Ask George: At what point can a cook be called a chef?

At what point can a cook be called a chef? —Laura R., St. Louis

This question arose when I was cooking dinner for friends one night and was graciously referred to as a chef. I can flip a sautée pan, but I’m hardly a chef. The two terms are often used interchangeably but shouldn’t be.

The main distinction lies in the level of training: Cooks typically have little to no professional schooling, whereas chefs likely have attended a culinary institution or at least trained with other accomplished chefs, an on-the-job-training term referred to as staging (stazh-ing). Young chefs often spend a few years traveling the country (and the world) apprenticing and staging.

Chefs are trained not just to cook many types of food but to run kitchens, which includes costing food, planning menus, creating dishes, writing recipes, and scheduling staff. Chefs create recipes; they teach cooks to follow them.

One of the first things a chef is taught are classic cooking techniques, not just how a sauce is made but why it’s made that way, when to sear, when to broil, etc. A good cook knows what to do. A good chef knows the theory and methods behind what’s being done and why certain flavors go together.

The level and degree of cooking skill plays a part as well. Most cooks can dice a carrot, but most don’t know the difference between “small dice” and “bruniose,” for example. Or the fastest way to create a perfect julienne and do so consistently.

I’ll argue that consistency is as important as a chef’s ability: Menu items must look and taste the same every day, which is where most restaurants fall short, in my opinion. It takes both to earn a chef the respect of customers and peers—and to justifiably deserve the title of chef.  

In its simplest terms, a chef teaches, and a cook learns. And I’m still learning.

Follow George on Twitter @stlmag_dining or send him an email at [email protected]. For more from St. Louis Magazine, subscribe or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.