Are professional schools for amateurs as well

[Lesley C]

I think many of you are missing the point.

Sandra the difference between wanting to be a good cook and having to cook for a living is tremendous. These people intend to earn a living -- you know make money to pay the bills -- by making cooking their profession.

Second, it’s nice to hear you all say you can hold your own as good home cooks next to the pros, but I just don't buy it. You might have noticed that your brunoise is more perfect than the chef's brunoise, but all taken, the knowledge, experience and advanced technique just cannot be compared. I'm really quite surprised to see how little you people respect this profession. This isn't a hobby, this is their life.

Jango, I've taught plenty of amateurs and worked with plenty of superb chefs, not a "sniveling little twerp” in the bunch. There's no pressure on the amateurs to succeed. Sure they want to succeed, but there’s no dark cloud hanging over their head if they don’t. It doesn't really matter if they mess up. The only pressure they have is the pressure they put on themselves.

By contrast, people (I've taught young kids and senior citizens) who want to cook professionally are put under constant pressure by their teachers. It’s part of the learning process, as the pressures of a professional kitchen are tremendous. When I was in cooking school, my teacher screamed so often, I used to go out in the hallway and cry. Can you imagine if I snuck up behind some rich housewife and screamed "DO YOU CALL THAT BEURRE POMMADE!" or sent the housewife and debutante to the dish pit because they were talking during a demo?

Sorry, you won’t convince me. I’ve taught both groups, and been part of both groups.

Apples and oranges.

[fresco]

"By contrast, people (I've taught young kids and senior citizens) who want to cook professionally are put under constant pressure by their teachers. It’s part of the learning process, as the pressures of a professional kitchen are tremendous. When I was in cooking school, my teacher screamed so often, I used to go out in the hallway and cry. Can you imagine if I snuck up behind some rich housewife and screamed "DO YOU CALL THAT BEURRE POMMADE!" or sent the housewife and debutante to the dish pit because they were talking during a demo?"

Why is that this brand of cruelty, which would be condemned out of hand in any other setting, seems to meet with such hearty approval when it comes to the training and practice of chefs?

It seems highly reminiscent of the way people used to justify the brutal methods employed at private boys' schools--the hazing, the horrible food, the beatings were necessary to turn them into men and leaders of men...

[Lesley C]

Oh please It's called discipline, and it works. It also weeds out the people who might disintegrate in a professional kitchen.

[fresco]

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

[Lesley C]

Strict yes, brutal no.

[SobaAddict70]

Sort of like being in the armed forces.

(For the record, I was in the U.S. Navy at one time, so I can certainly speak from experience. The only difference between cooking school and boot camp is that the yelling starts the minute you enter the RTC and is pretty much 24/7.)

*waves*

Soba

[Sandra Levine]

I'm really quite surprised to see how little you people respect this profession.

"you people?" It's obvious that people respect the profession. That's why they are willing to drop big bucks in support of it. The real question is why do professionals have so little respect for home cooks?

[NeroW]

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

Someone said something like this in one of my classes the other day, and it really pissed me off. Something along the lines of "oh, there should be a separate program for the people who don't want to be chefs, because they're just slow and they just take up space."

If you are going to make that argument about "housewives and debutantes", then aren't the "food writers" and "food stylists" and "food scientists" (and all the other possible professions) taking up the space and energy of the school when professional chefs truly need that space completely?

I turned right around and told that kid I wanted to be a food writer, not a chef, but that my knife skills were as good as anyone else's, and if he had a problem with ME taking up space in HIS kitchen, he could kiss my slow, non-professional-chef ass.

[Lesley C]

OK, but some here are making claims that amateurs and professionals have equitable skills or should learn the same skills in the same schools. I say, completely false. I take pottery classes, but there is no way I'd compare my skills or intentions to those of a professional potter.

And when people are dropping big bucks, they aren't supporting the profession, they are supporting elite schools that charge outrageous sums to teach people how to cook.

Can someone here tell me how much the Grande Diplome sets one back?

[Sandra Levine]

Clariifcation on big bucks. The big bucks that show respect for the profession are spent in restaurants and pricy bakeries. The chefs, cooks and bakers in those places are the "professionals" you feel are not respected.

[sandra]

Lelsley, I think you are the pne missing the point -

WHy do I (or anyone) have to be poor and struggling to be a chef? What difference could it possibly make? Is a Michelin starred chef still working to "pay the bills" as you put it? NO, does that make him less of a chef?

As for your technique comments, in a Michelin star restaurant, you bet it matters if your brunoise is better than the next guy's!

As for the years of experience, yes, you are right, but that does not mean that I can't achieve that level, some chefs spend 6 months in Garde Manger, others 3 years... depends on the person 100% percent...

And pressure? Why is there no pressure for amateurs to succeed? Have you not taken into account personal satisfaction, competitiveness and pride?

The chefs at LCB put the same amount of pressure on every student, as I said before, they don't always know who is who, nor do they care! And I have certainly had my share of of nose to nose events with the chefs, don't you worry!

Everyone deserves a great education, wether it be in English, Maths, Biology or Cooking - Imagine of you went to an inner city neighbourhood and told the people there that they did not deserve the same kind of education as those who were going to "do something" with it....

You take pottery classes? Great! Fabu! I have taken a 30 week qualifying diploma program, not a cookie baking class. I feel this qualifies me to enter the professional world as much if not more than some of my classmates, no matter what my background or intentions...

Jane: Great points - innate talent plays a great part in any endeavour, even in cooking!

Sandra: I think some pros resent the fact that someone else may have the talents and abilities to become part of "their world" - Other pros are way more open to fostering new talent...where would we all be without them??

NeroW: Here here!!! You tell 'em!!

KelMH: I did not say you were rude at all...re-read what I wrote...

[Sandra Levine]

Sandra: I think some pros resent the fact that someone else may have the talents and abilities to become part of "their world" - Other pros are way more open to fostering new talent...where would we all be without them??

Yes, indeed.

[beans]

And pressure? Why is there no pressure for amateurs to succeed? Have you not taken into account personal satisfaction, competitiveness and pride?

Yes, I care deeply if something doesn't turn out correctly and fails.

What also fails is how does obtaining the best possible education for the purpose of making a living somehow different than one who has a desire to learn from the best? (or the best they can afford)

I just can't seem to wrap my brain around the judgmentalness of it all. (or of anything actually)

Well stated Sandra. Great posts.

[alkonin]

it's rediculous to think that one person's reasons for going to culinary school are any more valid than another person's. if you want to learn, whatever your motives are, then you belong there.

[Lesley C]

There is no resentment. I have never met an amateur pastry chef who even comes close to professional abilities. I see no problem fostering talent; I've fostered plenty of young chefs and have taught hundreds. Have you?

Anyway, I didn't think that was the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is whether cooking classes should mix future professional chefs and home cooks.

My answer is still no. The type of training is not the same. It’s not about the quality of education. It’s about the type of education and the goal behind such courses.

And a few answers to the rest of your arguments:

WHy do I (or anyone) have to be poor and struggling to be a chef? What difference could it possibly make? Is a Michelin starred chef still working to "pay the bills" as you put it? NO, does that make him less of a chef?

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.

As for your technique comments, in a Michelin star restaurant, you bet it matters if your brunoise is better than the next guy's!

That wasn’t my point. What I said was “you all say you can hold your own as good home cooks next to the pros, but I just don't buy it. You might have noticed that your brunoise is more perfect than the chef's brunoise, but all taken, the knowledge, experience and advanced technique just cannot be compared.”

As for the years of experience, yes, you are right, but that does not mean that I can't achieve that level, some chefs spend 6 months in Garde Manger, others 3 years... depends on the person 100% percent...

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.

And pressure? Why is there no pressure for amateurs to succeed? Have you not taken into account personal satisfaction, competitiveness and pride?

I just don’t understand why you think a home cook could ever face the pressures of a professional chef? Are dinner parties as tough to get through as the dinner rush in a restaurant? I’m all for personal satisfaction but how could you have real competitiveness without salaries and promotions at stake? And aren’t you just always competing against yourself?

Everyone deserves a great education, wether it be in English, Maths, Biology or Cooking - Imagine of you went to an inner city neighbourhood and told the people there that they did not deserve the same kind of education as those who were going to "do something" with it....

I have taken a 30 week qualifying diploma program, not a cookie baking class. I feel this qualifies me to enter the professional world as much if not more than some of my classmates, no matter what my background or intentions...

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).

I’m confused about something Sandra, in some posts you sound like you’re at LCB for your own interest, and in other posts you sound like you’re interested in working in a professional kitchen. Which is it?

[JAZ]

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

Maybe I'm just a little slow today, but I simply don't understand what your point is. Or to be more precise, the point seems to have changed, or you're making more than one point (which is fine; I'm just trying for some clarification here. I hate feeling confused.).

It seems to me you're saying at first that professionals and amateurs should be trained in separate programs; but then you seem to attach a corollary to that first point to say that either amateurs being in these schools somehow lowers their effectiveness for the would-be pros, or that the amateurs in these schools take up places better reserved for the future chefs, or that the amateurs drive up the price of the schools to the point that less wealthy future pros can't afford them. Or maybe all three.

Well, it could very well be true that professional chefs need to learn a different set of skills (business as well as cooking skills) than amateurs. And it may be that different schools or separate programs might be the most effective way to teach the two groups.

But the other three corollaries don't necessarily follow from that, and even if they did, I think we have to treat culinary school the same way we treat any other privately funded school. And the fact is, in the US at least, we don't keep people out of schools or disciplines because of their professional intent. That is, if a person can afford a school and meets the requirements for admission, it doesn't make a difference what he or she intends to do with the education. Period. Now, it might well be that virtually no one goes to medical school who doesn't intend to become a doctor, but if someone did, she would certainly be allowed to. Why should culinary school be any different?

I don't even think aspiring chefs should pay to go to cooking school. They should be government funded, like mine was and the French programs are. Public education.

Wait a minute -- anyone who wants to be a chef should be sent to school at the public's expense? What about other professions? If I said, "I want to be a ____ (fill in the blank -- accountant, attorney, graphic designer, doctor, architect, musician, brick-layer, painter -- whatever), so I think the public should fund my schooling," would you agree with that statement? In the best of all possible worlds, perhaps, but not in this one.

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

Certainly going to culinary school is not a prerequisite for being a chef, correct? Not in the same way that going to medical school is a prerequisite for being a doctor. There are many avenues to becoming a chef, so even if we decided that training chefs was in the public interest and began devoting money to that end, it doesn't entail that we send them to culinary school, or that we deny admission to culinary school to amateurs.

[beans]

There is no resentment. I have never met an amateur pastry chef who even comes close to professional abilities. I see no problem fostering talent; I've fostered plenty of young chefs and have taught hundreds. Have you?

Anyway, I didn't think that was the topic of this thread.  The topic of this thread is whether cooking classes should mix future professional chefs and home cooks.

My answer is still no. The type of training is not the same. It’s not about the quality of education. It’s about the type of education and the goal behind such courses.

Lesley:

Who is the "you" that is referenced here in the first paragraph?

Good for you for teaching the masses and to have helped to foster talent!! But what does that really matter? (I found that a tad sactimonious, as well as portions of this thread singling out "housewives," "debutantes" and "rich girls.")

I beg to differ. I do read much resentment.

So is it the school's faux pas for not thoroughly investigating what each and every person's purpose for attending and their post graduation intentions? In a effort to weed out those cooking "hobbiests" ??? That is ridiculous and I find wholly absurd.

Schools, be it culinary or otherwise "higher educational institutions" are in fact in business to profit. They are not there for the good of the populous and/or public service.

[rdailey]

If I may be so bold as to pile on...

Lesley,

How on earth, do you think a government could provide a better culinary education than the elite private culinary schools mentioned in this thread? Those sizable tuitions go towards providing the best possible instructors, equipment, etc.

In regards to the old French system of apprenticeship, read Pepins recent biography on the subject. He is now a dean at FCI and claims that it is far superior than the apprentissage system which he learned from.

[NeroW]

I just don’t understand why a school like LCB would cater to amateurs and professionals at the same time.

Le Cordon Bleu is a for-profit institution.

That's why.

[sandra]

Jaz, beans, rdailey - you all beat me to it - I was out to dinner, paying a chef a handsome sum of money to feed me! All great arguments!

There certainly are many people in this world who have gone to law, medical, dentistry, all types of schools and are not practicing, so what, should they be segregated into different schools?

Lesley, maybe if you start a school for pros and one for amateurs you can start "bussing" programs between the two types of schools, wouldn't that be modern?!

And why are you confused Lesley? I am at LCB for both personal interest and fr the profession, is that so hard to believe? Like I said, don't put people in boxes....

As for the fees, everyone and anyone has access to the webpage, look it up yourself.... why does it matter so much to you?

OH, and by the way, you say about all the programs in France, where do you think LCB started? Really, go read the webpage...

Edited June 30, 2003 by sandra (log)

[Bux]

I don't know where to jump in on this discussion. I'm not a professional cook and I never went to culinary school. I also know the Cordon Bleu runs many classes and not all are designed for professionals, but professionals sometimes get their start in less professional classes and amateurs often take professional courses.

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.

Someone else asked about majoring in history without the intent of becoming an historian and Lesley earlier spoke of cooking as a blue collar vocation. A few years ago the top position in a New York City restaurant with a well earned three stars had a Yale graduate running the pastry kitchen. When she left, she was replaced by someone who had graduated from Princeton. Dan Barber and Mike Anthony, of Blue Hill in NYC, were both rather accomplished scholars in college as I understand it. As someone else noted all people are entitled to all the education they can absorb. I remember going to college at a time when many of my classmates argued that women shouldn't be allowed in Engineering or Architecture colleges as they would get married and not make it a career. In today's society, it's often hard to predetermine where one's career will turn in the future. I also think labels such as white and blue collar are out dated.

I can only speak from hearsay, but I have the impression that most professional culinary skills are developed and perfected on the job in the profession anyway.

[SobaAddict70]

Yay for Bux. Now there's a voice of reason.

I can only speak from hearsay, but I have the impression that most professional culinary skills are developed and perfected on the job in the profession anyway.

Lesley, I'm not sure what to make of your argument. So are you basically saying that all those people who decide to attend graduate school in order to get an advanced degree or because god forbid, they want to learn more about something they didn't get enough of while they were undergraduates should vacate their spots in favor of someone who decides to pursue a master's degree or doctorate degree with the intention of entering academia or putting that degree to "good" use like a profession? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

I'm a writer in my spare time and I applied to the New School for an MFA degree, both to better perfect my craft and also to learn/broaden my horizons/expand my knowledge base. I don't have any intention (at this time) of teaching creative writing, nor do I feel that my work has enough depth, much less have the desire to be a published poet. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered, eh? Let a real prose writer or poet with ambitions fill my shoes, eh? (I didn't get in, but that's neither here nor there.)

Soba

Edited June 30, 2003 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[Suzanne F]

I think many of you are missing the point.

Again, I join the chorus saying it is you, Lesley, who misses the point.

Sandra the difference between wanting to be a good cook and having to cook for a living is tremendous. These people intend to earn a living -- you know make money to pay the bills -- by making cooking their profession.

No one HAS TO "cook for a living." But many people have to cook to keep their families together, either because they earn money from cooking (the professsionals) OR because if they did not cook, their families would go hungry or eat only horrible, uneconomical stuff (the nurturers, the providers, the "housewives").

  . . . I'm really quite surprised to see how little you people respect this profession. This isn't a hobby, this is their life. . .

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?

. . . There's no pressure on the amateurs to succeed. Sure they want to succeed, but there’s no dark cloud hanging over their head if they don’t. It doesn't really matter if they mess up. The only pressure they have is the pressure they put on themselves.

Oh, really, that's no pressure? Go back and read Herzberg. Oh, and by the way, most of my classmates in that professional school behaved as though there were no pressure on them to succeed, even though there WAS a great deal of external pressure from teachers, job counselors, parole officers, parents; what they lacked was the INTERNAL desire and pressure to succeed.

By contrast, people (I've taught young kids and senior citizens) who want to cook professionally are put under constant pressure by their teachers. It’s part of the learning process, as the pressures of a professional kitchen are tremendous. When I was in cooking school, my teacher screamed so often, I used to go out in the hallway and cry.

My, how professional of you. Have you done that during service when every seat is full, too? Oh, and if a teacher does not put pressure on the students to learn the most they can, and do the best they can, that person has no business teaching, IMO.

Can you imagine if I snuck up behind some rich housewife and screamed "DO YOU CALL THAT BEURRE POMMADE!"

Yes, I can. She would probably react in exactly the same way as a "future professional chef" would: they'd both jump, they'd get angry (especially if they felt they were doing the best they could), they might both consider hauling off and socking you. No further comment.

or sent the housewife and debutante to the dish pit because they were talking during a demo?

Which is what should happen to ANYONE in ANY program who behaved that way. In this example, you'd probably get a couple of much more contrite students the next class. Or you'd be fired on the say-so of the husband or mommy/daddy who resented that you disciplined their little darlings.

Sorry, you won’t convince me.

Ah, the spirit of Plotz lives.

[jango]

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.

[Lesley C]

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