THESE ARE MY OPINIONS. DON'T TAKE THEM TO HEART. I'VE BEEN DRINKING.
I agree that the word is thrown around too casually,
and I feel that the term should take into consideration the caliber of food being prepared.
Most of my duties would be the duties that a chef would perform, but the food being served is, honestly, glorified pub fare.
We're really busy and keep getting busier so the menu keeps getting dumbed down. People like it, but it's not a menu that I would walk into a job interview with. I would, however walk into a job interview and explain how I leveled out FC and helped make the place more fluid and productive.
For this forum, I chose "restaurant manager" and I think the title fits better than "chef".
So,
to me, a chef would be someone who:
sacrifices their social life and marries their job,
works ungodly hours,
can plan tomorrow's unexpected 5 course dinner for 30 people in their head while cleaning out the **** grease trap,
is always pushing the envelope with specials and menus,
drinks too much,
is aware of and implements culinary trends (except for that foam fad, yuck) into their menus,
7-10 years holding "chef" position,
Also, you should have spent at least a years working in a dish pit.
And I like the idea of a chef being a working chef. Otherwise you're just administration (like me
). I do the ordering and food costing and a myriad of other things that take up my whole day, but I rarely... RARELY pick up a knife. All my knives are at home collecting dust.
It really bugs me when friends call me a chef. "Learned cook" or "somewhat knowledgeable cook" would be more accurate.
Hey, I'm no chef. Just a restaurant manager who has been in the biz for 20+ years.
Worked Foh and BoH. I don't expect to be agreed with. I've still got a lot to learn. But
to me, this is what a chef is.
Hope I don't sound like an idiot.