Are professional schools for amateurs as well

[slkinsey]

I don't know what your school experiences were like, but I can tell you that the number of students in most any conservatory who intend to work professionally in music is a lot more than half.  And I have to believe that the same is true for most law schools, medical schools, etc.

Wow, that's a big "etc"!

Most of my educational experience is in universities. (I have 2 undergraduate degrees in the sciences, and am doing graduate work now.) Most people in higher education are not studying medicine, law, or music. They have a clear idea of what they want to do when they start, but by the time graduation comes, they just want to hit the road.

The reason I specifically mentioned music, medicine and law is that these schools are fundamentally vocational schools, as is a cooking school. The goal of a conservatory is to train people to take jobs as professional musicians. The goal of an academic course of study is different. As University of Colorado President Howard Goldblatt said, "I consider liberal arts as a freeing of the mind from the demands of narrow specialisation and vocational preparation, and a focus on ways of learning -- seeking coherence and unity, developing a skill for critical rational analysis, and viewing history, arts, and sciences through the prism of morality and ethics." This strikes me as a pretty good description of pure academics. If you are pursuing an academic advanced degree, I imagine you would agree with me that you are not being trained to do a job.

I have never studied in a conservatory, my music training having ended after HS graduation. Music schools are a good example of diversity of training here. Some are extraordinarily selective; others accept all comers, allowing those who should've known better than to apply to drop out after one expensive semester. Berklee's the second kind. If you graduate, you get a good education, but you know it was subsidized by wannabees who couldn't have gotten accepted at a community college.

This is a good example of the "weeding out" I described earlier in this thread. Music schools, especially undgraduate, have to admit students based on talent and promise to a certain extent, and then let the next four years sort the wheat from the chaff.

As for music schools, or any schools for that matter, that "accept all comers" -- that is the difference between a not-so-good school and an elite school. Berklee, I have to say, is not exactly what I would call a high-level music school. Fundamentally it is a jazz/pop "music school" where a large percentage of the students who go there form musical groups with fellow students and leave to pursue fame and fortune.

As for colleges accepting substandard students to subsidize the education of more talented students... I have spent my entire life around career academics, many of whom have been involved at the highest levels, including admissions. There is no college or university of which I am aware that admits students based on their ability to pay.

[Katherine]

If you are pursuing an academic advanced degree, I imagine you would agree with me that you are not being trained to do a job.

I'm in a graduate level teacher training program. That's extremely vocational, but there are plenty of people in the program that want the certificate for reasons other than teaching in the public schools that require it.

[slkinsey]

If you are pursuing an academic advanced degree, I imagine you would agree with me that you are not being trained to do a job.

I'm in a graduate level teacher training program. That's extremely vocational, but there are plenty of people in the program that want the certificate for reasons other than teaching in the public schools that require it.

Interesting... Would you say that there are plenty of people in the program who do not plan to pursue teaching or a relevant related field professionally?

[sandra]

[How many amateurs are really taking classes like this?  What percentage of students in your class are amateur?

In my class it was maybe 10%, that I know of - like I said, there are some you would not know as they don't necessarily reveal -

Some of them have gone on to open restaurants, catering companies, staging or working part time or as and when they want, like me - I may or may not work full time someday, for now I am happy this way...

There are also some that finished and went back to their day to day life of doing whatever it is they did before...

[slkinsey]

slkinsey:  This is what the good folks of the Oxford Dictionary defines patronizing:

t verb 1 [often as ADJ.] (patronizing) treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority: ‘She's a good-hearted girl,’ he said in a patronizing voice | she was determined not to be put down or patronized.

Interesting, my brand new edition of the The Compact Oxford Dictionary, Second Edition has this to say:

patronize, v

1. trans. To act as a patron towards, to act as a patron to; to protect, support, favor, countenance, encourage: orig. as as the act of one in a superior or influential position.

b. Said of a patron saint or tutelary deity. Obs.

c. To defend, support, stand by; to advocate; to justify; to countenance. Obs.

d. Said of things. Obs.

2. With upon: to lay the responsibility for (a thing) upon someone; to make or declare a person responsible for; to father upon anyone. Obs.

3. To assume the air of a patron towards; to treat with a manner or air of condescending notice. 1797 Mrs. Radcliff Italian i, The musical genius whom she patronized. 1820 Haslitt Lect. Dram. Lit. 10 Feeling much the same awkward condescending disposition to patronize these first crude attempts at poetry and lispings of the Muse. 1845 Disraeli Sybil I. ii.  Spruce ... had a weakness for the aristocracy, who ... patronized him with condescending dexterity. 1865 Dickens Mut. Fir. II. xiv, I don't want to be patronized.

4. In commercial or colloquial use: To favor or support with one's expenditure or custom; to frequent as a customer or visitor; to favor with one's presence, resort to, frequent.

patronizing, ppl. a.

That patronizes, esp. with an air of superiority; ostentatiously condescending or superior.

Hence patronizingly adv., with the condescension or air of a patron.

I assume your use of the word was intended to be sense 3 above.

Regardless, I don't see how Lesley C's behavior was patronizing no matter whose definition was used, yours or mine.

[slkinsey]

if a rank amateur wants to go to the cia, they meet entrance criteria, they meet financial criteria, and they have the motivation (whatever that motivation is), then i don't believe anyone has the right to tell them they can't, or to belittle their choice.

Provided that "rank amateurs" can keep up with a class designed exclusively for the needs of prospective professional cooks, I agree that there is no reason they should be excluded -- unless, as I stated before, it is the decision of the school to do otherwise. My only question is to whether or not a cooking school which depends on a certain amount of revenue from amateurs in its professional program can truly maintain the standards and rigor that it might with a class consisting entirely of prospectice professionals. The answer strikes me as a resounding "it depends on the school and it depends on the percentage of amateurs." Clearly, in the case of Sandra's program, the presence of 2 dedicated hardcore amateurs in a class of 20 would not necessarily lower the level. Were this number to rise to 7 or 8 out of 20 and not so hardcore, it might be a different story.

But ultimately it is up to each school to make those decisions. In my business I can tell you for sure that there are elite programs that would drop a young artist who was not planning on making a career in music (the one exception might be an artist of such exceptional talent and promise that they would be retained in the hope that they might be convinced to enter the field).

[arlene]

Let me see if I understand this: People who would like to participate in learning the skills and obtaining the knowledge one can get at culinary schools merely because they have a genuine passion for the subject are somehow less worthy than people who want to learn because down the road they can earn money?

Very interesting.

[jango]

I don't know what your school experiences were like, but I can tell you that the number of students in most any conservatory who intend to work professionally in music is a lot more than half.

More like 100%.

As a graduate of a music conservatorium, I can say that all of my classmates were looking to a career in music after their completion, and no one entered it in the first place without many years experience as a musician. It was competitive but also free of charge so it didn't have to subsidize its existance with paying customers.

I'm beginning to see your points through these music school analogies.

(There seem to be a lot of musicians on this board. Have there been any threads on music/food parallels?)

[jango]

I still think you are the exception to the rule because a relaxed, primarily demonstration type course, is the norm for amateurs.

We hard-core amateurs should have made it clear from the outset of this discussion that "relaxed" and "demo" were hardly the kind of cooking classes or schools that we were discussing. Nor are night classes, classes that allow talking off-subject, classes that do not require uniforms, or wine guzzling mid-session.

[jersey13]

Lesley, where in Montreal do people go to become professional pastry chefs?  Are there separate programs or are they all rolled in with professional cooking?

Does this mean you don't wish to tell me?

[jersey13]

Let me see if I understand this:  People who would like to participate in learning the skills and obtaining the knowledge one can get at  culinary schools merely because they have a genuine passion for the subject are somehow less worthy than people who want to learn because down the road they can earn money?

Very interesting.

Welcome to eGullet Arlene!

And yup, that would about summarize several pages of arguments up to this point. However, it seems now that people are coming around to the idea that amateurs are soemwhat acceptable in the professional vocational milieu, so long as they don not comprise more than a certain percentage of the class and are not an impediment to those pursuing a career in the chosen subject.

I can go along with that, but I also believe that under the circumstances I mentioned above, the onus is on the instructor to keep the class moving at the "professional" pace.

[Lesley C]

Jersey 13, not to get too off topic, I'll PM you.

[jersey13]

Jersey 13, not to get too off topic, I'll PM you. 

Thanks Lesley. For a minute there I thought you didn't want an amateur diluting the professional programs.

[slkinsey]

Let me see if I understand this:  People who would like to participate in learning the skills and obtaining the knowledge one can get at  culinary schools merely because they have a genuine passion for the subject are somehow less worthy than people who want to learn because down the road they can earn money?

I would say that your understanding is a misapprehension, if this is indeed what you have gleaned from the foregoing. I think people are saying a combination of two things with respect to amateurs:

1. the vast majority of people who are interested in learning about cooking do not have the endurance, dedication, motivation, commitment and willingness to go through a curriculum that would be useful to a prospective professional cook. The inevitable result of this is that any cooking school which depends on revenue from a significant percentage of amateurs would have to lower the level of the class if they wish to continue to attract and retain such amateurs. There are, of course, some small number of hardcore amateurs like Sandra, but no school is going to depend on revenue from such students because there aren't enough of them.

2. there is also some question as to whether many of the skills learned in a truly professional class are all that valuable to amateurs in the real world. For example, most of the equipment used in the professional kitchen is very different from anything that might be used in the home. Why learn to make 500 pounds of dough in a huge Hobart when you will be using a KitchenAid at home? Especially when there are things you might learn about making the 500 pounds that are not applicable to making two pounds at home? Similarly, as other people have pointed out, a big part of professional cooking is learning how to do a lot of food in a very short period of time. Is it more valuable for a home cook to learn how to bone out 50 chickens in an hour, or how to bone out one chicken really well in 10 minutes?

To a certain extent, the whole amateur question seems somewhat secondary to the fact that cooking school educations do not seem to be particularly highly valued in the professional world, if what I have read from professionals in this and other forums is any indication. If anything, the programs need to be more rigorous, more geared towards the professional arena, and more focused on acquiring skills that will make their diploma valuable in the workplace. The schools need to do something that will make a prospective employer say, "so-and-so went to the Academy of Culinary Excellence... that means he/she can contribute something to my kitchen that I won't be able to get from someone else." Such a program might include things not strictly in the kitchen like teamwork, team building and leadership skills; understanding management; how to work with owners; how to calculate costs and price dishes; speaking Spanish; career skills for moving up the ladder; how to find a career in the business that works for you; etc. I can't imagine that any such work would be of interest to an amateur. This is the same reason why amateurs who go to "Pro Football Camp" aren't made to run until they vomit. A good cooking school, like a good music schoool, should also be one that helps make connections for the students and places them in top kitchens where they can continue to learn and develop their skills under people who are interested in developing their talent.

[beans]

slkinsey:

I wish I could have the time to jump back into this pissing match of which dictionary is better than the other's....

Suffice it to say perhaps my very personal opinion on this matter is a culmination of both public postings and personal private messages. I'm entitled to it.

Patronizing is exactly the word I would use to describe.

Now, I've got thousands of dollars to ring up in both food an beverage sales and 14 hour shifts until Tuesday... after all it is the weekend of the season. Happy 4th y'all.

[Lesley C]

slkinsey, superb wrap-up.

But I'm not so sure about the bit about cooking school educations not particularly highly valued in the professional world. I ran into many students in professional classes that were only there to get certification because jobs in hotels and many institutions required a diploma. Also in France, you just don't run into that many chefs who didn't get their CAP (Certificat d'Aptitudes Professionels). In Quebec and France, professional cooking school diplomas are government documents. When I graduated from cooking school, I received a second high school diploma from the minister of education. This doesn't seem to be the situation in the States. For instance, a CIA diploma has no government ties or public education credits.

Is that correct?

[paul o' vendange]

Lesley, CIA offers both an Associates and Bachelor's degrees.

[slkinsey]

I'm not so sure about the bit about cooking school educations not particularly highly valued in the professional world.

Oh? Well, you may be right. To be honest, I am only going on impressions I have gleaned from discussions here and elsewhere. Certainly you would know better than I.

What would you say is more valued in the professional world: two years of cooking school or two years of professional experience with no cooking school? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm curious.

Suffice it to say perhaps my very personal opinion on this matter is a culmination of both public postings and personal private messages.  I'm entitled to it.

Patronizing is exactly the word I would use to describe.

Beans, what can I say? In my opinion, and the opinions of most people, the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary is the reference standard for the English language. I make proper usage of English words (English being probably the most precise language on a word-for-word basis) something of a hobby, and I have observed that "patronizing" in particular is misused on a regular basis. It is not the case that condescension is inherrent in any situation in which one person interacts with another from a position of greater knowledge or authority, or where attitudes as to the relationship are formed based on that disparity.

Regardless, I am going on what I have seen in the public record, and I can't say that I agree with your characterization. Understanding that a student sucks at piping is not patronizing, neither is drawing on one's teaching experience and offering fundamentally different criticism/instruction (including withholding certain criticism) to students with different goals and levels of expertise. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am also entitled to say that I think you're wrong. We'll just leave it there.

[Lesley C]

What would you say is more valued in the professional world: two years of cooking school or two years of professional experience with no cooking school? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm curious.

Hmm. It all depends on the professional experience and the school. Two years at the Olive Garden would be little (or no) help getting you a job at Jean-Georges, whereas 2 years at a reputable cooking school might. Then again, two years working for Michel Bras would get you into that Jean-Georges kitchen faster than 2 years at the CIA. Then again, you probably wouldn't get into the Michel Bras kitchen without some sort of recognized cooking school on your CV.

If I were hiring a pastry assistant, I'd probably go for the kid who went to school. If he/she only had two years pastry experience from some shop or restaurant on his/her CV, he/she might only be able to recreate what they did on the job.

Of course this is all hypothetical. In the long run you hire the person who you want to spend 12 hours a day working alongside.

[slkinsey]

What would you say is more valued in the professional world: two years of cooking school or two years of professional experience with no cooking school?

Hmm. It all depends on the professional experience and the school. (snipped)

Thanks for the reply. I was just thinking of something I think Bourdain said in Kitchen Confidential to the effect that he thought it was better to get some kid from Equador who would make the dish exactly the way he taught it to him instead of someone from Italy (or cooking school, or whatever) with ideas who would try to do things his own way. Maybe it's not a fair question, as I would think that anyone with only two years of experience would be doing only what he/she was told to do.

[Steve Klc]

Lesley, don't you think more so than reading a resume or inquiring about a degree, what gets you into either Bras or Jean-Georges or any elite kitchen first and foremost is a personal phone call, a personal recommendation from an admired colleague? I mean, there's value to be considered in the abstract, then there's the value of someone sending you someone. That carries the most weight. And that might be a highly respected instructor at a school sending only his best student to you--or it might be the chef you've worked for calling on your behalf and helping you network.

We can hypothesize, but if one elite chef calls up one of his buddies--even if they don't know each other that well--and says, hey, I'd like to send one of my guys to work for you for a while, do you think you can take him, what do you think will happen?

So, taking that back to slkinsey's query about the relative value of 2 years of school versus 2 years of work--I'd say if you put those two years of work in at a top place, a Tru or Clio or Blue Hill--and a Rick Tramonto, a Ken Oringer or a Dan Barber would call on your behalf--I think generally experience plus the personal recommendation will be taken over school mostly every time. Keller calls up Tramonto, Trotter calls up Adria, it might even involve an intermediary chef who has an in--so chef A calls chef B to set up a position for one of chef A's guys with chef C, who chef A doesn't actually know.

In the US, it's possible even less experience would trump even more school every time. I can't speak to how it works in Canada or in Europe, but the chefs here know their underlings need their recommendations--if they're thinking of moving on. It can be one of the implied and perhaps not-so-implied agreements between chef and his staff. Beside the money an elite chef is not going to be paying you for the privilege of working under him--you better bust your butt and then some so when you want to do a stage at "x" he'll call and recommend you.

(Of course, the foodservice/hotel type positions here in the states which might stipulate a degree are a different story.)

[Lesley C]

Well back up a bit there Steve. Sure all the top chefs swap staff all the time. But how do you get that first big break? Here in Quebec (I'm not sure about Canada) it's most likely from your cooking school teacher because the courses are in French, so the networking between the hotel school here and two and three star restaurants in France is quite strong.

Once you get your first big "in" the rest is up to your performance in that restaurant. This is even more so, I think, in France where chefs really encourage you to leave after a year and work your way to better restaurants. In Quebec, and I'm just guessing in the States, chefs like to hold on to their staff. When I worked in France my chef called his friends at Fauchon, Belin, Pelletier etc. to find his crew jobs at the end of the season. But my cooking school teacher got me that initial break.

Also, those foodservice/hotel type positions that stipulate a degree are highly coveted because the salaries are so high and they come with benefits. I've seen good chefs decide to work in cafeterias and hospitals after years of busting their buns for little pay in fancy restaurants, especially in the early nineties when the economy here was so bad and hotel restaurants were still good.

[slkinsey]

In re to the amateur issue, something else just occurred to me... What kind of program are we talking about, how might amateurs potentially be included, and what are the real professional value of these programs?

It seems that there are short-term "intensive" programs. I have a hard time understanding how such a program would be valuable to a prospective professional cook other than imparting basic cooking skills to someone who knows practically nothing about cooking. The "diploma" from one such program, I would imagine is basically worthless as a professional credential. Programs of this kind might be especially susceptible to "lowering the bar" effects from a dependence on income from substantial numbers of amateurs, turning them in effect into "professional cooking camp." I would imagine that most amateur cooks with an interest in professional training attend such schools.

Then there are long-term (2+ years) diploma programs. I can't imagine that anyone but the most hardcore amateur enthusiast would commit the time and resources to such a program in its entirety. And, of course, more power to any such amateur who does and makes the grade. However, there is some question in my mind as to whether or not these schools might admit amateurs on a per-class basis. Does this happen? If I were pursuing a degree at a place like this, I'd be pretty pissed off if they let non-degree students into my "advanced pastry making" course.

So... is it really the case that places like the CIA really get many amateurs in their full curriculum or mingle amateurs with their full curriculum students on a per-class basis?

[Steve Klc]

Lesley, Kurt Walrath got his first big break walking into Le Cirque after arriving in NYC from Tennessee (I think) and telling Jacques he'd regret it if he didn't hire him. Jacques took him on and Kurt went on to become his right hand and then one of the best pastry chefs in NYC in his own right until he walked away from pastry and enrolled in RISD to get a degree, his first degree. He also found the best glass artist in the area and then walked into his shop and said let me work for you you won't regret it. He was hired and now Kurt has his RISD degree, got the practical experience all the while he was in school, now opened his own factory space and is doing amazing art glass.

Your points are all true, and as we said previously one of the valuable things a good cooking school can do--most definitely an intensive 6 month career-changing one--is it can network you into the scene, it can help you get your foot in the door to get your first break. But the schools know that and it is a criminal amount of money to pay for some networking. I was in the kitchen of Le Cirque talking to Jacques years ago when he took a call from Nick Malgieri, the power that be at Peter Kump. They spoke in French. After they hung up Jacques said that was Nick, he only sends over his best student to me, he starts Monday. And Jacques had a steady stream of wannabees lined up at FCI, his program.

Slkinsey--I agree with your "general" assessment of the short term career changing school and its effectiveness. The value that those students find in that experience is open to interpretation and can only really be determined in hindsight, after they've gone through it and can look back. That's why I am psyched we have several people on this thread either in schools like this, about to enroll, or in the case of beans, contemplating enrolling. It will be great for all of them to stay in touch and weigh back in.

As far as the 2 to 4 year diploma/degree programs--the factories like a CIA or Johnson & Wales--it's mostly amateurs who attend, amateurs are their curriculum, young kids, teenagers going to these schools instead of going to college for business or liberal arts or whatever. There's a perfunctory "you have to have some restaurant work experience" before we allow you to start classes. I do not believe these schools allow any co-mingling of drop-ins because these schools are colleges. The students are all degree candidates. While these schools are expensive, there are options even for young kids that aren't as expensive--as Shaw mentioned earlier--in this "category" are fantastic culinary arts programs at say SUNY-Delhi and NYC Technical College, which is a part of CUNY. I've taught and worked with students at both campuses. $3,400 and $4,000 per year, respectively. I know four instructors and professors at the latter 2 schools and they are incredibly talented, incredibly committed and actually much more experienced teaching than most instructors at other professional programs. It pains me to see how much effort they expend on behalf of their students. Delhi tries to do the ACF-CIA wannabee thing; NYC Tech is French and decidely not ACF. The thing is, though, an older career changer, say Paul on this thread, or me ten years ago, wouldn't go to these schools because we don't fit their student profile: we've been to college, perhaps gotten a few degrees, we've had a career, perhaps a few, and their profile doesn't fit us: we wants to get into cooking as quickly as possible. We can taste it. Our choice is go to school or talk our way into a kitchen and start learning on the job. Our choice (and I'm simplifying this) is enroll at an FCI because an admired chef like a Dan Barber recommends it or we feel we have to OR just approach a chef like a Dan Barber and say "I'm moving to NYC and want to work in your kitchen for free. I'm smart, capable and hard-working, I'm bringing my family with me so you know I'm not a flake and I'm in it for the long haul. Give me a shot and you're under no obligation to keep me or pay me if it doesn't work out." Michael Laiskonis would probably add in here he'd recommend spending some tuition dollars for travelling immediately to see and eat the best in Paris and Spain and try to spend some stage time wherever you could over there. But that just going and exposing yourself to the elite could be mind and career-altering--in a way a cooking school never could be.

That's the niche that FCI and other short term career professional programs have been built up for.

[Lesley C]

Kurt has balls.

I'm not sure his approach would have worked in France, but I admire it just the same.

I had plenty of students who worked in the family restaurant, especially Italians, who decided there might be more to life than working for dad and making fettucini Alfredo so they enrolled in cooking school. They did well in school but we constantly had to hold them back from using chicken base and Aromate. One thing they did learn on the job was how to work hard. Most of these kids were the last to leave class and the first to finish their mise-en-place. When I used to teach pizza in class, I'd turn the demo over to the student who worked in a pizza parlour -- there was always at least one and he was usually brilliant.

So much depends on each personality. But I think school is a great thing for chefs and amateurs alike. It's an eye opener, and it gives you the chance to mess up or shine.