Are professional schools for amateurs as well

[slkinsey]

If the Cordon Bleu regularly trains amateurs alongside aspiring professionals in the curriculum leading to the Grand Diplome, the question it to what degree the standards you mention are affected by the participation of the amateurs and what they might be if the school exercised different admissions criteria for the curriculum leading to the Grande Diplome.

I don't understand why the assumption is made that LCB "dumbs down" it's coursework - at any given time they may have a class of all aspiring pros or a class that has a few amateurs - the coursework is still the same, it has been for years.

That is not my assumption at all. My assumption is that, if a cooking school does not "dumb down" the professional curriculum, then it will have a hard time attracting/retaining amateurs for that curriculum. And I think my assumption is borne out by the relative numbers of amateurs and aspiring professionals in the various curricula.

[SobaAddict70]

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.

Just had to comment re the above:

I'm a career paralegal at one of the top seven law firms in the United States (and/or the world, depending on your point of view or personal ranking system) and while this sort of treatment may have been prevalent in the past, it hasn't been true in a while and at least in my (extensive) experience, it's not true now.

Now I don't know which law firms you've worked in, but with all due respect, I can say with certainty that the firm that I work at doesn't cultivate the sort of atmosphere that you make reference to in your post.

Soba

Edited July 2, 2003 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[beans]

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.

Just had to comment re the above:

I'm a career paralegal at one of the top seven law firms in the United States (and/or the world, depending on your point of view or personal ranking system) and while this sort of treatment may have been prevalent in the past, it hasn't been true in a while and at least in my (extensive) experience, it's not true now.

Now I don't know which law firms you've worked in, but with all due respect, I can say with certainty that the firm that I work at doesn't cultivate the sort of atmosphere that you make reference to in your post.

Soba

Soba:

You are VERY lucky. I know all too well about Paul's words. I couldn't agree more and I've worked for some of the top dogs too (took 15 years before I had to quit -- kicking and screaming the whole way -- why did I subject myself to that for that long???). One of my fondest memories were when I had to endure one female partner have me repeat back to her that the sky was purple because she had said so at a screaming pitch. And that's a true story!

Edited July 2, 2003 by beans (log)

[paul o' vendange]

Soba, most of the ones that "chewed them up and spit them out" were IT-intensive firms. I know, as I worked nights; one of them, in particular, I knew the young associates came in early morning and were there when I left, after midnight. And they were there on weekends. If they weren't, they were out. The other stuff, respecting the life of an attorney, has been my general observation (and apparently that of attorneys, at least in substantial number, judging from the profession's own admissions, which I referenced above).

The vitriol was mine, and I regret the heated edge, as I said. But I stand by what I think to be an inherently flawed system which I believe values billable hours over professional growth, or job satisfaction. My main argument was that if we are looking at pay-in v. pay-out, in a strictly dollar sense, law school and the private culinary schools are not a universe apart (to say nothing of the "soft-variable" utility considerations, such as personal fulfillment).

[sandra]

That is not my assumption at all.  My assumption is that, if a cooking school does not "dumb down" the professional curriculum, then it will have a hard time attracting/retaining amateurs for that curriculum.  And I think my assumption is borne out by the relative numbers of amateurs and aspiring professionals in the various curricula.

Ok, well, LCB does not "dumb down" the Grande Diplome, which is the professional curriculum...

After this very loooong discussion, I think it would surprise many people how few of us "interlopers" there are...

[inventolux]

YES, that is the case at a university where you would want to be with your intellectual equals or superiors, but cooking school is skill and labour, brains and intellect have nothing to do with it -

??

This makes me feel great about my profession. Lets talk Louis Pasteur, food chemist and inventor. With his lack of brains and intellect he was able to make dairy products relatively safe for human consumption.

Mayonnaise was invented by a French chef working for Duke de Richelieu in 1756. An amazing accomplishment given the lack of utensils available at the time necessary to emulsify egg yolks and oil.

In 1853 a Native American named George Crum invented the potato chip. It may sound like a ramedial feat, but that idea has spawned every bag of chips you see today.

Lets not forget that geniuses come in physical and mental forms. In my opinion as chefs move closer to the line of "true creativity" while being required to work on their feet 12 to 16 hours a day, we will see a combination of physical and mental brilliance sprouting up all over the globe. Mental and physical stamina are the requirements of a chefs job. Conditioning will breed progress in both areas and culinary school programs are the perfect way to begin stimulation.

The only thing that requires a lack of brains and intellect is close mindedness. Sorry if that is out of line.

Edited July 2, 2003 by inventolux (log)

[SobaAddict70]

I understand your points Paul, but I want to point out that it paints a rather inaccurate picture from a certain point of view. I've had my share of 20 hour days, especially in the past two or three months; I too can tell horror stories from my point of view, but the point that I want to make is that the nature of our job is pretty cylical. Most of the time, things aren't so stressed out, but when it comes time to step up to the plate, then you've got to do what you've got to do.

There's a reason why the associates work the number of hours they put in. I mean, if a first year is making 100k+ as they do at my firm (counting bonuses), the firm needs one way to recoup the cost of hiring them. Most associates who enter my firm aren't really there to get on partner track anyway. They're there to pay off their law school and undergraduate debt in two, three or four years, and then move on to whatever else awaits them. The few that do stay on eventually leave if they don't make it to either special counsel or partner level. Likewise, most of the legal assistants who enter my firm are there to work for a couple of years until they decide to go to law school or whatever is their muse. The few that stay on, like me, eventually become career paralegals or shove off after a few years. It's true that both associates and paralegals put in long hours, but I'd say that what you get out of your job if you were in my position is whatever you put in.

On the one hand, I can see where Lesley is coming from in her posts and argument. I'm staffed on a transaction where one of my colleagues, who shall remain nameless for her sake more than for mine, proved to me that the ranks of the law school bound legal assistants are often filled with inefficient and clueless morons who graduate to become inefficient and clueless lawyers; it's just a job to while away this person's time until she decides to go to Yale or whatever school decides to cash her check. On the other hand, I don't understand why people have to be shoved into boxes as per Lesley's argument....especially when your real training is out in the field, anyway. All the training in law school or cooking school or paralegal orientation doesn't prepare you or anyone to become an effective lawyer, a skilled chef, or an efficient legal assistant, blah blah blah.

Soba

[Steve Klc]

Paul, my awareness of the savory side instructors and curriculum of FCI is way less than the pastry side--though I'd still want to hear what the 1998 professional chef class is doing now if I were considering enrolling--but I have also previously said I feel curriculum is less important than who is actually in class alongside you and teaching you the stuff. Even at FCI instructors are underpaid. An inexperienced instructor--inexperienced either teaching or doing--in a beautiful facility with a great curriculum is worse than a more experienced, very knowledgeable, very passionate instructor working from a stale curriculum in an old kitchen--because that instructor can transcend both the material and materiel. I'd go instructor, networking and surrounding culinary milieu, curriculum, then facilities last. It's not an original perspective, but perhaps more important than curriculum per se is the networking opportunities a school provides and immerses you within--in your case (I believe) you're leaving Chicago to come to NYC and a large part of what you are paying for is for FCI to presumably network you into the best scene going. FCI knows this, you're paying extra for their presumed access to the top dogs. I also really hope you continue to weigh in as this process unfolds for you--are you moving your family with you or are you planning six months and back?

You're right, though, I've been lucky to have access to a good number of their graduating classes, to teach in their demo theater and classrooms over time; I've seen how Jacques' course curriculum has evolved, the instructors who have come and gone back to when Dieter Schorner was in charge of the teaching program day to day. I'm very pro FCI--it comes as close to getting it right that I have seen but I have some doubts about the expense-to-value ratio and that doesn't prevent me from also asking if the school has done enough to prepare incoming students for what life will be like once they graduate and have to pay back their loans. Colleen (my wife) was very lucky to have come through under Dieter--a taskmaster who spoke and taught from authority and vast experience--who did push all the students to do better and go further in a kind of old school "this is what it will be like on the job" way--which she was grateful for but which some of the softer career-changers were not, which led to her working for Jacques Torres, and again which goes back to what (I believe) Lesley was trying to get at. That was a school and an instructor that worked for her at that point in time--and prepared her for working cleaner, better and faster in real jobs--she was also a career-changer by the way. But I think Colleen's written here on eGullet that even she wouldn't do it that way all over again--with a few years hindsight, given the total cost combining expense of tuition and relocation and given the realities of the job scene post graduation--not to mention given that Dieter was let go in 1999--and her's was one of the success stories in her class. One person, two at most in each class, got the coveted "stage" with Jacques at Le Cirque--and when you staged with him you worked with him all day long on tasks, beside him, and chatted with him, unlike everyone else in his kitchen.

With Dan I was just going by his bios--on his site and on eGullet--which don't mention him coming through one of those short term intensive FCI professional programs. I didn't read what you wrote but if he did in '93--and he's on record today encouraging others like you to go through FCI first, to spend that (now very serious) amount of money rather than travelling and getting work experience in top kitchens--there's another success story and another opinion a prospective student would have to factor in for himself. But 10 years ago when Dan was at FCI and when I was in my little part time program at L'Academie de Cuisine the scene was different--the options, expense and awareness of schools was different. That was before FoodTV hit big, when considering becoming a chef had just begun attracting some cachet and glamor. My sense since that time is that schools, tuitions and enrollments have either increased or sustained, lots of checks have been cashed, and we're about due for a frank re-assessment of just what all these cooking school grads have gone on to, whether they'd do it all again, and whether cooking schools are delivering on their promise.

Busboy--I'm not sure what you're wondering about, but most of the cooking schools in the US are designed for professional-leaning, professional-curious students just like you and your wife, aren't that stressful, they're intensive only in the inherent nature of a program like Paul is attending at FCI--designed to get you in and out (and possibly into the field) after 6 months of full time instruction or so. You really have to be dumb as a rock or a disruptive asshole to get "weeded out" once your check clears--and if someone does it will most likely be after 50 to 75% of the tuition money has been commited and cannot be refunded. It's this or what are seen as shorter-term once a week "avocational" classes which may be taught at a very high level by the very same "professional" chef instructors. It's hard for someone who isn't already a chef to just drop into the CIA for a year or less, that isn't the way that school is set up. An associate or bachelor's degree for newbies and specialized shorter-term work for returning pros.

[beans]

All the training in law school or cooking school or paralegal orientation doesn't prepare you or anyone to become an effective lawyer, a skilled chef, or an efficient legal assistant, blah blah blah.

Soba

I don't follow this. Culinary school is very hands on. Law school is a bunch of theory, deductive reasoning, Socratic method, trial advocacy and hitting the books. Cooking school does prepare you quite well to be a skilled chef upon successful completion.

[SobaAddict70]

*shrug*

My point is that the real training comes after your school training. I can point to many posts from many chefs on this site that supports that statement, but I'm too lazy to do a search. Experts have PMed me that this is so. Ask Jinmyo or Malawry, why don't you?

Soba

Edited July 2, 2003 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[NeroW]

What are we arguing about again?

[MatthewB]

What are we arguing about again?

Nero, let's get a case of PBR, sit in the backyard, & just ignore this thread.

[paul o' vendange]

Soba, c'est la vie. Simply my experience, which goes back to 1990. It is considerably different, and is not inaccurately represented from my empirical vantage point.

But I am deeply surprised to hear that most associates in your firm are in it to pay off their undergrad and law school debt in 2, 3, or 4 years?

I just did an empirical study, at my firm (granted, not rigorously statistical). 5 people asked, mix of established senior partners, new partners, young associates.

"What do you think is the average time to pay back law school loans" [did not ask of these plus undergrad loans]:

The consensus was a minimum of 10 years, and that at a huge monthly outlay. Enter family or other financial encumbrances, and that 10 can stretch to much, much longer (one did say, "8...but I'm just taking a stab"...but he is a senior partner and his school was paid for; another associate said she definitely thought the pay-out/pay-in ratio was only going to get drastically worse, therefore expecting much longer payback times).

Anyway, I'm glad your experience and that of your firm's lawyers is different. Hell, may all people be thus satisified in their work.

----

Steve KLC - just for the record (god, this is beginning to sound like a trial for all of us, isn't it?), Dan was not one of the guys I spoke with. But he lists FCI as his education, as does FCI list him on their alumni page.

Again, what you have had to say is valuable to me, and I leave (I think) this thread with much more than I have come in with.

Edited to add: I agree with you wholeheartedly that the nature of the instructor matters above all else. Which is what led me, in a former iteration, to devote 1 1/2 years training as an uchideshi - literally, inside, direct student, a disciple, if you will, to a Japanese Aikido master. But then, that is most definitely another thread.

Oh, and sorry, Steve, didn't fully answer you. We are coming en masse - wife, son, and 2 ridiculously oversized labradors - to NY. We shall see what happens after. We want very much to spend time in France.

Edited July 2, 2003 by paul o' vendange (log)

[NeroW]

What are we arguing about again?

Nero, let's get a case of PBR, sit in the backyard, & just ignore this thread.

Dude, are you next door?

Because that's what I'm just about to do.

[Steve Klc]

"I agree with you wholeheartedly that the nature of the instructor matters above all else. Which is what led me, in a former iteration, to devote 1 1/2 years training as an uchideshi - literally, inside, direct student, a disciple, if you will, to a Japanese Aikido master. But then, that is most definitely another thread."

Or, your first TDG piece once you are inside FCI.

[MatthewB]

What are we arguing about again?

Nero, let's get a case of PBR, sit in the backyard, & just ignore this thread.

Dude, are you next door?

Because that's what I'm just about to do.

I wish.

Gorgeous day & I think we'd be able to have a coherent & amicable discussion.

[paul o' vendange]

I say we all get a case of pbr.

And Steve, you have spurred me on to do such a thing.

[Lesley C]

I don't understand why people have to be shoved into boxes as per Lesley's argument....especially when your real training is out in the field, anyway. All the training in law school or cooking school or paralegal orientation doesn't prepare you or anyone to become an effective lawyer, a skilled chef, or an efficient legal assistant, blah blah blah.

Hmm. Well I guess it’s because I see cooking in two ways: home cooking and professional cooking. I remember a great French chef I knew who told me the minute he placed his toque on his head every morning he became a chef, and when he walked out and took it off, he was back to being himself. I’m married to a professional pastry chef who has never made a slice of pastry at home in the twelve years we have lived together. He’s very passionate about what he does, but he doesn’t see any need to bake at home after a long day’s work.

When I taught pros I was very serious, very disciplined and very tough with the students. They thrived on it. When I taught amateurs I felt I was putting on a three-hour show. They seemed so demanding, which made sense considering the cost of the courses. Questions were endless but they were often happier to see me demonstrate than pick up a rolling pin. People were shy to jump in and time was short. And God forbid you skip the break.

I grew to loath teaching amateurs because I couldn’t be honest with them. They paid to be in class, so how dare I tell them their tart looked like crap or their piping skills were laughable. You make comments like that to professional students all the time, in fact it’s essential to their progress. But with amateurs I felt honesty was often the worst policy.

One thing that always drove me nuts in amateur classes was the wide range of interest in the group. I had some serious students in those classes who eventually went on to professional schools and careers as chefs. I also had people who showed up to class to find dates, chat and drink wine.

I sympathize with serious amateurs because I’m sure they have a problem finding a course that isn’t a waste of their time. If the teacher tries to be tough in consideration of the serious students, the socializing students protest. And if you’re overly friendly, the serious students give you dirty looks.

When you teach in technical schools you can throw kids out of class, send them to do dishes, or tell them their attitude sucks. You do your best to recreate a professional-kitchen atmosphere in class. With paying amateurs you have to be Emeril.

Maybe this explains why serious amateur students are opting for schools like the Cordon Bleu.

[fresco]

Most interesting post by far on this subject. Now go have a beer.

[Lesley C]

My point is that the real training comes after your school training. I can point to many posts from many chefs on this site that supports that statement, but I'm too lazy to do a search. Experts have PMed me that this is so. Ask Jinmyo or Malawry, why don't you?

That isn't necessarily true. I learned a hell of a lot at cooking school and I ran into a lot of bullshit artists in the work place. You just take the best of everything around you. Then, after about ten years of absorbing all the good stuff, you start feeling like you know something about this profession.

Fresco, I don't drink beer, but I will go for a glass of rosé

[jersey13]

When I went to cooking school I thought I'd be surrounded by privileged kids like me who had already traveled quite a bit and had grown up reading Gourmet magazine. I was shocked to see my class was full of kids who knew nothing about white truffles and extra-virgin olive oil but who decided they wanted to cook for a living because hospital cooks make a starting salary of $15/hour. I was soon to learn that kids like me were in the minority and the reality of the profession was people who saw cooking as a job, not a calling or a passion.

welcome to real life?

You got it Tommy.

My background is in Marketing/PR. Not too long ago I saw a job posted for cafetiria kitchen help at a major pharmaceutical company near my home. Convenient hours with benefits. Given that I enjoy cooking, etc, I told myself if the money was right, I would apply. Turns out it wasn't, but, had it been,my life would have changed pretty drastically.

[paul o' vendange]

O.K., one more post. This is from Dan Barber's comments in the FCI article with him:

"The FCI is a great example, as a lot of things are, that you get out of it what you put into it. And if you're the type of person who is going to be late to class, and not follow up on your assignments and you're only interested in some sexy presentations and the exciting later-level involvement, The FCI is probably not the school for you.

"But it seems to me if that you can bring to it an excitement and a passion for learning at a time when you just have nothing else to do but learn…to me, I would LOVE to go back and do that again….I'd say if you're the type of person who puts a lot of energy and commitment and involvement to what you do, then it's a great, great environment in which to learn."

Now, the beer.

[MatthewB]

Now, the beer.

And a nice cold glass of Tavel for Lesley.

[beans]

I grew to loath teaching amateurs because I couldn’t be honest with them. They paid to be in class, so how dare I tell them their tart looked like crap or their piping skills were laughable. You make comments like that to professional students all the time, in fact it’s essential to their progress. But with amateurs I felt honesty was often the worst policy.

Ugh. How about coaching their dismal piping skills instead of telling them that their technique is laughable? Why lie? After all they are paying you to teach them how to do x, y or z.

When I enroll in a "professional" culinary school, I'm paying them too, they better tell me if I suck. My law professors didn't hold back if something was flimsy at best.

I think you said it best -- you loathe teaching amateurs. That's fine.

I loathe arrogance in teaching.

Edited July 2, 2003 by beans (log)

[slkinsey]

I grew to loath teaching amateurs because I couldn’t be honest with them. They paid to be in class, so how dare I tell them their tart looked like crap or their piping skills were laughable. You make comments like that to professional students all the time, in fact it’s essential to their progress. But with amateurs I felt honesty was often the worst policy.

Ugh. How about coaching their dismal piping skills instead of telling them that their technique is laughable? Why lie? After all they are paying you to teach them how to do x, y or z.

When I enroll in a "professional" culinary school, I'm paying them too, they better tell me if I suck. My law professors didn't hold back if something was flimsy at best.

I think you said it best -- you loathe teaching amateurs. That's fine.

I loathe arrogance in teaching.

Interesting... I am trying to figure out how this attitude towards teaching constitutes a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims.