What is the difference between a cook and a chef?
By modstar
@modstar (9605)
Philippines
20 responses
@catdla1 (6005)
• United States
26 Mar 09
A cook follows recipes and takes direction from others. A chef creates the recipes based on his or her advanced knowledge of food, flavors and textures and how to achieve the end result they are striving for. Almost all chefs were once cooks, who loved what they did enough to go to the next level.
1 person likes this
@cuttyrish (2667)
• United States
30 Mar 09
a chef is the head of the kitchen, and usually makes new recipes in the restaurants, he holds the secret why the food in this restaurant is tastier than the food in other restaurants..while the cook is the person who cooks food, he can also be a professional cook in a restaurant, and often is the assistant of the chef..
1 person likes this
@dexterous21 (1180)
• Philippines
26 Mar 09
A cook is someone who cooks food while a chef is a professional cook. Chef is better because he or she is well-experienced.
@dexterous21 (1180)
• Philippines
26 Mar 09
The way you look a person is different. Don't you think so? LOL!
@myralmedo (815)
• Philippines
26 Mar 09
hi :)
yeah me too i get confused on what to call them- a cook or a chef..(love at QTV11 Secrets of the Masters ...love those chefs)
i research for the meaning of the two wahaha
a cook- a person who performs all phases of kitchen activities including the preparation and presentation of vegetables, sauces, meat, fish etc (desserts:baking, pastry); basi menu planning/costing as well as knowledge of safety, sanitation and food storage and who has a knowledge of human and customer relations.
a chef- sometimes used to mean any professional cook, regardless of rank. ( i think if you are a chef you have specialization? )
Chef de cuisine
Sous chef
Expediter (Aboyeur)
Chef de Partie
hmmm i learned a lot from here in myLot
happy myLotting!;)
Godabless!0=)
@myralmedo (815)
• Philippines
26 Mar 09
hi there :)
LOL... yeah i think a chef is kinda if a "highness"
thanks too!:)
happy myLotting!
Godabless!0=)
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
26 Mar 09
Chefs can specialise if the wish. The simple difference is that a chef is someone who has completed his/her cooking apprenticeship. A cook is someone who has had the schooling but not done the on the job training. It is also possible that it could be applied to someone who learned on the job but never did the schooling.
To complete an apprenticeship and become a chef you must do both. It is a 3 year course of study involving schooling and working for a chef. Not much has changed except that they no long have to journey to become qualified.
As for the specialisation, that can come later if they have an interest in one particular area. Most restaurants just have chefs but some big hotels and large fancy restaurants may employ more than one chef. These places do have people who just do one area, such as main dishes, pastry chef, deserts etc.
@margaux08 (1094)
• Philippines
28 Mar 09
Hi modstar,
I am not so much into food channel (which makes me think... what will I respond here?LOL!) but I love food, i love eating and i love cooking.
From my humble knowledge of chefs and cooks, I think (this is not professionally though) that chefs are gradutaes of culinary arts, and cooks don't.
Fortunately, I am neither, I'm just a good "taster" I may say, and it makes my life so much more uncomplicated.
@margaux08 (1094)
• Philippines
30 Mar 09
Hi modstar,
I came up with some TV program titles for this just in case.. It's always a good thing to be ready:
1. Tasters' Choices
2. Tasters' Best!
3. What's Cooking... The Tasters' Travelogue
4. Food Trip 101
5. Food Trip - The Tasters' Diary
@Theresaaiza (10487)
• Australia
23 Apr 09
Just probably, to be a chef needs a certain degree or someone who has finished a course or something. He is like a GRAND COOK!
Well if I try to compare that to my own profession, it's like a nurse who passed the board exams (chef), and a nurse who finished nursing school but didn't take or pass the board exams (cook). But you cannot always measure their expertise by just looking at their board exam status.
Grrr.....I still think this discussion is difficult to answer. I would have skipped this if it weren't for the fact that you're my bestbud!
@Theresaaiza (10487)
• Australia
24 Apr 09
The course of true love never did run smooth. So did the road to being a nurse!lol
Why didn't you tell me you were collecting boxes!? I could send you a lot of Tanduay and Pampers' boxes straight on!
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
26 Mar 09
Think of it as the difference between an architect and a builder.
@marciascott (25529)
• United States
27 Mar 09
A Good Cooki is a Natrual no one has to tell them how to cook.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
27 Mar 09
Yeah that's why recipe books don't exist.
What a stupid statement
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
26 Mar 09
The only difference is that one has served an apprenticeship and the other has just been to school. They both do the same trade school course. I used to work at a tafe. In Australia we have tertiary technical colleges that we call technical and further education schools. There is a trade course called a certificate III in cookery, taught by experienced chefs.
If you want to be a chef you sign up with a chef as an apprentice. You do 3 years of apprenticeship to this chef which includes doing the certificate III trade school course. You also work in the restaurant for the chef under his/her direction. To pass the apprenticeship you must pass the course and the on the job training. Once both are passed you are officially a chef and can open your own restaurant if you want.
A cook is someone who has done the same course at trade school but has not done the on the job training part. They have learned all the cooking skills but none of the fancy training that is taught in a professional kitchen. You often find these people working in pubs and ordinary restaurants like sizzlers etc. Chefs like any qualified tradesman cost money to employ.
As to which is better? Both have the same cooking training but chefs are taught how to run restaurants etc as they must pass working in a restaurant for 3 years to be a chef. It is hard work. Some will be better at cooking than others despite having the same training. I am not sure one is better than the other. Some people learn their trade working in a kitchen but can not qualify to be a chef without the school side, others do the school side and then have to gain experience.
My partner is a cook. He has done the course and worked in restaurants but he has never done the apprenticeship side of things.
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
28 Mar 09
Thank you for the best response. My job used to be to set up curriculum into the institute database so I have come into contact with the structure of many trade courses.
The cookery course also includes subjects about restaurant accounting and bulk food purchases etc and many cooks have worked in restaurants but chefs are usually found in high class restaurants. The quality of the person the apprentice worked for could also make a difference. It is hard to get these apprenticeships and our institute also ran a course to give students the skills they needed to get that important start. We did that for lots of trade courses and the students could do it as part of their schooling if the wanted to go technical rather than academic. I think it is a good system.
It is just like the difference between waiters who learn on the job and ones who have done the apprenticeship. We also ran a bar and waiting course for people who wanted to be able to work in pubs and needed a licence to do so.
The ones who learn on the job can take orders and set tables etc but the apprentice waiter learns many more skills that you will only find in 5 star restaurants. I think they call it the full silver service. Our institute has its own restaurant where the students practise their skills as part of their training.
It is a wonderful place, open to the public and charges very good prices. I loved the place as we could get 5 star food and service for a very cheap price, including full bar service with cocktails. The only catch was that the workers were all students so there was a risk of mistakes but I think they were mostly 3rd year and there were not many problems. Occasionally they would have a bar and waiting course going through or some other course and they would have really cheap specials.
@bombshell (11256)
• Germany
26 Mar 09
the cook is the a normal cook but the chef is the higher level or most expert.am i correct
@onlydia (2808)
• United States
26 Mar 09
I don't think so. The pay is what is the big difference. And a collage education on how to cook. My grandmother was a great cook and my mother. They could of been chefs as you put it. You have a good day
@onlydia (2808)
• United States
26 Mar 09
Yes the piece of paper is all. As the chef does boss everyone. And makes up his own meals and you know most of them are mistakes to begin with. That is how we do it in my house a little of this a nd a little of that. So does that make a chef or a woman who is sick of all the samethings. YOur friend onlydia
@Nhey16 (2518)
• Philippines
23 Apr 09
interesting discussion... it also confuses me about the difference of the two...
@iamsolucky (1241)
• Philippines
28 Mar 09
There is difference in word spelling hehe. I think its just the same, They are good in cooking. Chef for rich, and cook for poor?, well i think the chef are the people who are interested in culinary and finished a degree on it. And the cook are thos people who are also interested in culinary but not earning a degree from it, just based on experience.
Hapy mylotting!
@inkyuboz (1392)
• Mandaluyong City, Philippines
30 Mar 09
I'm not entirely sure as to how to answer this question but I have to say that Chefs had better training while Cooks ultimately relies on their natural talent. I wouldn't know which one is better because it completely depends on the person. For example in this TV Show called "Hell's Kitchen" some of Gordon Ramsay's early picks to win the competition are professional chefs but ultimately he chooses cooks sometimes too.
@marciascott (25529)
• United States
27 Mar 09
The difference between a Cook and a Chef A Cook doesn't need a recipe, they just put in there own ingredients, A Chef had to go to school and learn how to be good Chef.
@saundyl (9783)
• Canada
26 Mar 09
I think the Chefs are really the head of the kitchen - more experience and a fancier resturant.
"Basically a "chef" is someone who puts his/her brains while cooking and doesn't follow instructions, who knows and creates own delicacies, basically knows what goes with what. A cook is someone who is either instructed, told or aware of certain methods to cook food. In a high-end restaurant there would be a chef and a number of cooks working under him/her who take directions, instructions from the chef"
@cream97 (29087)
• United States
27 Mar 09
Hi, modstar, I guess a cook would be someone that cooks many types of home cooked foods. And a chef is someone that prepares many dishes that includes a variety of selections. Kind of like on the cuisine side. I think that they both are great cookers. They have their own style in cooking and preparing foods. They just taste differently. And it is served differently as well.
@maxilimian (3099)
• Indonesia
27 Mar 09
Well i think better or worse is depending on the food their serves i guess chefs is like more manager, he/she could make their own recipes, tastes and has several assistant to help him/her cooking, cooks is more like home cooker, doing all the things alone even he/she could make new recipes or tastes correct me ...
@kevdiesel (129)
• Kenya
27 Mar 09
Chef is chef..cook is cook.. Food is food, probably the cook takes order from chef..u know?