[thetincook]

Originally Posted by foodpump

And if the "Chef" has done just that, bought himself a kitchen with no previous experience, and proceeds to run it into the ground, do you have respect for him/her? Respect for the title?

I do, otherwise I'd find myself fired. There's no need to be insubordinate. You seem to be mistaking a chef to mean a good chef.

I like your 5T's foodpump.

DC Sunshine- Glad to be in good company.

As for all of the certification junkies out there, the only certificate we need is the food handling certificate. You're not going to endanger anyones life (except your own) if you put chocolate on sea scallops, but you will if you don't store it properly.

The most important trade qualification for a chef is his ability to generate income for the establishment. There are lots of ways to achieve this and they don't all start with years of experience in the kitchen.

On the brigade system, back in the old days there used to chefs de partie which were in charge of individual stations. So yes, you could have a grill chef or a soup chef, a fish chef, a veg chef, or even a "drop chef."

I like being a cook, I'm proud to be cook. It's just a pain to explain the difference, especially in social situations. It can really put a damper on the mood, so I just roll with it sometimes. (ooh, you're the chef de boudoir? How exciting!)

Also, please stop knocking all the "ejiits" getting into the industry. If not for them, I couldn't get cheap equipment at foreclosure auctions.

[AndyG]

Good on ya, Tin. It's a question of what you can do and how well you do it.

[RAS1187]

The term "Chef" has been abused for a while now... I'm surprised people all of a sudden take offense to its misuse. I understand the amount of hard work that goes into earning the title, but why get frustrated over something that is going to happen and will not be stopping anytime soon.

In normal conversation with those outside of the biz, I get called chef all the time. I tried explaining the difference between cook & chef, but gave up.

I actually prefer to be called by first name and intend to keep it that way.

[ChefRAZ]

Originally Posted by foodpump

Welcome to the club. This is a N. American problem, as only in N. America a "chef" is any eejit in a poofy white hat, kinda like any eejit with a camera is a "professional photographer"... We have no trade qualifications that other (electricians, gas fitters, doctors, etc) trades use and that Gov'ts--both Federal and Porvincial/State will use to distinguish between eejits and real cooks. To compound the problem there are alot of schools that pump out "chefs"--not cooks mind you, but "Chefs", sometimes in as little as 3 months--with no previous industry experience required. Many schools feel that calling students "chef" encourages professional behavior, and once again, "cook" is a dirty word.

Deep down in the mire I think the "Chef" term was supposed to seperate the hash slingers from the other cooks. Problem is that in order to become a Chef, you need to become a competant cook, and "Cook" is a dirty word here in N. America.

On a llghter note, I hear that places like Apllbees now call they guy whyo dumps stuff in the deep fryer the "Drop-Chef", and it has become very chic to use "chef" as verb, as in "I chef at X's and I wear a Chef's coat when I'm cheffing"........

i don't know why you think its a dirty word in N america. its not...but in schools it probably is . because they want the kids money. to make money people will do anything. a.i. promising they will be a chef after school. thats why I think hands on experence is way better than schools, for the most part. you have someone in most cases that will teach you how to get from point a to point b.

[ChefTorrie]

Its just my opionion tincook, but I strongly disagree. By your statement, there can only be one chef per kitchen quota?

[kuan]

You are not the chef until someone calls you chef.

[shroomgirl]

lololol......right to the point Kuan!
how many chefs on this site (that are the end of the line in a food establishment) would occasionally like to be a follower?

[thetincook]

Originally Posted by ChefTorrie

Its just my opionion tincook, but I strongly disagree. By your statement, there can only be one chef per kitchen quota?

Not at all. It depends on how your business is setup.

Take a large hotel for instance
-You've got the chef in charge of the coffe shop
-You've got the chef in charge of the fancy restaurant
-You've got the chef in charge of banquets and catering.
-Then you've got the exec chef in charge of all three.

Even though they may use the same kitchen at times they're still chefs.

Chef is a managment position. You can have one in charge each profit/loss center if you want.

As far your question about only one chef per kitchen:
You can have two managers at the same level, with the same direct reports, responsible for the same things at the same time, but it sounds like a recipe for conflict and needless redundancy. How many bosses are in your kitchen?

Or possibly I'm missing your point. I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with.

[ChefRAZ]

or more than two per room, we are open 24 hours a day,days ,swing,and grave we have four chefs. the exec chef, the asst exec(me),head baker, and the asst. chef.we run the baked goods and pasteries for 10 outlets.

it is an on going battle to keep communication between chefs,so everyone knows what happened when and why.

[foodpump]

It's true that a Chef must a be a good manager, and in order to survive, generate a profit, but no, he/she must actually KNOW how to cook.

If the Chef thinks that poaching is to drop a cracked egg into boiling water, odds are that the whole kitchen can't poach properly either. If the Chef figures that "saute" means to toss par-cooked pasta in a ready-made tomato sauce, odds are that the whole kitchen understands that that process is incorrectly called "Sauteing". Basically the leader, the boss, the chef, whatever you call him must understand any job thoroughly before he gives that job to his/her subordinates. If he doesn't, he can't inspect the job properly either because he/she doesn't have the full understanding of it. Incompetance, I think it's called. This is why armies around the world , since the concept of war, have had boot camps, and selected officers only from those who finished boot camp. If they didn't, they'd have lousy officers, alot of dead men and a few mutinys on their hands.

But I digress, badly...Like I said this is a typicaly N.American problem. In Europe cooking is a respected trade, and acknowledged by federal Gov'ts. To become a cook you must complete an apprenticeship, there are very few private cooking schools, and those that are are not geared for professionals. The apprenticeship is viewed as a a seconary education, like highschool, so there are standardized tests, resulting in that the book learning is the same for every apprentice. Apprentices can only work under those who have succesfully completed THEIR apprenticeship. Trained elephants training the trainees. What you have now is a level playing field, very consistant education, and from this you can go on your way to becoming a Chef, or as high as you want.

Compare this to N.America where you can work anywhere you want to, with no guarantees that that Chef actually knows what they're doing. You might work at a high-end steak house and learn how to grill and saute but have no idea how to braise or poele. Or you could go to a cooking school, many are private run. But there is no consistancy BETWEEN these schools, what is curriculum for one school is not curricculum for another, what is acceptable standards for once school is not acceptable for another.

There are no national standards.

This is the problem.

[thetincook]

Originally Posted by ChefRAZ

or more than two per room, we are open 24 hours a day,days ,swing,and grave we have four chefs. the exec chef, the asst exec(me),head baker, and the asst. chef.we run the baked goods and pasteries for 10 outlets.

it is an on going battle to keep communication between chefs,so everyone knows what happened when and why.

That's sort of what I was trying to say.

[oldschool1982]

This reminds me a lot of a topic that sprung up back in February. At what point is one called a "Chef"?

Funny how quickly this one did explode tho. LOL

Like most, when I was younger in the career, Title meant the world. Stars were in the eye's and......Then I was slapped very abruptly upside the head. Good thing too! For some reason I always felt some discomfoirt in being called Chef. Not because I never earned the title but because I remember the people that wore the title before me. Somehow, in my own eye's, I always paled in comparison. But as I matured in the profession I finally began to understand exactly what being called a Chef meant. So I gradually accepted it but never really overcame the prior feelings.

There have only been a couple times in my life where I actually stressed the title but if you can imagine there were some pretty extenuating circumstances surrounding that statement.

I know I've stated this before but I believe it is worth repeating. None the less here are my beliefs on what it means or when it is proper to being called a Chef.

There are so many layers of education and experience to not only becoming and then progressing as a "Chef" it's hard to pinpoint.

Personally I'd like to believe that you earn the title not when you finish school but.... When you are hired to and have been able to succesfully apply the knowledge you have accumulated over a period of years in cooking techniques, food chemistry/science, recipe writing, menu design and costing, food/equipment/wares purchasing and control, managment fundamentals, kitchen design, sales and service, staff education and training, etc, etc, etc.

Then again, life and experiences have taught me that becoming a Chef is something you earn. The title doesn't make the person the peson makes the title. It should never be self proclaimed and gloated over and it should never be used to make another feel insuperior or insecure. A Chef should always be willing to share knowledge and lend a hand in the advancement of others involving the craft. Being a Chef is realizing it as the last know "Nobel" profession and then acting responsibly within that manner. Unfortunately many out there are intent on reducing it to nothing more than the "Court Jester".

So the question of "At what point is one called a Chef?" Could be when, as a sign of respect, a peer addresses you as Chef instead of your actual name.

Rant over, soap box tucked neatly under cabinet.

[RAS1187]

Another thing to add, I am sure that at some point in all our lives, we have offended someone else similarly by ignorance/lack of knowledge.

[shroomgirl]

foodpump what is poele?

[-Cp]

I've been cooking @ home now for about 5 years or so.. Certain family members always refer to me as "Chef" - It makes me upset when they do that as I have a profound respect for what a "Chef" really is... and I ask them repeatedly to stop calling me that..

Most folks don't realize that the term "Chef" is much more than someone who can cook.. it's a mastery of the art of food if you will and I know I'm far from ever being in the same league as any true "Chef"...