Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Are professional schools for amateurs as well


Recommended Posts

I do not see any reason why a vocational school devoted to a particular occupation -- cooking, in this case -- should not limit the student body to people who are interested in pursuing that occupation.

But how would such a school make this determination? And when would this happen? Wouldn't the applicants lie? At what point does it become painfully obvious that the student/applicant has no desire whatsoever to pursue a career in that trade?

I knew after 2 years of graduate school that I didn't want to spend my live developing a humpback over a lab bench, but they let me stay in the program anyhow, and finally let me get my Ph.D. And they were even paying me to attend and get credits. I'm glad they didn't kick me out.

I just wonder how this determination of students' ultimate goals would be made.

Obviously part of that determination has to be done by admission standards of some kind. Second, in a cooking school one would, I suppose, have to rely on the students' stated career goals and reasons for attending the school. The third part is to set the bar high and weed out students who do not meet the standard which has been set for them. This third bit is exactly what I would expect a hypothetical "American College of Bricklaying" to do.

The big difference between your academic experience and a cooking school is that traditional pure academia is not a vocational school. They were not training you to get a job as a scientist -- that is not the aim of academia. The aim of academia is the pursuit of knowledge. They were helping you to be a scientist. Schools like MIT and Stanford don't go around touting the placement percentage of the graduates from their chemistry graduate programs. That's not the point. Doing the work and getting the degree is the point. Not everyone can go on to be a professional pure scientist.

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schools like MIT and Stanford don't go around touting the placement percentage of the graduates from their chemistry graduate programs. 

Oh, yes they do. See an example here from MIT's graduate program of economics. It's the same competitive environment for same basic end result.

As for the cooking school thread, I think it simply comes down to this:

An environment that strives for excellence, and accepts no less (as an MIT would do in the engineering world), allows the environment itself to weed out those without the proper passion and drive. Serious programs are going to demand serious commitment. If someone's up for that, then they should be allowed to pursue it to the best of their abilities. If they don't meet the demands and live up to the desired metrics, then the schools should be ruthless in dropping them, or repositioning them to their continuing ed side of the house.

People gravitate towards what they're comfortable with, no matter what fantasies they might harbor, and odds are that culinary schools are not overrun with bored housewifes on family expense account. If they are, then the schools need some help marketing programs that might be better suited for this client base.

Questioning motives up front should maybe trigger a flag to a counseler that a heart-to-heart is in order to ensure that the "amateur" knows what she's getting herself in for, but ultimately, if all other qualifications are met, it should be left up to the consumer, er, student.

-edited to fix an english problem (though my 1st language, I still struggle)

Edited by mcdowell (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by paul o' vendange (log)

-Paul

 

Remplis ton verre vuide; Vuide ton verre plein. Je ne puis suffrir dans ta main...un verre ni vuide ni plein. ~ Rabelais

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, this has turned into a very interesting and compelling thread. EGullet at its best. :smile:

Reading through all these replies, I'm starting to believe the expensive cooking school is an American phenomenon.

In Quebec there is no paying school that offers professional cooking training. Zero, none. If you want to pay to go to cooking school, you would have to go to the new Cordon Bleu in Ottawa, the New England Culinary Institute in Vermont, or sign up for a hotel management course that includes a short cooking module. But you would never get the quality of education, contacts, or facilities you would see here in the government-funded hotel school (which is presently being renovated at a cost of several million tax payers’ dollars).

And in France, schools like LCB and La Varenne are frequented primarily by foreigners. I'll bet no one can name a famous French chef who attended LCB in Paris or La Varenne in Burgundy. These are excellent schools for amateurs or those interested in food careers (God knows, every top American food writers seems to have attended La Varenne), but hold little weight in French professional circles. That may be changing, but it was certainly the case 10 years ago.

Last year I ran into an aspiring food writer who didn't know if she should enroll at the CIA, work for Charlie Trotter or attend La Varenne. I told her to run to La Varenne ASAP. Professional cooking school would have gotten her nowhere. La Varenne will open every door that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Edited by paul o' vendange (log)

-Paul

 

Remplis ton verre vuide; Vuide ton verre plein. Je ne puis suffrir dans ta main...un verre ni vuide ni plein. ~ Rabelais

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, higher education in general is much higher in the US than in many other countries. I can get a masters degree in Australia for 10% of what tuition would cost here at the school I was accepted at (but could not afford to attend). Plus, because the degree is offered online, I would be able to do it without relocating, etc, and supporting myself through loans. So overall, I would pay $5500 instead of $100,000. That's affordable, and it's they same degree they offer to resident students.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In New York, we have both city and state university systems that offer a wider range of degree programs at very low cost. I believe tuition at SUNY Cobleskill for the culinary arts program is something like $3500 per year. I don't know if CUNY offers a culinary arts program but I know you can do hospitality management through the CUNY system and that's really cheap.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to understand why a for-profit organisation should go to such lengths to discourage people who have both the qualifications and the means to attend their classes.

Sure, a class can sustain a small percentage of hobbyists without interfering substantially with the educational mission -- with the quality of the product being sold by the for-profit organization. But there's a limit, and as a paying student with professional aspirations I would consider my own investment to be devalued by the presence of a large contingent of hobbyists.

I don't understand how anything would be devalued if the hobbyists have to endure the same courses and meet the same standards to achieve the end result of a diploma.

If you have a class of 100% hobbyists and they don't cut the muster, then they fail. Plain and simple. Just like any other degree. They get the same opportunity. If they choose to screw around, then that's their problem.

One of the things that gets devalued is the reputation of the school as a serious educational institution. This in turn jeopardizes its placement rate -- the percentage of graduates who go on to work in the field. To someone who wants to be a cook this is a big factor in the decision to attend a particular school. So it's placement rate suffers, and it attracts fewer would-be professionals. Eventually, the school will have to decide whether it is going to be a school for hobbyists or professionals, and market itself accordingly.

Edit to add: among some educational accreditation boards, placement rate figures significantly in the equation for accreditation itself. Without accreditation, a school cannot offer a recognized degree, and its students are ineligible for most forms of student aid.

True. And 100% was an exaggeration on my part just for the sake of argument. On that note, I don't imagine you would get 100% hobbyists consistently enrolling in these programs. It's sort of like auditing, I guess you can allow a certain percentage of those in a course, but the rest of the spots are reserved for those pursuing the degree. But I still think the hobbyists have the right to attend if they are paying the dies and doing the required work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

-Paul

 

Remplis ton verre vuide; Vuide ton verre plein. Je ne puis suffrir dans ta main...un verre ni vuide ni plein. ~ Rabelais

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and when you cut your finger at the publically-funded cooking schools in Quebec or France, they rush you to the local hospital and bandage it up for free. :wink:

Of course, when you receive your first pay cheque working as a professional chef in Quebec or in France, you notice half your pay is deducted in taxes. :shock:

You can't win them all. :sad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schools like MIT and Stanford don't go around touting the placement percentage of the graduates from their chemistry graduate programs. 

Oh, yes they do. See an example here from MIT's graduate program of economics. It's the same competitive environment for same basic end result.

Um... that's why I said chemistry and not economics. The Econ Department at MIT specially offers a placement service. Not exactly quite the same thing I was talking about. The Law School at Harvard also may talk about the placement percentage and starting salaries for their graduates, but I very much doubt that the History Department there is doing so.

Not that this in any affects my comparison of a pure academic setting and a vocational training program.

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I still think the hobbyists have the right to attend if they are paying the dies and doing the required work.

Of course they do... unless the school decides they do not want to admit them. Then they don't. No one has the "right" to attend a private educational institution.

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Median annual salary, graduating attorneys: $52,000

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.

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I still think the hobbyists have the right to attend if they are paying the dies and doing the required work.

Of course they do... unless the school decides they do not want to admit them. Then they don't. No one has the "right" to attend a private educational institution.

But I think here we are discussing institutions that ARE allowing them. Obviously it would exclude the ones that don't admit them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entirely Indulgent. My apologies:

Oh and when you cut your finger at the publically-funded cooking schools in Quebec or France, they rush you to the local hospital and bandage it up for free.

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! :huh:

-Paul

 

Remplis ton verre vuide; Vuide ton verre plein. Je ne puis suffrir dans ta main...un verre ni vuide ni plein. ~ Rabelais

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they should be issuing stern warnings to hobbyists: this is no joke, you'll probably be happier in a non-vocational program, etc.

I certainly agree with mcdowell's entire post, but not necessarily with FG on this point. :sad:

Most of the "hobbyists" in my classes dropped after the first two weeks.

This was done with no stern warning from the Chefs or from the Suits.

They couldn't cut it, and were intelligent enough to know that.

The remaining few "hobbyists" in my class, those who don't have the fire under their asses (skipping lab, not taking notes during demos, and acting in general like jack-offs), are ostracized by the other students at their tables and scowled at when they say things like "dude, let me borrow your bench scraper for a second."

I believe they will either shape up, or ship out.

However, I do NOT believe, for one second, that it is up to the institution--be it the Cordon Bleu or any other--to weed these jackasses out.

It is up to the jackass. Weed yourself, fool.

And Lesley C, I mean no disrespect, but to say that an aspiring food writer would be ill-served by attending a professional cooking school . . . :huh:

Edited by NeroW (log)

Noise is music. All else is food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Median annual salary, graduating attorneys: $52,000

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.

Edited by paul o' vendange (log)

-Paul

 

Remplis ton verre vuide; Vuide ton verre plein. Je ne puis suffrir dans ta main...un verre ni vuide ni plein. ~ Rabelais

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I still think the hobbyists have the right to attend if they are paying the dies and doing the required work.

Of course they do... unless the school decides they do not want to admit them. Then they don't. No one has the "right" to attend a private educational institution.

But I think here we are discussing institutions that ARE allowing them. Obviously it would exclude the ones that don't admit them.

However, I do NOT believe, for one second, that it is up to the institution--be it the Cordon Bleu or any other--to weed these jackasses out.

Both of these things are up to the institution. Ultimately, that is how schools make their reputations... how selective is admission? how rigorous is the course of study/instruction? how hard is it to make the grade and stay in? what quality are they producing?

If a cooking school is really interested in turning out top-level graduates who will be taken seriously, if they want their diploma to be accorded weight and significance, then they are well-advised to attend to the above described matters. If not... well, then that will be reflected in their reputation. If a cooking school is able to train prospective professional cooks to an exceptionally high level and also attract/retain paying amateurs to the same classes without compromising the focus of the curriculum and its rigor, then all the more power to them. This does not seem to be the case, and I gather that cooking school diplomas are not highly valued and respected in the business. That said, a professional cooking school ought to be able to administer some kind of test or evaluation that will determine whether those who have participated in its course of study are entitled to the diploma or to advance to the next higher course of study. Then the diploma might really mean something. Of course, such a practice would tend to turn off paying amateurs, so...

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Oh, I don't disagree; nor with your premise. It just surprised me that the median was so low.

And, believe me, I know that 99% of law firm lawyers completely hate their jobs.

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

slkinsey, good call(s).

I don't think I have thought enough about the different bits and pieces of this thread to be able to respond as intelligently as I'd like to.

I'll leave intelligent response to the rest of you, and I look forward to it.

I'm out. :wink:

Noise is music. All else is food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Lesley C, I mean no disrespect, but to say that an aspiring food writer would be ill-served by attending a professional cooking school . . . 

Agreed, it may be a bit of an exaggeration to say it would get her nowhere. But a school like La Varenne would get her somewhere a heck of a lot faster.

I'm a food writer who attended professional cooking school, but I'm in the minority. I've met a handful of food writers who attended professional cooking school and few who followed their years in professional cooking school with years of experience working as a professional chef. Is it a good idea? Yes. Is it the best option? I don't think so.

Of course cooking school is a great asset for a food writer. I told this person to attend one with her specific career goals in mind. If she wants to be a food writer, she should attend La Varenne, as almost all of the upper echelon of female food writers in the U.S. have spent time at this school (look at their alumni list, it's a regular who's who of the food writing community). You won't learn much about recipe writing at a professional cooking school. In fact, you learn just the opposite, how to cook without using recipes. But at La Varenne you'll learn just that because there is an internship designed specifically for future food writers.

As I have stated before, IMO, anyone who plans to be a chef should attend professional cooking school because the curriculum is designed for that person. If you have different goals in mind you should find the school best suited to your needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have stated before, IMO, anyone who plans to be a chef should attend professional cooking school because the curriculum is designed for that person. If you have different goals in mind you should find the school best suited to your needs.

i'm confused. are "professional cooking schools" accepting just anyone who shows up with a check?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm confused.  are "professional cooking schools" accepting just anyone who shows up with a check?

Yes, Tommy. Five pages of debate about it! :biggrin: I just finished reading Ruhlman's "Making of a Chef". While he was an aspiring food writer, the other students he described, even the career changers, were serious about becoming chefs. I wonder how his take on the experience would have differed if the classes had been peppered with "hobbyests"?

Edited by IrishCream (log)

Lobster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...