The use of the title Chef - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by foodpump 

Eh......No.

 

"Cook" became a four lettered word, and "Chef" was the newspeak double-plus-good word for "Chef".  Heck, even your ACF, (or is it the AFC?) won't even refer to cooks as cooks, instead they are called "Culinarians"......

 

If you really want to navel gaze, it is us who are to blame for this mess.  No one is implementing any standrds for what a cook is, or what a Chef is, no one is taking the media or cooking schools to task, they do what they want to do, they goez where they wants to goez.

 

But the bigest joker in the deck is us ourselves------Too much competition.  Everyone spinning nickels and looking for corners to cut.  Too much convienience food and uneducated/trained staff.  And the public?  They love it, keep asking for more.

 

"Chef" designed submrine sandwich anyone?........

 

 

Are you speaking from personal experience? ....that's too bad

"Chef" designed submrine sandwich anyone?........

And why not? We've got all those chef designed "gourmet" hamburgers.

Hamburgers, for God's sake. You know, a patty of chopped meat on a bun.

Well, a chef will afford that "chopped meat on a bun" the respect it deserves. He will know the proper fat content, the proper cooking temperature, the proper seasoning, quality garnish and bread. Your contempt for a decent burger speaks volumes.

No difference between Mickey D's 1/4 pounder with cheese on Wonderbread and a handmade, freshly ground sirloin burger with aged white cheddar, boar bacon and caramelized shallot on a freshly baked handmade kaiser?

So a steak... just grilled meat slapped on a plate?

Roasted chicken... just a dead bird in an oven?

Why do any of us bother then? Is it all supposed to be asparagus foam and essence of snobbery with a side of holier-than-thou?

The proof is in the knowledge, skill and respect given to the dish and the ingredients used, and the ability to teach those skills to your employees so that they become an extension of your own skill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boar_d_laze 

Hmmm.

 

 

 

Interesting.  You must have been an early adopter.  The Gastronomique wasn't even translated into English until 1961.  Besides, I thought you didn't cook from recipes.

 

First, allow me to correct your anachronism.  Julia Child graduated from LCB in 1950. 

 

But I'm just dying to hear your theory of how Julia Child really screw[ed] things up.

 

BDL

 First of all, Larrousse Gastronomique is more of an encyclopedia of french cooking than a book of recipes and second of all, any " true chef " should be able to look at a list of ingredients and make any menu item without looking for the amounts listed in any book and thirdly it has nice pictures and illustrations. I also  have copies of Esoffier and Louis p. De Gouy of the Waldorf for the same reasons. Along with over $2K in other culinary references.

And I sure LCB taught Julia how to flip an omelette and even though, sometimes she would miss the pan on camera, being that she never managed a commercial kitchen in her life, I sure it was just from the lack of experience. There are a lot of cooking books on the market by people who never have managed a kitchen and that doesn't make them a "Chef" either.

How they ever convinced Jacque Pepin to pair up with her, I will never understand.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrairieChef 

Well, a chef will afford that "chopped meat on a bun" the respect it deserves. He will know the proper fat content, the proper cooking temperature, the proper seasoning, quality garnish and bread. Your contempt for a decent burger speaks volumes.

 

No difference between Mickey D's 1/4 pounder with cheese on Wonderbread and a handmade, freshly ground sirloin burger with aged white cheddar, boar bacon and caramelized shallot on a freshly baked handmade kaiser?

 

So a steak... just grilled meat slapped on a plate?

Roasted chicken... just a dead bird in an oven?

 

Why do any of us bother then? Is it all supposed to be asparagus foam and essence of snobbery with a side of holier-than-thou?

 

The proof is in the knowledge, skill and respect given to the dish and the ingredients used, and the ability to teach those skills to your employees so that they become an extension of your own skill.

Well put Prairie Chef

Gypsy
 

Your contempt for a decent burger speaks volumes.

No, Prairie Chef, not contemp for the burger. In my years as a short-order cook I've probably prepared more of them, in more variations, than you've seen. And I know the proper relationship of fat to lean, and how to season and flavor the specific meat being used, and how to match garnishes to the particular burger, and the right breadstuff to use for a particular set of flavor profiles. I'll stack my burger-making skills against anyone in the world.

That does not make me a chef, by any means. Nor are those who make them at McDonald's chefs.

Although maybe if I usurped that unearned title I, too, could charge 25 bucks for what is, when all is said and done, a rustic sandwich.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caterchef 

 First of all, Larrousse Gastronomique is more of an encyclopedia or french cooking than a book of recipes and second of all, any " true chef " should be able to look at a list of ingredients and make any menu item without looking for the amounts listed in any book and thirdly it has nice pictures and illustrations. I also  have copies of Esoffier and Louis p. De Gouy of the Waldorf for the same reasons. Along with over $2K in other culinary references.

And I sure LCB taught Julia how to flip an omelette and even that, sometimes she would miss the pan on camera, being that she never managed a commercial kitchen in her life, I sure it was just from the lack of experience. There are a lot of cooking books on the market by people who never have managed a kitchen and that doesn't make them a "Chef" either.

How they ever convinced Jacque Pepin to pair up with her, I will never understand.
 

First you say not all chefs can cook, now you bash Julia Child's skill as a cook for not having run a commercial kitchen? You can't have it both ways.

 My Quote was from reply # 89:

Not all "so called chefs"can cook, I have seen Culinary grads that couldn't make a soup or sauce without a recipe.

I never stated Julia was a cook or a Chef, personally I would not have hired her for a potwasher.

She was the most sloppy person I ever saw in a kitchen on TV or otherwise.  Back then PBS would give a Spot to just about anybody talented or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrairieChef 

Well, a chef will afford that "chopped meat on a bun" the respect it deserves. He will know the proper fat content, the proper cooking temperature, the proper seasoning, quality garnish and bread. ...

Hm, I would have thought any self-respecting COOK would do that.

In my book, a "chef" would know

• what meat, seasonings, garnishes, and bread to buy and in what quantities, and
• what price to pay for those items to turn  profit, and
• when to order more or less as conditions dictate, and
• which "cook" to assign to which stations, not only the "hot line" but also the "prep line", and
• what to do when the "cook of choice" is not available, and
• how to train a replacement when necessary, and
• how to store all of the purchased products, and
• when to "throw out" or otherwise dispose of "out of date" inventory, and
• what to do when the dishwasher quits, whether human or mechanical, and
• how to convince the banker/owner/investor that it is being done correctly, and
• the list goes on

IMHO

Quote:

Originally Posted by caterchef 

 My Quote was from reply # 89:

Not all "so called chefs"can cook, I have seen Culinary grads that couldn't make a soup or sauce without a recipe....

Hm, are you equating "Culinary grads" to "chefs"??? I do not believe that is what you meant.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteMcCracken 

Hm, are you equating "Culinary grads" to "chefs"??? I do not believe that is what you meant.
 

I think it is what he meant tongue-in-cheek.  That culinary grads are "so called chefs" like I pointed out in my post about culinary schools using the word chef as some sort of a selling point. 
 

Personally I think this thread has done more to exacerbate the situation than clarify it!

Is the concept of a Chef and the Chef that difficult to comprehend?

ChefSeanVincent amusingly described what's waiting for those aspiring to be the Chef and there's never any mistaking that guy!

Everyone else who is qualified (and that's not carved in stone) is just a Chef, commis... demi... ...de partie ...sous etc.

Title? All I require from you when I call is an answer...

Your respect? I'll earn that, thanks...

And the point of this thread is???

After 103 posts we still haven't managed to figure out who the big guy is (yawn). This subject comes up often on cheftalk and it always causes a huge debate, even the forum cannot make up its mind what a chef is. I am almost afraid to use the word chef.

In England almost everyone in the kitchen is called a chef, there is no stigma attached to it and it is defined by the title that precedes it. When you walk into a kitchen you know who is the boss and he or she usually prefers to be called by thier own name. That said, hospitals and schools usually have cooks rather than chefs but there are no hard and fast rules about job titles and if you get it wrong its no big deal.

Well if you think of the rank of a kitchen there is usually a chef and the then a sous chef which implies that everyone else in the kitchen would be cooks. So in my opinion a chef is an accomplished cook that is the head of the line and runs the kitchen. I plan on going to culinary school and I first thought that after I graduated I would become a chef but I really know deep down that a 'Chef' is a title of honor and leadership and that practically no one fresh out of school will have the experience or expertise to be a chef.

JadeCook,

There IS hope for you!

Ok, after going back and reading some of the fighting going on in this post I feel I have to say this. I really do believe that the difference between and chef and a cook is the experience and knowledge they have. I chef to me would be able to make a great meal out of everything and also have the training that a culinary school would afford them. However a person with no culinary school can rise up to be a chef as well if the work long and hard. A true chef would normally bear the responsibility of running the kitchen. (I only add the culinary schooling because a cook at home could probably be considered a chef on that basis alone but I consider have formal training or at least lots of experience in a commercial kitchen a must for a chef). Now here is where the confusion lies for most people. There are people who have the experience and the expertise enough to become a chef but are considered cooks (wether that is what their job calls them or due to having a lower position in the kitchen). This posting is supposed to give insight into what you believe makes a chef a chef and a cook a cook not about trying to force other people to believe that your definition is the correct one. Nowadays 'Chef' is a title that can be given to anyone while in the old days it usually means a person who has mastered the art of cooking professionally.  However in my opinion regardless of what title a person is called a 'Chef' to me is a person who carries themselves with professionalism and who has learned how to cook appealing food that is pleasing to both the palete and the eye. To them it is more than a job but more like a calling. There are many people who are already chefs even though they have not mastered a lot of things, they are not professional chefs yet but because of the way they conduct themselves and their station or section they are to me afforded the title of chef and all the honor that comes with it. However I do believe that there is a class of chefs who have mastered their art and they are usually the ones running the kitchens and called chefs. These are the head chefs for whom the most respect is afforded.

I hope some of this makes sense, I'm kinda sleepy right now.

lol, thanks. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteMcCracken 

Hm, are you equating "Culinary grads" to "chefs"??? I do not believe that is what you meant.
 

 My Quote was from reply # 89:

Not all "so called chefs"can cook, I have seen Culinary grads that couldn't make a soup or sauce without a recipe....
 

Not even close, there was two statements in one sentence seperated by a comma ie. ,

The culinary grads assume they are chefs because the schools promise for $20K&up they will be. The same as LCB promised Julia Child.
 

What's wrong with using recipes or formulas? I haven't made every dish on the face of the earth, and even ones I have done I need to look up if I haven't done it for a few years or not often. Or if a customer wants me to make something I never heard of for some special occasion, what else am I supposed to do? I have to look up a recipe. Doesn't mean I'll follow it to the letter, but still. Besides, I subscribe to the Einstein theory of never wasting time memorizing something I can look up. Also, when I come up with  new things if I don't write down what I put in it I'll a lot of times forget to put ingredients in the next time I make it because I forgot what I did the last time. I have a crab dip on the menu that I don't think I made the same way twice for the first 20 or so times I made it. Until I wrote it down. Usually it's home cooks who ask me if I ever use recipes, and when I say sometimes, they'll get a smug look and say "Oh, I never do." My first thought is "liar" and my second is I bet their families get fed some interesting stuff. A lot of times when they ask what I do and I tell them, they'll say "Oh, I make the best (insert food item, usually involving a crock pot). I'm always happy to talk to people about anything food related, but sometimes I can't help thinking "Do I come into your service station and tell you about how great I can rebuild a carbeurator?" Sheesh.

Dear Jadecook,

I find your interpretation refreshing, and I also find it very common among those who are just starting in this career.  You've got all the right words in there:  Respect, honour, and all that jazz.  But-tum...ah, well..... lets see how it holds up to the acid test.

What's the acid test?

Reality.

Yeah, yeah, I know reality sucks, it doesn't have any background music, and well, it's just so..permanent, I guess.

I hold that a cook, cooks, and a Chef manages.

Lets plug in the reality I-phone app and check my theory out.

If a cook can't cook, out the door they go.  No one wants a lousy cook.

If a Chef can't run a profitable kitchen, or operate within the laws set by health, labour, and building codes, out the door they go.

Am I making any sense here?

Do you see the difference?

I do understand what you are saying about a chef being a manager and not a cook. But like I said this is my opinion of what I think is the difference between a chef and a cook. It's not set in stone and is can be interpreted in many ways.

Fair enough. 

May I ask you not to interpret the disclaimer at the beginning of this forum, where it asks that non-professionals (that is, those who do not earn thier living from the hospitality industry) refrain from posting?

WOW!!! I just got through reading all the threads on this subject. I too have what I believe to be a true measure of the definition of Chef:

Kinda, sorta, tongue in cheek if you will:

“Thank you for applying….you want to be a cook huh?”

“No you say,….a chef?”

“Okay…I need to step out for a cup of coffee. Please read this, and if you’re still here when I get back…then we’ll talk.”

I hand the cocky applicant a couple of 3x5 index cards on which is typed the following:

Ok then, here’s the MINIMUM BASICS I expect you to know. Each of these skills you will be required to perform rapidly, under pressure, within a set time frame, in a team environment, with minimal supervision.  You must work in a safe, organized, clean and sanitary fashion with little or no waste. These skills I expect you to perform with complete competence and understanding of proper techniques and procedure.

Ability to dice, slice, chop, julienne, carve, brunoise, peel, and turn standard fruits, vegetables, and proteins.

Knowledge of grading, butchering and cooking techniques of beef, pork, poultry, fish and shellfish.

Ability to bake, broil, boil, sauté, braise, blanch, grill, steam, stir-fry, and roast primary cuts of beef, fish, shellfish, pork, poultry and vegetables.

Know what can be baked, broiled, boiled, sautéed, braised, blanched, grilled, steamed, stir-fried or roasted…….and what can’t.

Know when a food is cooked enough.

Know when a food is cooked too much.

Know how long a food is to be cooked.

Knowledge of dairy products, fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts and pastas.

Stocks, demi’s, remi’s, fumes and glace. The how’s and why’s.

The 5 mother sauces and those that aren’t;  purees, coulee’s, jus’s, essences, foams, etc…

Sanitation and hygiene: Safe temperature zones, holding times, cross contamination, basic food borne illnesses, receiving, and storage applications and pest control.

Knowledge of nutrition.

Full service, working experience of a la carte pantry, grill, sauté, and expedition.

Knowledge of salads.

Knowledge of salad dressings – vinaigrettes, and emulsions.

Ability to prepare steaks and roasts to desired doneness by internal temperature, time, and feel.

Service of hot food hot and cold food cold, and all that this implies.

Strong Garde Manger skills to include but not limited to hot and cold buffet/platter presentations, center piece art work, and hors d’ oeuvres.

Basic baking and pastry skills

Write, execute, and delegate mise en place and prep lists.

Menu development, costing, testing, training, set up and execution.

Read, create, write, calculate, adjust, and tweek recipes.

Knowledge of basic first aid.

Safely operate and maintain slicers, mixers, food processors, buffalo choppers, convection and conventional ovens, tilt kettles, flat tops, and steamers.

Interview, hire, train, evaluate, organize, lead, discipline, and motivate a staff of your peers.

Understanding of food costs, inventories, scheduling, payroll, P&L statements, marketing, ordering, and receiving.

Understanding of labor laws to include equal opportunity employment, workman’s comp, sexual harassment, and employee discipline and termination procedures.

“Let me ask you, did a book give you this knowledge?”   “Yes…some” you say

“Did your 2 year associate of culinary arts degree give you this knowledge?”   “Yes….some” you say.

“Great, please go over in detail your experience and expertise in each area I’ve listed that qualifies you for the chef’s position………..I thought so………….”

So ”endth”  the rant!!!   LOL    Not to be taken too (cough) seriously.

Ok ok I know this is dragging on but.......... I am still confused here and Im probably not the only one. From what I am reading there is only one chef to a kitchen (correct me if I am wrong) And he is the only one with the honour of being called Chef (the boss). This is the guy I would call a Head Chef. So, the restaurant hires a Sous chef, a chef de partie and a couple of commis chefs. Do they not have the right to be called chefs? or do they become sous cook, cook de partie and commis cook. The whole idea of only one chef in the kitchen does not add up to me, this is confusing guys.

I find this whole thread slightly silly and regret that I have been drawn into it but I have not been able to fathom a clear definition here. "Navel gazing" as another poster so brilliantly put it LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by caterchef 

 

I never stated Julia was a cook or a Chef, personally I would not have hired her for a potwasher.

She was the most sloppy person I ever saw in a kitchen on TV or otherwise.  Back then PBS would give a Spot to just about anybody talented or not.

 

 

Originally Posted by KWilkinson 

 

My grandmother did the Le Cordon Bleu school thing in about the same time period as Julie Child.  It was sort of the thing to do for women who could afford it and then they would direct their kitchen at home in the preparation of meals for little dinners with important clients or whatever.  My grandmother most certainly does not refer to herself as a chef even though she directed her kitchen staff and can produce the most excellent meals even without the staff.  This was not in the United States, btw.

As for Julia Child, she was doing this European fad-thing of the gentry of the time (or whatever you'd like to call it) and somebody teamed up with her to produce a cookbook for Americans.  Now in the US of A, marketing can take you a long, long way.  Here too, the title is about marketing.  Isn't it?

Bazza

Its the same in NZ and Aus(& possibly Europe?)....The Head Chef is the boss unless the place is big enough to need an Exec. All employment websites, advertising and training facilities concur with this.

Train/Study...graduate/qualify...get a job title. Its the same for most trades/professions so what's so special about ours?

IMHO it seems to be a language issue restricted to North America so I also tried to resist getting involved.

If the underlying issue is really who is not a chef I suggest we stay out of it as our cultural definition seems too simple to be acceptable despite the lack of meaningful consequences.

Cheers Mike

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bazza 

Ok ok I know this is dragging on but.......... I am still confused here and Im probably not the only one. From what I am reading there is only one chef to a kitchen (correct me if I am wrong) And he is the only one with the honour of being called Chef (the boss). This is the guy I would call a Head Chef. So, the restaurant hires a Sous chef, a chef de partie and a couple of commis chefs. Do they not have the right to be called chefs? or do they become sous cook, cook de partie and commis cook. The whole idea of only one chef in the kitchen does not add up to me, this is confusing guys.

 

Look, take a look at a large newspaper or a magazine.  There are sports editors, news editors, all kinds of editors, and then the the big one, THE  Editor.

Chef is really no different.  True, you may have a Chef garde-manger, but he is only boss of the garde manger, or Entremetier or Saucier--that is, they manage thier respective stations.  Yet they still have to answer to the big guy, get his approval on new menu items, wierd and wonderfull new ingredients, new equipment, trading off staff inbetween stations.  It's the Chef's food cost, labour cost, and reputation on the line, not the Chef de partie's or the Sous. 

You can only have one big Chef in a kitchen, same as you can only have one Prime Minister or President of a country--each Chef has their style of management, cooking, etc.and what they say, goes. The big guys take all responsibility and credit, when things go good, they shine, when the place looses money, or  reputation, they get tossed out. 

I hope that no one is taking what I said too seriously like I said I was just trying to get across my point of view but I may have come off sounding a little like a know-it-all and for that I apologize. I probably should have kept my big mouth closed because I do not yet have any formal experience to speak of and I just randomly stumbled upon this forum (a knack I seem to have of  accidentally by-passing things and ending up places where I'm not supposed to be) and since the question has always peaked my interest I decided to post. I'm sorry if I have offended any of your professional chefs or is it cooks (or wait no its chefs right? Now I'll never know what to call you all) sensibilities I apologize for any rudeness and lack of general experience. But hey, thanks for commenting anyways, its nice to know that you care enough to respond. I hope you all have a great day! :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by foodpump 

 

Look, take a look at a large newspaper or a magazine.  There are sports editors, news editors, all kinds of editors, and then the the big one, THE  Editor.

 

Chef is really no different.  True, you may have a Chef garde-manger, but he is only boss of the garde manger, or Entremetier or Saucier--that is, they manage thier respective stations.  Yet they still have to answer to the big guy, get his approval on new menu items, wierd and wonderfull new ingredients, new equipment, trading off staff inbetween stations.  It's the Chef's food cost, labour cost, and reputation on the line, not the Chef de partie's or the Sous. 

 

You can only have one big Chef in a kitchen, same as you can only have one Prime Minister or President of a country--each Chef has their style of management, cooking, etc.and what they say, goes. The big guys take all responsibility and credit, when things go good, they shine, when the place looses money, or  reputation, they get tossed out. 

Thank you for clarifying, although my post was a little tongue in cheek, I appreciate what you are saying. It is the same system over here. We do however call everyone a chef with the exception of the KP. This debate would probably never take place in England, it would be more like;

"Im a chef"

"Oh right, where do you work?"

"I work in XYZ down the road"

"Nice place, so are you the head chef, sous, or what?"

"No, I am chef de partie"

"Oh, nice one chef, I'll come in for a meal"

A chef is a chef is a chef. So even if you have never worked any higher than a commis, you are still a chef. As I said earlier we really don't use the term "cook" very much to describe a position.