People call me chef all the time! I tell them that I am a cook with keys! Yes I order food, create specials, do food cost, inventory, hiring of employees,update the menu from time to time, answer the phone, talk to purveyers, answer to upper management,organize parties and special events-seeing them through to success,delegate, authorize, baby sit,listen,decide and guide...But, I am a Kitchen Manager.A lot more than a line cook, a little less than a chef!

I like that, a cook with keys.

the chef is the cook who is in charge of tne
kitchen-no more, no less. call it a cook with keys or call it kitchen manager or some grand ideal about someone creating food on an artistic level, the bottom line is- it's the chefs butt that's on the line eveyday to keep the kitchen performing and what makes a great chef is one that will do all that is necesary to keep things running whether it is washing dishes, cooking on the line, talking with guests, or whatever else might be needed

ALAIN DUCASSE is the only chef in the world, the rest of us, are just cooks, I hope everybody agrees but you know what I mean.

Ducasse would probably smile then politely inquire about his friend, Joel Robuchon. Perhaps "artist" defines literate while "boss" or "head" figurative. Aside from one's personal definition, it would seem there's too much of the just-add-water-then-shake-&-pour-out-a-finished-chef mentality. Title is immaterial to one's art. Daily operations mostly regard craft, with technique being one's skill. Ability then becomes desire to the individual. Perhaps altruistic yet striving forwards increases one's ability. An evolving personal definition of that desire would help.

a chef is only a chef when the front of house management refer to you as chef.Up until this time you still have a lot to prove in your chosen career path, to become a chef entails an awful lot of hard work and some out of college kid holding his papers in his hand wearing silly black and white checks and a t-shirt with "CHEF" emblazened on it does not deserve to be called a chef.Hard work and 10 + years in the trade is when you become a chef

I agree with chefy-special, it takes a long time and alot of experience to become a Chef. When I was in school, my Chef pounded his definition of a Chef into our heads... "You WILL NOT call yourself a Chef until you've worked for fifteen years in the industry and sucessfully run a 500 room hotel".

Now that's a little extreme but I do believe in it. When I became the Chef of my restaurant (promoted from Sous), I cringed when the owner insisted on putting my name on the menu as "Chef". I still am waiting for either my school Chef or some "old school" Chef to come in and publically denounce my "Title".

Anyone who thinks it is easy to become a Chef better think again. This is one of the few industries where you MUST work for a decade before you really become anything.

------------------
_______________________
http://www.cheforum.com
_______________________

A chef is responsible for all the food items in the house without exception . when you achieve this level you have the satisfaction of creating and pulling off the most memerable times in peoples lives . Remember this animals get fed and people dine . I look at being a chef as being the coach of a sports team . every day is a new game which I intend to win , when I do win I give the credit to the staff , and if I ever lose I shall take full responsability for it because I am in charge of all food operations . Good luck and keep cookin !

[GastroNaut]

chef (shf)
n.

A cook, especially the chief cook of a large kitchen staff.

[French short for chef (de cuisine), head (of the kitchen); see chief.]

The term chef is someone who runs the kitchen....

Chef from my experience is I believe as well to be someone that runs the kitchen and/or someone that is capable to do ALL aspects of the kitchen. I, myself at am referred to as chef many times. YES....chef is a babysitter. And we do lots of babysitting.i.e. do I have to do that (whining), where's this, where's that, breaking up fights. Then I wonder why I'm going bald.

I found the bigger the place you work in the more hot are you need to fill those tall hats.

[Nick.Shu]

heheh, ok, the explanation to this:

the chef is french for chief, so therefore,

the big man is the chef, and everyone else is a cook, even sous chefs, sous being french for under.

classically, the brigades usually follow such an organisation as follows:

Chef de cuisine = chef of cuisine
sous chef = Under Chef (2IC)
Chef de Partie = Chief of partie or section
Demi Chef = Half chef or CDP assistant
Commis Chef = Newly qualified cook
La Apprenti = apprentice Chef

so really there is only one true chef and everyone else is a variation of a cook until they reach that position.

p.s. dot call the head chef a chief chef, cos in the translation it sounds pretty stupid.

[chefjohnpaul]

Boy did you open a can of worms! I have two definitions. The literal definition and the more abstract definition. Chef literally meaning chief is the one in charge of the operation, in the hotel I work in that is the Executive Chef, then there is an executive sous chef, then sous chefs of many departments, then lead cooks ect... It is a line of managerial command, I have known cooks who can out perform appointed chefs in skill, so in my mind they are Chefs in the abstract sense in that they have control and command over the food with their skills, although they are not in a management position. I am a certified Chef de Cuisine but I am working as an hourly employee because I have other obligations that only allow me to work about a 40 hr. week, so I am a lead cook who also writes the menus for the establishment I work at in a major hotel, and on the dinner menu I am listed as chef de cuisine. The lunch chef de cuisine was a sous chef and then stepped down into a non management position, yet his name is on the menu as chef de cuisine and both front of the house and back of the house acknowledge such, we have the skills and the respect of the staff, yet we're not in a management position. So then have I confused the matter more? Perhaps it best to say, combining the literal and abstract, "all chefs are cooks but not all cooks are chefs", I would narrow it down in my mind to one who thoroughly understands the food, the technique, and has the passion and skill to create and to troubleshoot, and who has a thrist for continual learning, that is a chef in my mind, whether they are on paper or not. In this country the word cook may not carry the conotation of a culinarian where as chef does, so the term chef tends to seperate it into a more serious catagory. I think culinarian is a better term for a serious cook, than just cook- there are a lot of shoemaker cooks out there who really are not culinarians.

[Nick.Shu]

Obviously, there are those who can, those who find it instinctive and thos who just couldnt be bothered.

Realistically, there are always going to be those who try very hard and only just pass, and others can do the very minimum without batting an eyelid.

The reality of the situation is that the only truly memorable or even real "chefs" in ones life are the ones that make an impact in ones career.

Whether or not someone has the working title of "chef", i have to admit that my own feeling is that, generally, those with the knowledge and the skills are the ones that make it to the top. My view is somewhat utopian, but, with a little blind faith and respect for the man at the top, that is what it will be.

A chef, regardless of skill and cookery knowledge, really, is only as good as his worse staff.

[chefjohnpaul]

I will second that Nich.Shu! I think whatever you are doing you should do it to the best of your ability, if you hate what you are doing find something else to do. In the culinary world the work is just too hard in comparison to the pay to do it well if you do not have a passion for it. Many just get into a rut, begin to hate it and find themselves stuck, working hard and yet going no where. Perhaps a time to reevaluate at this point,eh?