# What is the difference between cooks/chefs?



## wannabechef (May 7, 2008)

I love to cook and I aspire to be a chef one day..then I suddenly realized, I have heard the terms for different types of cooks/chefs but I have no real idea what the titles really mean?
line cook
sous chef
head chef chef steward

I'm sure there are more...can someone tell me them and a little about them?

Also, what kind of job would I be looking at if I had one?


----------



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

I'll move this to a better forum.......

Mezzaluna


----------



## dirk skene (Feb 13, 2007)

Good question. The owner of the resturant calls me the sous chef. I say I'm the line cook. If I have a "chef" title it would be cold plate chef.I do all the salads & dressings. The prep cook can run circles around me  She's good and would be actually the closest thing we have to a sous chef. A sous chef should be able to run the kitchen in the absence of the exec. chef.

I guess we're all cooks :chef:


----------



## just jim (Oct 18, 2007)

I'm a cook by trade, a Chef by responsibility.
Traditionally the title Chef is earned by training and certification.
The lines have blurred, and a Chef with certification is just that, a Certified Chef.
These days, a restaurant owner can call himself, or anyone in his employ, Chef.
I do not consider myself in the same class as many Chef's in this forum, but I am the chief of my kitchen, so I believe the title is warranted.


----------



## cookingangry (Mar 28, 2008)

You can look up the brigade system to get official titles but as has been said there are blurred lines.

Derek and I could each be called one of the following things:

chef de partie - we are each in charge of our stations
garde manger - we are each working pantry
line cook - I am not sure about Derek but I have to cook fish and sear fois 
gras for my station.


----------



## dirk skene (Feb 13, 2007)

Good points. And all that is subject to change in the heat of battle. Especially if for some horrable reason a fellow cook "goes down" :suprise:


----------



## cookingangry (Mar 28, 2008)

I believe I misspelled your name good sir... DIRK and I hold similar positions although I am sure somewhere someone named Derek also does.


----------



## dirk skene (Feb 13, 2007)

No biggie :chef: You can tell I was ticked off :smiles:


----------



## cookingangry (Mar 28, 2008)

Does the restaurant you work at have a website?


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

In America a "chef" is anyone who cooks. In a kitchen the "chef" is someone you're payed to say "yes" to. Chef means "boss" in French. The chef is the boss. The chef de cuisine is the big boss. Some kitchens have an assistant boss (or bosses) called (a) sous chef(s). It's really that simple. In the kitchen, everyone else is a cook. If you ask a cook what he does, (s)he'll usually say, "I'm a chef, well I'm a cook." Friends and family always refer to their cook friends and relatives as "professional chefs." Always.

By usage the sentence, "He's a chef" is as meaningless as, "She's a gourmet cook."

Take a look at Chef - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The descriptions of archaic station responsibilities in this article are as good as any and better than most. That being said, the kitchens described in this article probably don't exist outside of the very largest restaurants. Typically those are hotels or chains. Chain restaurant kitchens are only loosely organized around traditional brigade -- in that they're generally pushing some sort of theme food off on their customers and the kitchens are organized around the specific menu. Hotels with "fine dining" may be the last refuge of the true brigade.

In most modern kitchens the brigade roles are very blurred. There are also modern titles. For instance, the grill/roast station is called "turn and burn;" the saute station is called "hot pan," and most line cooks spend most of their time cooking hot pan; plating is usually done by the most senior chef in the kitchen at what's called "the hot plate;" some sauces are made to order at the saute station, but many (if not most) are made during prep by anyone or any number of people of various job descriptions -- and so forth.

The term "executive chef" always tickles me. Toque and a briefcase, I guess. Sous-chef might be the most elastic description of all. In some kitchens they're "men, equipment, time-cards and ordering" and almost never cook except to fill in for an absence or a rush. In other kitchens, the sous-chef handles more volume than anyone else.

The old brigade system worked best for kitchens with varied menus turning several hundreds of covers a night. That's seldom true of fine dining anymore; and most good kitchens are organized around the principle of whatever works best and cheapest.

BDL


----------



## lesstalkmoreroc (May 12, 2008)

It's the difference between a nurse and a doctor!


----------



## dirk skene (Feb 13, 2007)

yep, but I gotta find it  I'll try to PM you on Monday. I'll get it tonight.

See ya' around the board buddy.:chef:


----------



## bughut (Aug 18, 2007)

I was a cook for 15 years and worked as a "chef" then I spent 4 years at college and became a *chef.* I then became a chef snob for a while, until i figured(for my own way of thinking, since my 2 older sons are not college trained, but successfull chefs) that a chef is a respected leader in the kitchen. No matter how large or small. There are plenty of self taught genius's out there.
If you truly think you deserve the monika then wear it i say.


----------



## dudethatsmine (Mar 15, 2008)

means "Chief" in French and has nothing to do with cooking except for the fact that the "Chief of Food" at a restaurant is called the Chef de Cuisine or Chef for short.

Americans do make the mistake of equating a Chef with a Cook, which clearly must piss of any Non-Cooking French Chef...we should therefore keep up the good work.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

This could be a 5-pager.....

I really think that "Chef" is probably one of the top 10 most abused words int eh English language.

"I Chef at the Dine-o-mite"....
"I wear a Chef's jacket when I'm Cheffing"....

My brother-in-law, who owns two dogs, swears by "Chef's blend" dawg food, it's the cheapest one that comes in 25 kg bags.
Last week the coffee sales guy wanted to fob off some "Economically priced" beans on us. Guess what it was called? Yup. "Chef's Choice"...


What all the others have said is true. Chef is the French word for Chief, Boss.
"Chef" in N. America is just double-plus-good newspeak for "cook". It carries about as much weight as "Professional photographer".... Somewhere along the line, it became common to call cooks--those who prepare food-- "Chefs". The media love it. Schools must love it too, for I have never seen so many "Chef's schools" as now.

My take on this? The Chef hires you, the Chef fires you. The Chef HAS to know more about the food and the business than the cooks. If s/he doesn't, s/he is a lousy supervisor, and therefore a lousy Chef.

Does this make sense?


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

Wouldn't s/he be a lousy c/hef?

BDL


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Not for long....


----------



## budawg (May 12, 2008)

Hi all...new to the board and this industry!

This is actually a question I've been wondering about regarding myself...am I a chef or just a cook? I'll try and keep this short...

I work in the kitchen at a popular high-end nightclub, and I'm the _only_ one in the kitchen. We have a rather upscale menu, and I'm in charge of prepping it all and cooking it all. Most of the food is purchased _for_ me by the owners, but almost every week I run to the nearby market to pick up any missing items. I'm also given the responsibility and creative license of coming up with amuses bouche that go out with bottle service. Lastly, there are plans to hire another cook to help me out and that person is supposed to be under me being that I will train them and they will work in the kitchen as I have it currently set up and running. Here's the catch...

I've only been doing this since February. I've never been to culinary school. Before that I was working at starbucks, and have a minute amount of experience working in a kitchen. I'm lucky that they've given me this job, and so far, I feel I do it pretty **** well considering my situation.

So again, am I allowed to consider myself a chef or am I still just a cook?


----------



## just jim (Oct 18, 2007)

There is no such thing as "just" a cook, unless you believe it to be so.
We are all cooks.
Cooks are the backbone of the industry.
I still recall my favorite Far Side comic, the one with a sinking ship, a rowboat with sailors and the captain, and on the bow of the sinking ship is the cook, who is saying "I wonder if that's really true, the cook always goes down with ths ship?".
Well, if they are worth their salt, they do.

In your situation, as the chief of the kitchen, you can call yourself Chef, or grand poobah for that matter.
Even though you don't have to do the ordering, you should aspire to learn how, to learn inventory comtrol, vendor relations, etc.

Even though I've been the Exec at a few places, helped open a few as well, and have proven to be better than some who freely use the term, if I don't currently have the position, I don't call myself Chef.
But people I've worked with still call me that when we happen to meet up.
And even though I am called Chef, I have a Chef.
Although I no longer work with him, he will always be my Chef.
So again, I am a cook by trade, a Chef by responsibility.


----------



## budawg (May 12, 2008)

yeah, that's kinda how i felt about it. i mean, if i'm the only person here, i'm the chef right? but thing is, i obviously know there are tons of other people that could run circles around me, but i guess the answer is that it's all relative to the situation.

Believe it or not, I'm actually at work right now this minute since it slows down towards the end of the night, but when it's slow like this, i use my computer to research things, peruse these forums, always trying to further my knowledge. I am indeed trying to weasel my way into ordering the food and working with the great vendors available in Chicago (as opposed to buying everything cheap at the local restaurant mega supplier...ugh).

what other things should i be learning about on my own? what indeed is the proper way of doing inventory? (i've had to do it a few times already...) my whole plan was to get into the industry by working _under_ a chef to learn things, but in my case, i have to teach myself anything i want to know. i just want to be able to have something to show for when i move on and have on my resumé that i ran this kitchen.


----------



## lesstalkmoreroc (May 12, 2008)

I really think we should get out of what the "technical" and "traditional" meaning of what a Chef is.

A chef in my definition is more than the "chief" of the kitchen. The gentleman that works at a nightclub where he's working by himself with NO training (real life or school) is not even close to being a Chef and is an insult to me that one would even consider themselves one.

I made a comment earlier that Chefs and Cooks are simular to Doctors and nurses. Doctors go through years and years of training scholastic and real life on the job experience. Even though the nurses seem to do the bulk of the work, the knowledge and experience of the doctor far out ways what a nurse is really capable to do.

A Chef must have many many years experience and vast knowledge of the culinary world with the ability to continue learning new trends and cooking techniques. A Chef is a leader, one who has the ability to form cooks into Chefs. A Chef is a mathlete, a scientist and a historian. The abilities of a Chef outshine those of the cooks around him/her.

A cook is someone who lacks any of these qualities and when it boils down to it is a general laborer in the kitchen, or would be a home cook.


----------



## lesstalkmoreroc (May 12, 2008)

I think you've read into my post completely wrong.

It's not the fact that the gentleman is working in the kitchen alone and is wondering if he would be considered a chef. It's the fact that he's working alone with 2 months experience and his previous experience was at a starbucks. The fact the previous posts interprit a Chef as the chief of the kitchen would give someone who has yet to put in the time and effort into learning basic principles of cooking & management a job title of Chef to someone who runs a small kitchen with little to no experience is insulting.

Also, it's the time, skill, effort and experience that make a Chef. So yes someone who runs a one man kitchen with those atributes I would consider a Chef but not any Joe off the street someone is willing to hire to keep there costs down to run a kitchen.

It's an insult to people who have worked there asses off to become the best they can be to represent their fellow Chefs in a job that requires a lot more skill and determination than what many cooks have to offer.

I by no means think that someone who is a self taught Chef can not be as good or better than some of the top chefs in the would but they must possess the skills, have real world experience and put time in effort into obtaining the title of Chef.

I totally respect cooks and I'm a very firm believer in the training and nurturing them to become great Chefs. But I believe it's a title that needs to be earned and not just given to anyone off the street.


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

I see what Roc is getting at, and largely agree with him. To my mind, a "chef" should be someone with responsibility for the kitchen who can also cook. And I mean cook as in really cook -- not merely prepare food.

Have you ever heard anyone say, "He's a great chef, but a lousy cook?" I haven't. I worked for a couple of people who were great cooks but lousy managers and no one ever called them bad chefs -- even though everyone was in a big hurry to get better managers in there -- either by moving the owner/chef to FOH, but keeping his menu and perfected dishes, or by getting the talented chef a sous-chef who could run things. The point is, cooking is the primary but not the only thing. Otherwise, a great home cook would be a c/hef -- which s/he is n/ot. S/he's a c/ook. Strictly as an aside, Julia Childs would be considered a chef under this defintion. She, in fact, ran several large kitchens. How do you think cooking shows are made?

If you were considering someone for the job of _chef_ in a small, one or two man kitchen, what skill set would you want?

As to budawg particularly, what can I say? What can any of us? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The reality of what you are is determined by what you do and how you do it, not by your job title or what you think it should be.

One small thing I noticed was budawg's use of the term "amuse bouches." Typo or telling? _Quien sabe? _Not me, but I'd like to. I'd also like to know specifically what passes for _amuse bouche_ in the club. What does he do to make them? More generally, I want some information on what sort of cuisine he makes, the techniques he uses to prepare it, his level of mastery of the techniques he thinks he has, how important the microwave is, etc.

BDL


----------



## budawg (May 12, 2008)

When I got the job, I looking up the proper definition of chef in the dictionary, at it has several listings...the first hit in a google search is "a professional cook". The second says the same and goes further to say "...the one in charge of everyone else in the kitchen."

Upon thinking about it more, I think chubyalaskagriz has it right in that there is indeed a broad spectrum involving the word "chef". Someone such as myself would certainly be on the low low end of it. Someone with years of experience and such; certainly on the other...the type of person people just call "chef"...that's definitely not me. Also, don't think I just waltzed into the kitchen without any ability at all. Cooking is something I've been good at for a while and have only recently decided to pursue it professionally.

As an example, (and this will either completely discredit me in the eyes of some, or hopefully prove my point lol), but watching ****'s kitchen, gordon ramsey is "the chef", but many times will refer to the competitors as "the chefs".

To reply to boar_d_laze , it was only this week that I got a microwave because one of the back of house guys wanted to warm up their meals from home...lol. I could have _sworn_ the plural of amuse-bouche was to add an "s" to "amuse". After a quick wikipedia check, I am indeed wrong. I usually prepare canapés with cheeses, vegetables, fresh herbs, miniature caprese bites, but nothing incredibly fancy. I think I do a pretty good job with what I have. I'd _like_ to do more, but I'm limited with what i'm supplied with and frankly, what the stupid nightclub clientele will actually eat.

Menu items include things such as panko dusted lamb chops, pan seared chicken, steak and truffled grits, a trio of freshly made guacamoles and picos, handmade flatbreads, etc. I'll admit there's nothing technical about the food, but I'm trying to learn new things every day I'm there.

To be honest, I am wanting to get a new job in a full fledged restaurant at a place that takes the food as seriously as I do in the hopes of working _under_ a chef and learning as much as I can. I think that'd be the best way to further my career.

And just to be clear, I in no way mean any disrespect to the tenured chef's on this board or piss anybody off...just trying to discuss our profession with colleagues.

And as an edit after reading chubyalaskagriz's reply, I'm indeed talking about a chef in the artistic sense of the word. Also, I thought I'd just add...people almost always dig my food.


----------



## buonaboy (Sep 5, 2007)

I think most cooks confuse the terms. There is a huge difference between working as "The Chef" of a nightclub/restaurant and being "A Chef" by trade.
I know someone who has a job as "The Chef" of an Amtrak train, he solely preps food and microwaves it, though his business card reads "Chef". And on the fipside, If the restaurant I've run for the past 4 years suddenly sells (_actually might happen_), and I'm out of a job, am I no longer a Chef, even though I've spent almost 20 years studying and honing my craft? 
The term "Chef" has become watered down over the years. A Chef to me, is a craftsmen, constantly studying technique, and improving his skills and palate.
Just as carpentry has it's levels of skill, "apprentace", "journeyman", and finally "Master", all of witch imply some level of education and accomplishment, we've got but two, "Cook" and "Chef". 
I blame the Food Network, personally I think it would be great to still use the Brigade system, at least then someone could say, "I'm a "Friturier" at the local pub, rather than the "Chef".

So, I guess I've got no concrete answer for the question, only opinions as usual.
-ciao
mike


----------



## lesstalkmoreroc (May 12, 2008)

Julia Childs would be considered a Chef to me (but I'm pretty sure she didn't consider herself to be one) because she educated herself, had raw talent that she turned into a career and always continued learning the trade with passion. She put in her time in other ways other than in restaurants, but she put in her time! Plus you must agree Julia Childs is an exception to the norm.

That being said, I personally have a very hard time swallowing the fact that there are too many cooks trying to pass themselves off as being Chefs. And nothing bothers me more than when I get put into the same catagory as a cook when I've dedicated plenty of years working my way up from pot washer to executive Chef, not only been through school but have put in countless hours/days into learning everything I possibly can about my craft.

If you started calling Nurses Doctors, I think Doctors would start getting insulted and feel as their career and accomplishment are being downplayed too.


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

Julia Child was anything but self-educated. She studied at Le Cordon Bleu in post war Paris under the "grande beche" Mme Brassart and earned her toque there. She also took private lessons from Max Bugnard who was a disciple of Escoffier's. She was as trained as one could be.

On a different tangent, budawg, I have to admit to being slightly weirded out at Panko _Dusted _Lamb Chops. Do you mean _crusted_? As in the fat side of a rack is crusted with panko? Or do you mean dusted? As in the face of the chop is lightly sprinkled with panko dust? It's hard to believe you perfected the dish yourself, or even have much control over the techniques if you don't know the jargon.

There are other parts of your story that don't exactly scream "chef." For instance in your description of what you make you don't whine about the things most accomplished cooks mention right off -- like the amount of prep, making stock, etc. You don't talk about the improvement in your knife technique. You don't crow about your sauces or your newfound ability to hit medium rare every time.

I'm not trying to be hard on you, or run you down. In fact, I respect and admire what you've already accomplished, are trying to accomplish, and appear very likely to accomplish. You deserve all the praise and support in the world.

You also deserve an honest answer to your question, "chef or cook?" I'm a little more [email protected]$$ than griz. My sense is you're barely starting to scratch the surface of cook, and aren't a chef yet. At least not in the meaningful sense of the terms where a chef and a cook aren't the same things.

That doesn't mean you don't have the talent or the drive -- or even that you can't turn your opportunity into bigger and better things. Clearly, you're learning a lot and learning fast. But the reality is you're just starting out and most chefs have shoes with 10 times the amount of time you have in the business. Give it a chance.

BDL


----------



## shroomgirl (Aug 11, 2000)

sigh.....

if cooks gotta talk fluid kitchen speak to become a chef then it's gonna be a rough road uphill.

No culinary schoolin'....
Thomas Keller
Alice Waters
Charlie Trotter

Last month I food styled for a visiting cookbook author, afterwards at dinner one of my cheesemaking farmers gave me grief about taking the job because I had no formal training. Well, using that mindset I would not have done anything.....no personal cheffing, stage directing/managing, off-site catering, founding farmers markets, teaching culinary classes......
my staff call me by my first name, my culinary students call me chef,
my coat has my name/name of my company, my signiture is chef/owner.....
I cook. It's 8am on Monday morning and I'm off to cook a week's worth of food for a priest and his staff/make lunch for his buddies and take home a paycheck with insurence for working 5ish hours a week. I hate naming food, it is what it is....."goo" is in my dialect and used for a mydrid of stuff. 
Last week it was rhubarb orange tart filling.

Just had to stir alittle. type on.......


----------



## lesstalkmoreroc (May 12, 2008)

So whats the difference between a Chef and a Mater Chef?


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

I worked for Alice Waters, Paul Aratow and Jeremiah Tower at CP -- and none of them went to culinary school. Paul Aratow taught himself to cook from an old French cookbook when he lived in France. He later translated the book. Tower learned to cook from Aratow mostly, from Aratow's favorite book, and from a different old French cookbook (which also happens to my favorite). The CP style of simplicity is not entirely the result of vision, but partly of necessity. There were things in those books the chefs and cooks simply weren't trained to do -- no matter how hard we tried. So we simplified. We pared things down to their elements and let the ingredients speak for themselves.

Waters had the vision and the drive. Aratow was a good and talented chef with the vision. You don't hear that much about Paul Aratow but an incredible amount of the CP style came from how he thought about food -- which he'd thought about extensively and studied in a uniquely academic way. Tower was a much better natural chef than Aratow, with the vision, the ego, and surprisingly to himself, the drive.

I'm not sure I'd credit Waters with being a chef. She never really ran the kitchen at CP. She did stick her head in plenty and had a lot to do with creating the menus -- which when I worked there changed (and I mean changed with no repetition of main dishes) daily. She was always FOH. She's a good cook, but I'm a better one and I'm not exactly God's gift. If you want to credit Waters for her real accomplishments, credit her for never settling; credit her for her passion for best ingredients (which shroomgirl seems to share); credit her persuasiveness in getting people to grow or make them (she was the prime mover in creating the high-end food industry in NorCal); credit her for knowing the difference between excellent and lesser; and credit her for talent spotting. Oh yes, she ran and runs one of the best restaurants in the world for almost four decades. Does that count? 

The implication that Keller and Trotter weren't trained is wrong: Keller was born into a restaurant family, served extensive apprenticeships, and came up through the brigade. Charlie Trotter calls himself "self taught," but it is an interesting sort of "self taught." He worked years in all sorts of kitchen jobs before becoming a chef. He also attended the San Francisco CCA -- but dropped out before graduating. Beyond that, he's probably read twice as many cookbooks as who ever comes in second. 

I'll agree that culinary schooling isn't the only way to make a chef. In fact, schooling doesn't necessarily make a chef. IMO very few recent graduates meet the standard. But if they came from a good school, at least they have some repertoire and the technique to learn more without every time being the first time. I'll also agree that you don't have to know all the French names for dishes, and that knowing the names of techniques in any language doesn't mean you can perform them. But, it's a sign. I guarantee you that Aratow, Waters and Tower knew all the words. We can be pretty sure about Keller and Trotter, too.

School is one way of getting the necessary training. Another is by doing. Knowing things by their name is a sign, at least. Most, if not all of us, don't get our first cooking job unless and until we feel pretty comfortable cooking. That doesn't make us chefs. It doesn't even make us competent professional cooks. And bottom line: While it's a start, two months in a night club kitchen doesn't either. 

BDL


----------



## lesstalkmoreroc (May 12, 2008)

I second that BDL!


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

This is strange, I just can't get over the navel gazing. The more I read this thread, the more I'm convinced that N.America has some kind of a Stigma with the word "Cook". 

Charlie Trotter, Alice Water, Thomas Keller... Lets see, they all have/had very sucessfull business, all know what they're doing, all able to train up competant staff, all continue to educate themselves with everything culinary. Why, then do we need to ask ourselves if they are "Chefs"? What's next, discussing if there's sand at the beach? 



Here's a menu from a practical test. Test was done in a regular hotel kitchen, during regular hours--sharing space and equipment with regular staff. Applicant was presented the menu and given 4 hours, then it was served to 10 judges.

-Applicant's choice of plated salad, choice of min. two dressings

-Goujons of sole "Prince Murat" (sole to be skinned and fileted in front of judges)

-Glazed whole shank of Veal, garnished with turned vegetables (shank to be cut from whole leg of veal, in front of judges

-Spaetzli (batter made, spaetzli formed and poached in front of judges), 
-Cauliflower florets with Hollandaise (again, made in front of judges)
-Braised fennel bulbs

-Raspbery sorbet (made in front of judges, fresh rasp'ies, sugar and water)
-Minimum of two mignardises

After the menu was served, smaller tasks are given to the applicant: Bone out a few lamb racks, filet a few trout, fabricate chicken parts, make a fish fumet, turn a few spuds, etc..

Yeah, yeah, stodgy old hat stuff, archaic, and all that, you're right, it's true. But look at it a little closer. I see a minimum of 10 methods of cooking and some serious dancing all over the kitchen. So what kind of test was this? A Chef's test?




This was a practical test for a cook's apprentice, matter of fact it was MY test menu, July 11, 1988. Culmination of 3 years of near-slavery work. Sure there were 2 days of written tests too, but the practical test accounted for 52% of the entire 3 years, fail that one, and you can kiss 3 years goodbye as wasted time. After 4 sleepless weeks I got the results of my practical test via certified mail: I was officially a.... Cook. No bones about it, a cook, not a chef, written on a Gov't issue document, in no less than 4 official languages--Cook..... Was and still am proud of that title, worked hard for that title, no stigma there.

So what's the point you ask? Read the first paragraph of this post, I think N. America has a serious stigma with the word "Cook".... 

Look at the ACF site, the word "cook" isn't even mentioned, it's been replaced with "Culinarian". Look at the site closer, look at the criteria for "Sous Chef". In order to write the test, you must be in a supervisory postion, that is, train/supervise staff under you. The practical part of the test includes grilling a steak to "Med. rare". If the applicant screws up on the test, what happens? He goes back to work at his regular job, supervising staff, that's what....

A Chef is a supervisory postion, and a Chef has got to be a competant cook in order to supervise compentantly. Kind of like an NHL hockey coach, the coach is always an ex NHL player, maybe not an all-star, but definitely a competant player. Has to be, or he couldn't get the team to do what needs to be done.....


Phew....


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

I don't think shroom's point was whether or not Trotter, Waters and Keller are chefs, but rather that they self-evidently are despite the lack of culinary school. 

While I agree with the larger point that formal training isn't absolutely necessary, I also pointed out that the examples were somewhat less than accurate. Trotter and Keller had extensive training. Not only that, Trotter in fact went to culinary school -- the CCA in SF. I also argued that Waters is not a chef -- nor is she a particularly good cook by restaurant standards. And why should she be? She is and always was FOH. She's a food genius yes. She's one of the great restaurateurs of her age. But a chef? No. (FWIW, the first chef at CP was Paul Aratow, the second Jeremiah Tower. Alice -- never. Alice's first food job, as far as I know, was as co-owner, with Paul Aratow, of Chez Panisse.)

This followed a discussion of the canard that Julia Child was a chef even though she was self-taught and never ran a kitchen. In fact, Child received an immense amount of culinary training including graduating as a qualified chef from Le Cordon Bleu, taught culinary arts, collaborated on the most important cookbook of the last half of the twentieth century and ran several large kitchens -- although never for a restaurant. So, yes, she was a chef. 

What's the problem is with the word "cook?" I have no idea. I was a line cook in a couple of really good restaurants for a little while, and owned and ran my own small catering outfit for a little bit longer after that. Was I a chef? Not really. I was a cook. Anything wrong with that? No. 
Is there a difference between cook and chef? Yes. Not every soldier, no matter how good, is a general.

Somehow the language has become so debased and our snobbery so high that no one can be what they are without the prevarication of euphemisms. I blame it on violent video games and too much exposure to Joe Lieberman.

BDL


----------



## shroomgirl (Aug 11, 2000)

Lolol.....


----------



## bazza (Apr 2, 2007)

I am with Shroomgirl on this. I too have had no formal training, people just assume that I have. I opened my restaurant 5 years ago and I know a lot of people were sniggering and and giving me the "who do you think you are?" look, but in some wierd way they now give me more respect than they would have if I had been formally trained. It's a tough game for all of us and yes there is a lot of snobbery in the business, but my title is not important to me, I mop the floor, I scrub pots and along with everything else I own the restaurant. I don't call myself Chef but an awful lot of people do, and when they do I take it as a compliment. I know that if some of my customers knew that I wasn't trained they would not come in. Am I fooling them? I don't think so. :chef:


----------



## jbd (Mar 17, 2008)

The world didn't worry about who would have the next FoodNetwork TV show.  People just cooked the food and ate it. Mom was the "celebrated" queen of the kitchen back then, which meant she got to wash the dishes and and scrub the pots and pans clean off the table and the counters and sweep and mop the floor. All of this of course after lugging all the groceries into the house. People everywhere would say things like, she is a great cook; she is a really good cook; she is the best cook.


----------



## blagueur (Apr 23, 2008)

A chef is the head cook of a professional kitchen, usually in a restaurant or hotel. To get to this position, it is expected that the person not only have cooking experience and flair but also possess organisational and business qualities that ensure the kitchen is not only run well but profitably. 

All the rest is blind semantics.


----------



## ed buchanan (May 29, 2006)

In France where the brigade stations actually were began , Chef meant chief .Chief being the head of or boss of the operation. The chef should call the shots when it comes to the proper running of the kitchen, reason being if something goes astray in kitchen he is the one management or employer goes to. The buck usually stops at the chefs office which is the way it should be.
We have come a long way in th U.S from the old system, mostly because of economics. How many places today have or even can afford a Butcher, Baker or Chef Garde Manger?
Unless you are huge it is price prohiitive. Back in the late 50s the industry started making and buying things already preped, and frozen seeing the writeing on the wall of the future. Today unfortunatly you could produce a banquet for 300 with simply a fryer, oven, sink and a table to assemble. Whether this good or bad? thats up to you. EJB :chef:


----------



## chefinfrance (Dec 16, 2007)

Whilst there is a little truth in some of the comments about the French word for chef meaning chief, the world over the word chef is excepted as being a professional chef working in a establishment of some reputation. The word cook is generaly given to those producing large quantaties of food within large establishments ie schools, hospitals etc. This of course should not be confused with someone being a good cook which is not a job title but a complement.
Steve www.masterchefinfrance.com 
Maitre chef de cuisine by profession, passionate about cooking.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Can't really agree with that, chefinfrance.

Can't really understand what you mean by "the world over the word chef is (accepted) as being the professional chef working in an establishment of some reputation." What, then is exactly your definition of "chef" other than working in an establshment of some reputation? What are his/her duties?

Then the word cook, again this abhorance, stigma actually, of the word cook. Typically by N. American standards cook is only designated for hospitals and large facilities. Do these facilities have "chefs" too? The guys who hire, fire, cost menus, schedule, supervise, fill in when some eejit calls in sick, and kick butt when warranted? What about the guy who preps large quantities of food in the bqting dept of a large 5 star hotel, I dunno, searing off a couple of hundred 4 oz filets or something, or maybe plating 500 cold appies, is he a cook or a Chef? If the employer is a 5 star hotel does it give him give him this title automatically or is he just a double-plus-good-newspeak chef/cook/culinarian? 

What is the French word for cook, "cuisinier?"


----------



## chefinfrance (Dec 16, 2007)

Sorry about the spelling mistake [a bit late when I replied].
This site is called cheftalk that does not mean everybody who writes on it is a chef, and not everybody who works in a kitchen is a chef.The question asked was what is the difference between a chef and a cook my reply was meant to be short and to the point.
Chefs cook and cooks cook to me the difference is what they cook. Establishments that use job titles such as sous chef,chef de partie or commis chef do tend to be hotels and restaurants and generally speaking hospitals and schools tend to call thier kitchen staff cooks. Both jobs require a lot of skill and expertise, there are cooks who would not know the difference between a cock lobster and a hen and there are chefs who could not cook for more than 20 people at a time. However there are some establishments that have kitchen staff that do not qualify for either job titles, both job titles are earned through experience and training, some time taking many years.

In answer to your questions,
cuisiner or cuisinere is French for a cook [male and female] not to be confused with cuisinere meaning cooker or stove.
The job title for the person you describe would be manager.
I hope this clarifys a few points. Steve chefinfrance
ps In France both jobs comand the utmost respect.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

So, in order to clarify your last post, the only difference is WHAT chefs and cooks work with? That the knowledge, skills, techniques and economy of movement are all the same, but the only thing different is the type of ingredients chefs use as opposed to cooks? No other criteria for this title?

My postion is not to question your opinion, but I welcome any new opinions on the meaning of "Chef", as it helps me with some of my non-cooking duties, which I (not so fondly) refer to as "kidney work". 

"Kidney work" means going through stacks of resumes and then finding suitable candidates for interviews. As I have stated in previous posts I truly believe that the word "chef" is one of the most abused words in current English language, and here are some samples: "Salad chef", Line Chef", "drop chef" (had to ask what this one means, it means the guy who puts stuff in the fryer basket...) "Sous Chef" and it's related spelling versions (Soo Chef, Sue Chef, Saus Chef...) etc, etc. Basically, when in N. America I learned to ignore the title of the postion and focus on the duties, responsibilities and, most importantly the length of time. However during the interviews it is impossible to avoid the "chef" confrontation, especially when negotiating salaries. I have observed verbal abuse and temper tantrums when I offer an applicant with no working experience minimum wage. "But I'm a Chef!". Well, no sweetheart, you went to a cooking school which claims to pump out Chefs,( I argue it pumps out cooking school graduates, but I digress...) but you've got didly-squat to your resume other than 9 mths of school, hence the minimum wage. Same goes for line cooks with 2 or 3 years experience and crown themselves with the "chef" title and want a Sous Chef job. Have you ever been solely in charge of running a 60 seat restaurant before? No. Can you order goods and schedule staff when the Chef is away? No. Can you keep an even food and labour cost when the Chef is on holidays for a week? Dunno.

So you see, the whole "Chef" thingee is quite near and dear to my heart and business, hence my big, opinionated mouth. But I don't think it has anything to with WHAT a cook/chef cooks with, I think it has a lot to do with the level of experience, duties and responsibilities.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

(sigh of relief...) 

Thanks, Alaska....


----------



## phishcake (Jun 4, 2008)

I found this thread while reading the "welcome" forum. ( I know you're supposed to introduce youself by starting a new thread) I love this heated discussion.....and my first post might as well be a smart-assd one.


The dif. between a Chef and a cook.......the paycheck!!! Now I know I'm gonna catch **** from many for that, but , I don't care. This thread has shown many dif. opinions , and this one is mine.

After cooking for almost 20 years , and all of us know how THAT goes. (dishroom, prep,salad,line,sous...you know the "evolution") I struggled with this whole thing....am I a chef or a cook? Well I reecently bought my first house and on one of the 10 thousand forms you need to fill out and list occupation, I wrote CHEF. I'm no longer milking the clock for my fat $8.50 an hour. I'm very comfortable as the sous chef at a VERY busy steakhouse. It's not the type of food I like to do, but I/we do it very well and the bottom line is I'm now making more $$$ than I ever have!!

Now most of you may be of the belief that cooking is a passion, and it's not all about the money. While cooking is a passion of mine....it's also my career. My occupation. My passion for working with food is what drives me to perfect the craft and skill of making food look and taste great. The better I become, the more opportunities I have created for myself. Again the whole "evolution" thing. I had an oppurtunity years ago to work for and train under a french Master Chef at a 5 star place. He liked me, my attitude and my skills. But he was only gonna offer me $9.00 an hour!!! Who can live on that??? Seriously!!???? I was a bit of a road warrior at the time so I moved on figuring I'd get my training as I always have, by working. While it IS an honor to train under someone like that, bottom line is.......the bottom line. 

Now.........commence thrashing the noob.


----------



## dudethatsmine (Mar 15, 2008)

thats one of the most realistic things said on here just a question when you were a cook were did you live since you could not afford a house.


----------



## just jim (Oct 18, 2007)

"The Paycheck" is relevant to each operation.
Some places pay their Chef less than what they would make in a lower position elsewhere.
But it should be the top position at a particular location.
So it comes back to knowledge, leadership and responsibility, regardless of compensation.


----------



## rsteve (May 3, 2007)

I'm with you


----------



## rsteve (May 3, 2007)

Quick tale, but one I relish.

In 1968, I was a recent university graduate, drafted into the army, sent as an infantryman to Vietnam. On a return to base camp, off patrol, we were told that we'd have to eat LRP rations unless someone knew how to butcher and cook lamb. The XO had traded with Aussie forces for some whole dressed lamb. This lamb was nicely processed, wrapped in heavy cheesecloth, but, literally whole. I'd done the kind of meatcutting you might perform in a modest restaurant, but I hadn't fabricated an entire lamb. My buddies deserved a better meal than LRP rations, so I "confessed" to being an experienced butcher.

I broke down the lamb to leg, rib roast, and stewing meat; the remainder I donated to the Vietnamese who worked with us.

I roasted those legs and roasts and tucked away the stewing meat for another day.

In my memory, they were absolutely delicious.

The NCOIC came to me after the first meal of leg of lamb and said, " Rossi, you are a *****Chef." (there were a couple of complimentary descriptive expletives prior to chef)

It felt better than being a general.


----------



## phishcake (Jun 4, 2008)

With the folks, my girlfriends, or in a crappy apt. with 6 roomies (most of them were cooking also).


----------



## oldschool1982 (Jun 27, 2006)

I like Alakagriz's second to last reply. Well said.

But if I may indulge myself for a moment, I've been trying to look through some old notes and text books from school to formulate some what of a decent reply.

There was a great deal of stuff to sort through since I was in school back in the early 80's. There were also several different point's of views, definitions, statements, etc, etc, etc.

Out of all the constants found, the one that stood out was the time honored tradition behind being dubbed a Chef. Yes a cook cooks and a Chef cooks but that's where the similarities end. Then, IMHPO, I found the perfect statement.

It was in my fourth edition copy of The Professional Chef on page one titled "A Chef is Many Things". Granted this was a revision last done 1974 but that is almost the perfect time to draw a proper statement. Mainly because it would have been before the Culinary Boom of the late 80's until now. For the record and not to imply I did.... I did not attend The CIA. I, like many other students at my school (College of DuPage) did have their text book for the purpose of reference. In fact I also have the The New Professional Chef as well as a hundred other books and magazinesi nn my library for the same purpose of reference. 

Here is what was written. 

There is far more to it but that is what we as Chef's were taught. Yet at the same time we were taught the other responsibilities that were unfolding at the time and now have become just as important as the food.

Staff management, costs, public relations, purchasing, health codes, nutrition, marketing, etc, etc, etc. Granted there are some that are better than others but this says it for me.

The final points that it comes down to for me are this. A cook follows recipes, prepares food to the standard of the person or persons above them. The Chef is meant to be that stopping point as the person who is the standard for the production of recipes, and execution of product to be served to the guest. I've known cooks that can memorize and recite the ingredients and procedures of a recipe verbatim but I've also seen those same people without a recipe in front of them burn water. I've very rarely seen a true Chef not be able to make something palletable out of even the most basic to the most complex of ingredients. It also comes down to schooling. Whether it be a Formal setting like a classroom or real life experiences like your Charlie Trotters. Finally a cook doesn't necessarily need to posses the desire to follow or believe in this;
Hey! The bar has to be set somewhere.

I may never had hit all the points mentioned above, after all I am human, but I always did and still aspire to do such.


----------



## chefinfrance (Dec 16, 2007)

I could not have put it better. oldschool 1982 you seem to have hit all the right points and hopefully you have not offended anybody.
Steve www.masterchefinfrance.com 
ps love the lamb story


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

As usual, Chubby hits the nail on the head. But he tells us what a chef isn't, rather than what a chef is.

I think the definition is complicated, in America at least, by two factors.

1. Ego. I don't know why or how, but somehow "cook" has become a negative word, indeed, almost a perjorative. My only professional cooking experience was as a short-order cook, and I revel in the title. But, for some reason, cooks, today, don't want to be called cooks. They think the term is demeaning.

2. We try to combine too many functions in one person. The ultimate of this is the U.S. presidency, in which we expect one person to be both a statesman and a politician. 
In the kitchen defining "chef" used to be easy. Just look at oldschool's notes. But now we expect so much more. A chef is the guy (or, increasingly, gal) who runs the kitchen on both a creative and managerial level; he is a business manager; he is an inventory control specialist; he is a graphic designer; he is.......no wonder we can't figure it out.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Yeah, yeah, and all that, the problem is, is that we're just a small bunch of people hashing out a definition. 

There is no one to enforce it, no recognized body to tell the cooking schools to stop calling thier students "Chefs", or to take the schools to task when they claim that upon graduating you can earn $60,000 as a freshly minted "Chef". There still the stigma/abhorance of the word "cook". No one to tell the media in all of it's forms what our little definition is, or to slap some floozy on mainstream TV upside the head because she's making fun of our profession and really, really abusing the title "Chef".

There are no national standards for "Cook", which I feel is the starting point for any Chef's career path. This, I feel-- no Gov't recognised standards for the professions of "Cook" or "Chef",-- is the cause of all of this navel gazing, all the doozy TV "Chef's" and their really cra**y media-hyped glossy cookbooks, the "drop-chef" and "prep-chef" titles on resumes, and the logic that a cook can only work at hospitals or staff canteens.


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

I started as new guy, was promoted to "poor bas%ard," moved to @$$hole, then white-guy, then _pinche gabacho_, and finally became a major @$$hole.

I owe it to luck, hard work, and talent, 
BDL


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

"I owe it to luck, hard work, and talent, :

Glad to see you have them in the correct order of importance, BDL. Everybody knows that skill, talent, and hard work just don't hold a candle to blind luck.


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

I forgot to mention nepotism.

BDL


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

"I forgot to mention nepotism."

Ahhhhh. The best qualification of all.


----------



## dudethatsmine (Mar 15, 2008)

i really do hope it starts to impact it so they can get there heads out of there asses and see that 30k to 60k tuition does not make sense for a 10 dollar a hour trade when you get out. I do not know wether to blame us kids for not researching or these schools for lieing right to there faces.

I recently decided to just learn on my own i read a lot of books i recently got another job finally at a very nice place imo. When classes roll around again at my community college that is literally down the road from me i will take their 1 year diploma program only 3k i met the chefs there and wow they are good with tons of experience i have a friend in the program now he says its awesome. And i could work wile attending the classes so it works out. i always threw ideas around about going to a big name school but do i really want that kind of debt for it to just snowball and go in to default i do not have rich parents by a long shot to help me out and for them to co sign would be suicide to them and me if things went wrong.


----------



## tamuna (Aug 20, 2010)

Anyone can cook, haven't you seeing "Ratatouille"? If you are passionate enough. And Everyone who is passionate  about cooking is a Cook. You are the Chef, when you become proficient in what you do. You know how to cook properly on right temperatures, have uniform cuts of meats, vegetable, you follow the standards, but have our unique touch to everything.

You know how to preserve all the goodness of the produce. Being able to  bring full palate to the table with all its benefits of vitamins and minerals. Being proficient in this fiend comes from the school. And then you are the Chef.

You can be executive chef if you are in charge of whole kitchen and own your place. Or by working in the restaurant, few long  years, with great discipline and You have a chance to become one.

Sous chef is the right hand of Executive.

And then there are some other station chefs, at garde manger, saucier, poissonnier, pastry station...

I am a culinary school trained, and more then 10 year experiences Private Chef.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

tamuna said:


> You are the Chef, when you become proficient in what you do. .......


Nope gotta disagree with that one. The "acid test" for cooks vs Chefs is this:

How they are judged.

A "cook" is judged by what they put on the plate.

A Chef is judged on how well they manage their resources.

This is the way the employer sees things. The guy who signs the paychecks....

I've never heard of a "Sew" Chef, but have been a Sous Chef many times


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

> ...You are the Chef, when you become proficient in what you do...


Got to agree with FoodPump here, when you become proficient at cooking, then you are a "proficient cook".

When you can "manage" a station/line/kitchen/food production facility, you "might" qualify as a chef.

IMHO, "chef" is a "management title", "cook" is a trade classification.

One can become a "trained cook" through apprenticeship, OJT, or culinary education or combination thereof. One becomes a "proficient cook" only through experience and continuing education.

One can become a "chef" by chance or design. Chance means outliving the rest of the cooks and making no obvious mistakes /img/vbsmilies/smilies/crazy.gif

By design means learning about

Personnel management
Profit and Loss Statements
Business Finance
Business Law
Health and Safety codes
Investor Relations
Customer Service
Inventory control
Negotiation
whether the learning is through experience or formal education makes no difference, the knowledge is what counts.


----------



## chefedb (Apr 3, 2010)

Chef, Cook, Butcher, Chef Steward   Just get your money, buy whatever you want,retire early  and leave the Ego in your car.


----------



## islandcheferic (Aug 24, 2010)

I'm soo confused...really, like many of my peers I was shy about being called a chef. I was trained by a Yergan Molltoff, a german who himself was just completing a Masters Chef program from a school in Vien. Our deal was for him to teach me anything he could in exchange for English lessons. I was 14, a busboy at the Fort Leavenworth Officers Club. As Yeargan was doing his school work via mail(no computers in those days) I  was giving him the americaized lingo to be able to express himself in the kitchen...this went on until I was 17 ..including a summer we both rented rooms in an old masion and cooked every night after work. I remember my mom begging to attend a (now de-funked) chef school in Wash. D.C.....I went down and took the tour...and thought"I should be teaching here!"...I was a very cocky 18 year old....but in years past i felt funny being called "Chef"...my teacher was a Real Chef...I just cooked for a living...didn"t ever resolve  this until after years of management work out of the kitchen, I decided to return to my roots and have some fun. It was my customers at the cafe and the catering gigs that were always addressing me as "Chef"....now ,so many years later...It does't bother me at all! For what I charge for a Clambake, Pig roast, or Eggs Bennie at the cafe....they may call me anything..even "Late for dinner!" 

0


----------



## bazza (Apr 2, 2007)

Ed Buchanan said:


> Chef, Cook, Butcher, Chef Steward Just get your money, buy whatever you want,retire early and leave the Ego in your car.


Ha ha I like this Ed.


----------



## jamesparkerz (Aug 18, 2010)

HI,

Good points. And all that is subject to change in the heat of battle.but I have no real idea what the titles really mean?

Keep it up!


----------



## shroomgirl (Aug 11, 2000)

rereading this thread this morning.....still interesting reading.


----------



## chefbillyb (Feb 8, 2009)

The Chef is the one that always shows up, The cooks are the ones that call in drunk, have to get bailed out of jail, bitch about their job and want more money...........Did I leave anything out ??????????????  ChefBillyB


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Now that you mention it, yeah.... 

"Can I have next Friday off?  Oh, and I need more hours, my last paycheck couldn't even make rent......."


----------



## caterchef (Oct 12, 2009)

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/chef.gif The CHEF is the guy who can cook anything and fix anything in the kitchen.

The COOK is the guy who won't prep anything or clean anything unless he is told to.

( Although there are some exceptions, but not as many as we would like.)/img/vbsmilies/smilies/cool.gif


----------



## gunnar (Apr 3, 2008)

wow, bunch of angry Chefs. Cooks, cook, take crap from Chefs, rely on noone as most of thier co-workers have issues, and get accused of being drunks,druggies or worse. Chefs do much the same but also take crap from owners, customers, health dept and suppliers. But get upset when they are called drunks or druggies, take days off cause they "need" it and swear they don't make enough money to put up with this kind of crap.

I really don't beleive that anymore then most of the negative stuff the others have written....it's stereotypical crap.

Chef's are cooks that are also managers.

Cooks are cooks, some with aspirations of becoming Chef's, some happy just doing their job and part of someone elses, some making a bad rep for cooks everywhere.


----------



## boar_d_laze (Feb 13, 2008)

Gunnar makes good points.

BDL


----------



## fr33_mason (Jan 9, 2008)

I was once told by an army cook that the difference between a cook and a chef is a cook cleans up after his/her self and a chef has someone else to clean up after them.


----------



## cookinmt (Aug 3, 2010)

Where I used to work, a Mom & Pop in Tucson, the owner was the Chef. He did the majority of the ordering, showed up at 4am to do repair work, handled the hiring and firing of the kitchen staff, and designed the menu. He was also an atrocious cook, in both his knowledge of food and his technique on the line. I mean _terrible._ Thankfully the menu was simple, and he had staffed himself with competent employees who could carry him; nevertheless, he was the perfect example--to me, at least--of why the term "chef" shouldn't be steered too far away from it's original meaning. He wa_s _the chief. He signed my paychecks and bossed me around the kitchen. He also thought water was an acceptable substitution for cream in any application.

Cook are cooks. Chefs are chiefs. They often run hand in hand, but are not necessarily dependent on each other.


----------



## llauralight (May 13, 2010)

Ummmm....I am not trying to define the term chef, but I think the doctor/nurse comparison to chef/cook is either a simplistic and confusing metaphor OR incredibly accurate. I am a by trade a nurse practitioner. This means that I am an RN, APN, MSN, FNP-C (titles) and have had 9 years of college, I also have prescriptive authority with DEA scheduled drugs included, can have my own practice, etc. Essentially, I do the work that some physicians do, but at less cost/pay and with more experience. If I had a PhD in nursing, I would still be a nurse, but would also merit the title "Dr." So is the difference between a chef and cook a title, a social standing, or a difference in ability?.......reminds me of the age old question in ceramics.... does form follow function or does function follow form?


----------



## gypsy2727 (Mar 9, 2010)

Gunner has good points all around.....

I'll have a drink and a smoke to that /img/vbsmilies/smilies/drinkbeer.gif /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smoking.gif


----------



## kvonnj (Aug 3, 2010)

Ummmm....I am not trying to define the term chef, but I think the doctor/nurse comparison to chef/cook is either a simplistic and confusing metaphor OR incredibly accurate. I am a by trade a nurse practitioner. This means that I am an RN, APN, MSN, FNP-C (titles) and have had 9 years of college, I also have prescriptive authority with DEA scheduled drugs included, can have my own practice, etc. Essentially, I do the work that some physicians do, but at less cost/pay and with more experience. If I had a PhD in nursing, I would still be a nurse, but would also merit the title "Dr." So is the difference between a chef and cook a title, a social standing, or a difference in ability?.......reminds me of the age old question in ceramics.... does form follow function or does function follow form?

As a one time medic myself, I know that even if tyou DID have your PhD., you could still ONLY do exactly what was ordered by an M.D., because while a Doctorate in nursing is awesome, it's NOT the same as being a Medical Doctor, and hence, the difference between a Chef and a Cook.


----------



## chefross (May 5, 2010)

It has been said that the word Chef means chief and therefore a Chef with no brigade should not be referred to as such.

I believe very strongly that although you may take a Chef out of the kitchen.....you can NEVER take the kitchen out of the Chef.

It's there always. A Chef is both a noun and an adjective.


----------



## prairiechef (May 22, 2010)

Cooks cook.

Chefs manage cooks.

When I was a Sous Chef in a 313 room Hotel, I was directly responsible for all banquets, the dining room and the Pub. Indirectly responsible for the Pastry Kitchen and Garde Manger, as well as all BEO's, daily orders and the staff kitchen.

When I became the "Exec. Sous" I simply became directly responsible for all of it, plus taking over for the Chef in his absence.

When I became Chef... I cooked less and got way more headaches.


----------



## chefgord (Sep 28, 2009)

WannabeChef said:


> I love to cook and I aspire to be a chef one day..then I suddenly realized, I have heard the terms for different types of cooks/chefs but I have no real idea what the titles really mean?
> line cook
> sous chef
> head chef chef steward
> ...


line cook-the backbone of the kitchen. Responsible for the actual cooking of the food.

sous chef-generally 2nd in command. In full charge of the kitchen in absence of the head man.

head chef chef steward-head guy? Haven't heard that exact one before.

Alot of it is general/regional terms now. Someone called me the 'executive sous chef' awhile back. I'm not even sure what that entails.

In terms of job duties, once more it depends on location, type of establishment, number of employees, demographic, etc etc. It also depends on the setup of your heirarchy kitchenwise. Whether there is a head chef, or an executive chef, sous chef, jumior sous chefs, chef d'partie etc.

Different places use different titles.

I'm sous chef where i'm at & am responsible for everything except direct hiring. Cooking, cleaning, prepping, managing, delegating, disciplining, ordering, bartering with insane reps, inventory, invoicing, equipment, banquets, line service, catering, etc. So the further up the chain you move, the more you're worth. But you'd better be prepared for it. There's always somebody bucking for the job. I get my decision-making ripped apart daily by cooks looking to move up. It's fantastic. That's ok, though. Bring it on.


----------

