schools have continuing education for professionals that require the a student to have extensive work experience in the culinary field. It sort of like post-graduate work. I would assume that this sort of advanced training would not include amateurs. Is this the kind of thing you have in mind?

I think otherwise, the government is not going rescue you from having to co-mingle with "housewives and debutantes" in your Skills class.

[beans]

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

Lesley -- It might be easier to post a response instead of editing an old one that is now being burried.

"you people" no matter the context can be construed as offensive by any given person in any given circumstances.

Why limit this to the professional chefs????? I'm in the biz. I get indulged by our highly trained and skilled Executive Chef. I wish to pursue further training. Doesn't my opinion count too? I think it has merit too.

Yes, your socio-economic prejudices I find to be very apparent from your previous posts.

edit: boo boo fix -- it's getting late. I'm tired.

Edited July 1, 2003 by beans (log)

[inventolux]

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

Lesley -- It might be easier to post a response instead of editing an old one that is now being burried.

"you people" no matter the context can be construed as offensive by any given person in any given circumstances.

Why limit this to the professional chefs????? I'm in the biz. I get indulged by our highly trained and skilled Executive Chef. I wish to pursue further training. Doesn't my opinion count too? I think it has merit too.

Yes, your socio-economic prejudices I find to be very apparent from your previous posts.

edit: boo boo fix -- it's getting late. I'm tired.

Not all professional chefs are professionals. So lets begin there. Gastronomy is for anyone who sacrifices time, focus and energy for the betterment of the culinary arts. If thats you, then dont waste another minute contemplating, go full force and enjoy the ride.

Edited July 1, 2003 by inventolux (log)

[Fat Guy]

Lesley -- It might be easier to post a response instead of editing an old one that is now being burried.

"you people" no matter the context can be construed as offensive by any given person in any given circumstances.

Time to decide if we're going to engage in a high-quality hard-hitting argument about the issues, or if we're going to turn this into a personal argument about the argument. In the latter case, I'll just end it now. Otherwise, everybody take a deep breath, depersonalize, focus on the issues, get a good night's sleep, and carry on.

[inventolux]

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

Lesley -- It might be easier to post a response instead of editing an old one that is now being burried.

"you people" no matter the context can be construed as offensive by any given person in any given circumstances.

Why limit this to the professional chefs????? I'm in the biz. I get indulged by our highly trained and skilled Executive Chef. I wish to pursue further training. Doesn't my opinion count too? I think it has merit too.

Yes, your socio-economic prejudices I find to be very apparent from your previous posts.

edit: boo boo fix -- it's getting late. I'm tired.

Not all professional chefs are professionals. So lets begin there. Gastronomy is for anyone who sacrifices time, focus and energy for the betterment of the culinary arts. If thats you, then dont waste another minute contemplating, go full force and enjoy the ride.

I think this guy is onto something

[Fat Guy]

How do we :

A) Determine the student's true motivation

It's impossible to determine motivation, so we look at the evidence and see which way it points. Any institution that deals with thousands of applicants learns quickly how to identify the most common red flags.

B) Ensure that it will not change after the completion of the program?

Not particularly relevant to the determination.

There are pains in the ass in every class regardless of their true motivation to pursue their education.

Absolutely. We're not excusing the others. We're simply identifying one species.

And, how can we determine that a "hobbyist" won't develop the "pro/vocational" mindset during the course of study?

That's a good time to transfer from the hobbyist program to the vocational program.

I'll be the first to admit that most students don't have a friggin' clue what their needs are, but what stops them from flat out lying?

Ultimately, performance is what counts and there's no harm in having students who fit in, even if their motivations aren't what they're supposed to be. But it's still possible to do a lot of weeding out, based on factual criteria and probability.

[beans]

inventolux:

Thank you for your words of encouragement. I want it so bad I can taste it, literally. I have to admit my passion for culinary school has been refueled by fellow eGulletiers (is that a word?) -- you, Chef/Writer Spencer, zilla, Bux, paul o'vendange (only to name a few of the top of my head) and in particular reading some of the awesome threads (like the Ducasse "Foude France"). Inspiration is a beautiful thing.

My bartender legs have provided the requisite physical stamina and endurance, I just need to take that leap even if it may only be out of personal satisfaction. You never know where passion may take you.

I've already catered a few shindigs for friends, office and/or room mates with tremendous success. I've done pastry for our backwards metropolis' well read, well spoken, well written food critic -- with much trepidation but in the comfort of my own home and kitchen.

I need to sell some more beers to get that tuition within range!

edit: fix a typo -- I really was tired last night!

Edited July 1, 2003 by beans (log)

[Fat Guy]

FG- Isn't it really the instructor's responsibilty to control this sort of problem and maintain the focus of the class? Do you think schools like LCB and CIA would tolerate students that hinder the curriculum?

Once a school accepts a student into a program, it has a vested interest in seeing that student graduate. The time to be selective is pre-admission. Effective instruction presupposes an effective admissions process. Instructors can only work within the range of possibilities presented to them by the students.

[inventolux]

Schools are great opportunities to see what it wont be like when you get your first job. However its a great time to experiment and ask lots of questions. Just stray from the cooks in school who slack off. Break time? Take 5 not 30. Youre paying for it, get tho most out of it. Dont know how to make that crazy liquid center ice cube you heard about? Now is time to investigate. Dont understand the purpose of sonic waves and how they cook food? Find out. A cook should have at least a sliver of an idea what THEIR voice in food will sound like ten years down the road. Culinary schools are great for that.

[KelMH]

Time to decide if we're going to engage in a high-quality hard-hitting argument about the issues, or if we're going to turn this into a personal argument about the argument. In the latter case, I'll just end it now. Otherwise, everybody take a deep breath, depersonalize, focus on the issues, get a good night's sleep, and carry on.

Hallelujah, I hear the food angels singing...