# She's a (wonderful) cook.



## meijin

Hi, let's say your friend has just introduced his friend to you by saying "This is my friend Meg. She's a wonderful cook." The second sentence only means she is very good at cooking. It doesn't mean she is a professional cook, although she could be.

In contrast, if your friend didn't use any adjectives such as wonderful, excellent, and great and only said "This is my friend Meg. She's a cook.", it means she is a professional cook. 

Am I correct?


----------



## Franco-filly

Yes, I would make those assumptions.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I wouldn't because if I meant her profession I'd call her a chef.


----------



## Myridon

Hermione Golightly said:


> I wouldn't because if I meant her profession I'd call her a chef.


Do you call the person who drops batter-coated Snickers in the fryer at the chip shop "a chef"?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

No, nor would I call them a 'cook'. Perhaps they are fast food associates or operatives. I was simply answering meijin's question in a useful way.


----------



## Myridon

Hermione Golightly said:


> No, nor would I call them a 'cook'. Perhaps they are fast food associates or operatives. I was simply answering meijin's question in a useful way.


Perhaps I went too far the other way, but the question is: Is everyone who cooks professionally is a "chef" for you as you just implied in post #3?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Leaving aside the improbable premise that people mention their friend's  jobs when introducing them, in my world professional 'cooks' who are trained, experienced and very possibly qualified, like to be called chefs.
People working in fast food outlets are mostly not even cooks, any more than the fish and chip shop owners describe themselves themselves 'cooks'.

I have no idea where battered _Mars _bars come into it. Scotland wasn't mentioned.


----------



## Myridon

Hermione Golightly said:


> in my world professional 'cooks' who are trained, experienced and very possibly qualified, like to be called chefs.


I don't care what they like to be called.  I want to know what you call them.
Everyone who works with food in a UK restaurant kitchen is a chef.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I'm not going to change my answer #3 to suit you!


----------



## Myridon

Hermione Golightly said:


> I'm not going to change my answer #3 to suit you!


If you're happy with "Everyone who works with food in a UK restaurant kitchen is a chef.", there's no need to change it.  I'm just pointing out that post #3 says that.


----------



## london calling

Hermione Golightly said:


> I wouldn't because if I meant her profession I'd call her a chef.


Me too (says the mother of a chef). If you're professionally trained you're a chef (there are different levels, of course). If (for example) you cook school dinners but have had no training you're a cook.


----------



## Myridon

london calling said:


> If (for example) you cook school dinners but have had no training you're a cook.


You disagree with Hermoine then.  There are people who have a job cooking that are called cooks. 
I think that  people who have permanent jobs can be counted among those who have professions and are professional.


----------



## Glenfarclas

meijin said:


> The second sentence only means she is very good at cooking.[...] "This is my friend Meg. She's a cook.", it means she is a professional cook.
> Am I correct?



Yes, that's exactly how I would understand it.


Myridon said:


> There are people who have a job cooking that are called cooks.



Maybe it's a British thing?  At least in the United States, "cook" is a perfectly ordinary job and "chef" means something like "head cook at a fancy restaurant."


----------



## elroy

Franco-filly said:


> Yes, I would make those assumptions.


 Same.


----------



## suzi br

meijin said:


> In contrast, if your friend didn't use any adjectives such as wonderful, excellent, and great and only said "This is my friend Meg. She's a cook.", it means she is a professional cook.



Yes I agree with your basic premise. 
If you said this to me I’d think Meg works in a canteen like a school or hospital.  The staff who work in them are routinely called cooks. 

I see the discussion about job titles has gone on already but for me a chef is something a bit fancier than a cook. If Meg worked in a food chain I’d probably use the name of it: Meg works at Nandos.


----------



## kentix

There's a huge gap between fancy restaurants that have chefs and fast food restaurants that don't. Those aren't the only options. There are tens of thousands of restaurants in the U.S. that have cooks. If a person makes your food and puts it on a plate and a server brings it to you (and you're not a chef who's been to an expensive culinary school), you're a cook. You could work in one of a million mid-level chain restaurants like Applebees or you could work as a "short order" cook in a diner that's mostly open for breakfast and lunch, or it could be a family-owned restaurant that's been there for 50 years and serves "comfort food". None of those people are chefs. But they are all employed as cooks.

Short Order Cook Job Description | Snagajob


----------



## elroy

kentix said:


> There's a huge gap between fancy restaurants that have chefs and fast food restaurants that don't. Those aren't the only options. There are tens of thousands of restaurants in the U.S. that have cooks. If a person makes your food and puts it on a plate and a server brings it to you (and you're not a chef who's been to an expensive culinary school), you're a cook. You could work in one of a million mid-level chain restaurants like Applebees or you could work as a "short order" cook in a diner that's mostly open for breakfast and lunch, or it could be a family-owned restaurant that's been there for 50 years and serves "comfort food". None of those people are chefs. But they are all employed as cooks.


----------



## meijin

Thank you all very much for the helpful answers. Reading the following comments, I can't help asking this. What if Meg were _one of _the cooks, not the head cook, at a fancy restaurant? If I only said "Meg is a chef", would some people misunderstand she is the head cook? 



london calling said:


> If you're professionally trained you're a chef (there are different levels, of course).





Glenfarclas said:


> and "chef" means something like "head cook at a fancy restaurant."


----------



## Myridon

meijin said:


> Thank you all very much for the helpful answers. Reading the following comments, I can't help asking this. What if Meg were _one of _the cooks, not the head cook, at a fancy restaurant? If I only said "Meg is a chef", would some people misunderstand she is the head cook?


Meg is the chef at Le Petite Chou. She's the head chef.
Meg is a chef at Le Petite Chou. She might be the chef de cuisine (head chef,) the sous chef (second chef), or a chef de partie (one of many line cooks).
Kitchen Hierarchy - The Different Chef Titles Explained


----------



## meijin

Myridon said:


> Meg is the chef at Le Petite Chou.
> Meg is a chef at Le Petite Chou.


Would it sound odd if the friend said "This is my friend Meg. She's the chef." (without mentioning the name of the restaurant) just wanting to say she is the head chef of a restaurant? I think it would. (I'd ask "Which restaurant?)
If so, would "This my friend Meg. She's a head chef." work?


----------



## suzi br

You’re right about how to use articles here. I’d only say “the chef” if we were clearly talking about a location we are actually already talking about (or sitting in!).


----------



## meijin

Thanks Suzi!


----------



## Barque

meijin said:


> Would it sound odd if the friend said "This is my friend Meg. She's the chef." (without mentioning the name of the restaurant) just wanting to say she is the head chef of a restaurant? I think it would.


Even if he mentioned the restaurant, it'd mean she was the only chef there. Being a head chef implies there are other chefs there.


meijin said:


> If so, would "This my friend Meg. She's a head chef." work?


The sentence is perfectly grammatical of course and perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I'd just say "She's a chef", unless there was some particular reason to say she was a _head_ chef*.

*(For example - if you mean she specialises in cooking animal heads.)


----------



## meijin

Barque said:


> but I'd just say "She's a chef"


But if you wanted to mean she's the head of the chefs, not just one of them, "She's a chef" wouldn't be right, would it?



Barque said:


> *(For example - if you mean she specialises in cooking animal heads.)


Then how about "She's a chief chef"? I've already read Chef = Chief??????, so it sounds redundant to me, though.


----------



## Barque

meijin said:


> But if you wanted to mean she's the head of the chefs, not just one of them, "She's a chef" wouldn't be right, would it?


Yes, that's why I said "unless there was some particular reason to say she was a _head_ chef". I just meant that normally, if you're just introducing someone to someone else, you might not go into detail. 



meijin said:


> Then how about "She's a chief chef"?


As I said above, if you're particular about mentioning the fact that she's a head chef, you can mention it. I think it's more common than "chief chef". (My reference to animal heads was just a joke; please don't take that seriously.)


----------



## Englishmypassion

I don't see how you can introduce someone not connected with the profession of cooking as "She's a cook." For me, "cook" used like that, without modified by any adjective, refers to the person's profession. I never say, "X is a cook" just to mean that X is good at cooking but not a professional cook.

My two cents.


----------



## meijin

Barque said:


> As I said above, if you're particular about mentioning the fact that she's a head chef, you can mention it. I think it's more common than "chief chef". (My reference to animal heads was just a joke; please don't take that seriously.)


Oh...ok, I misunderstood it. 
Unlike you, I'd mention her position, since it's a very good position and I'd want my friend to know it. If she were, say, a dishwasher, I'd probably say "She works at (name of the restaurant)".


----------



## elroy

I probably wouldn’t just say “She’s a head chef”; I would add something, like “She’s a head chef at a restaurant.”


----------



## Glenfarclas

meijin said:


> Then how about "She's a chief chef"?



No, nobody says that.


----------



## kentix

elroy said:


> I probably wouldn’t just say “She’s a head chef”; I would add something, like “She’s a head chef at a restaurant.”


Adding that extra part makes it sound much more natural.


----------



## meijin

Thanks all.


----------



## london calling

suzi br said:


> Yes I agree with your basic premise.
> If you said this to me I’d think Meg works in a canteen like a school or hospital.  The staff who work in them are routinely called cooks.
> 
> I see the discussion about job titles has gone on already but for me a chef is something a bit fancier than a cook. If Meg worked in a food chain I’d probably use the name of it: Meg works at Nandos.


I agree. That is precisely what I meant above.


----------



## kentix

I'm still unclear on BE usage.

I've picked a restaurant in London at random from Google Maps. It's a "relaxed and informal café". What would be the likely title of the person who prepares the food there?

Hidden gem of Greenwich - Review of Green Pea, London, England - TripAdvisor


----------



## elroy

suzi br said:


> If Meg worked in a food chain I’d probably use the name of it: Meg works at Nandos.


 That doesn’t necessarily mean she cooks for them, does it?


----------



## london calling

Never head of it Kentix and I'm from Greenwich (I lived just down the road from this place, although it didn't exist then). Will investigate further....

Seriously, we don't know if Tom's trained or not. I could cook home-made food in a pub but that wouldn't make me a chef because I can cook well  but I've had no training , whereas my son is a chef because he was trained (and can cook, obviously). There are of course various levels of chef but it would be an insult to call even a lowly chef de partie (line chef/station chef) a cook.


----------



## london calling

elroy said:


> That doesn’t necessarily mean she cooks for them, does it?


No, but if she does she probably isn't a chef, given the stuff that place serves up....


----------



## elroy

london calling said:


> There are of course various levels of chef but it would be an insult to call even a lowly chef de partie (line chef/station chef) a cook.


 That makes sense.  What seems puzzling to us American English speakers is that in British English you don't seem to want to call _anyone_ who cooks for a living a cook.  Which begs two questions:

1.) What _do_ you call people who cook for a living but are not chefs?
2.) Who _would_ you call "a cook"?


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> I'm still unclear on BE usage.
> 
> I've picked a restaurant in London at random from Google Maps. It's a "relaxed and informal café". What would be the likely title of the person who prepares the food there?
> 
> Hidden gem of Greenwich - Review of Green Pea, London, England - TripAdvisor


I would be surprised if the overlap between the two terms (dependent on the style of food and the expertise needed in preparation, creativity etc) would be much different between AE and BE.


----------



## london calling

I think I've answered that already.

1. Cooks.
2. Someone who cooks for a living but isn't trained.

Generally speaking, of course.


----------



## elroy

london calling said:


> I think I've answered that already.


 Sorry if I missed it, but this thread has gotten a bit confusing (for me, at least). 





> 1. Cooks.
> 2. Someone who cooks for a living but isn't trained.


 That basically matches American English usage -- so I'm not sure why there seems to have been so much disagreement between American English and British English speakers in this thread.  But I may have misunderstood something (or various things).


----------



## kentix

The response from suzi br was the confusing line, I think.


meijin said:


> "This is my friend Meg. She's a cook."





suzi br said:


> If you said this to me I’d think Meg works in a canteen like a school or hospital. The staff who work in them are routinely called cooks.


It seems to imply that the term cook is strongly associated with schools and hospitals and is not related to restaurants. If someone told me they were a cook I wouldn't first think of a hospital.

And no one following contradicted it or clarified it.


----------



## london calling

School cooks, Army cooks, hospital cooks, canteen cooks.......places where you can eat but usually not very well. I still remember school lunches in the 70s: dreadful....


----------



## elroy

What if they work at a decent restaurant but are not a chef?


----------



## PaulQ

meijin said:


> What if Meg were _one of _the cooks, not the head cook, at a fancy restaurant?


Then she would be a sous-chef (/suː'ʃɛf/)


----------



## elroy

I wonder if we can conclude that for British English speakers, the terms "chef" and "cook" have strong connotations, "chef" connoting culinary excellence and "cook" connoting mediocrity or worse, so they're uncomfortable using either term for people in between, and would prefer to talk around it?


----------



## PaulQ

A chef has successfully undergone a long period of training; he has a wide knowledge of foods, their preparation and presentation, and is skilled - I am, and you are, a cook. A cook is anyone who cooks.

Some cooks call themselves chefs; no chef would call himself a "cook".

A chef is an occupation, a profession: a cook may be an occupation or merely someone who's cooking something.


elroy said:


> "chef" connoting culinary excellence and "cook" connoting mediocrity or worse,


But chef, like surgeons, lawyers, architects, accountants, are not all equal, but it is expected that they will be, and disappointment arises when there is something less than expected - and some cooks are very good which can be a pleasant surprise.


----------



## kentix

Let's get blunt. You get paid to prepare food at the Green Pea or a similar restaurant, a "relaxed and informal café". You work in a kitchen 40 hours a week cooking. You've never been to culinary school. You learned your craft on the job from a series of experienced mentors who never went to culinary school. You are very good at what you do and people really enjoy your food. You even have some signature dishes. You apply to be on the show "Big Brother". There is an application form they use to find out more about you. There is a big old field on that application that says

Current Occupation:

What job title do you put there?

[I looked it up. That's what the form says.]


----------



## PaulQ

PaulQ said:


> Some cooks call themselves chefs; no chef would call himself a "cook".


How brutally frank are you going to be?
The [main/head, etc] cook at the Green Pea.
In BE, "chef" = You've been to culinary school and graduated.

If I recall correctly, there was a drive in the UK to get people into the hospitality industry, and to that extent the title "chef" was formalised. This has been quite successful and really good professional cooks speak of their ambition to be a chef.

It's rather like me calling myself an "English lecturer" because I post here - a step too far.


----------



## elroy

PaulQ said:


> A cook is anyone who cooks.


 Not in American English!

In American English, if you say you are "a cook," that means you do this _for a living_.

To use the noun "cook" to simply refer to the fact that you cook, you have to add something:

_I'm not a great cook.
I'm not much of a cook.
_
Which brings us back to the OP!


----------



## kentix

*Casablanca Restaurant in Gouverneur, NY*




Then there's this (which is different):

NEWS
*Police Declares Cook Wanted For Boss’ Murder
*
Police declares cook wanted for boss' murder - TV360 Nigeria


----------



## PaulQ

elroy said:


> Which brings us back to the OP!


----------



## suzi br

elroy said:


> Meg works at Nando’s.
> 
> That doesn’t necessarily mean she cooks for them, does it?


You’re right. But it’s still what I’d say. If it mattered much to Meg or the person I was introducing her to they could ask a follow up question. 

I like your summary of British sensibilities at #45 (45!!). I think you have sussed us out perfectly !


----------



## london calling

PaulQ said:


> Then she would be a sous-chef (/suː'ʃɛf/)


Not necessarily. Under the executive chef you have the sous-chef, followed by the chef(s) de partie. Megan might be a chef de partie.


----------



## london calling

kentix said:


> Let's get blunt. You get paid to prepare food at the Green Pea or a similar restaurant, a "relaxed and informal café". You work in a kitchen 40 hours a week cooking. You've never been to culinary school. You learned your craft on the job from a series of experienced mentors who never went to culinary school. You are very good at what you do and people really enjoy your food. You even have some signature dishes. You apply to be on the show "Big Brother". There is an application form they use to find out more about you. There is a big old field on that application that says
> 
> Current Occupation:
> 
> What job title do you put there?


Let's be blunt, then. He's a cook. He's had no formal training.


----------



## meijin

I've reread all the posts in this thread, but I have to ask this. Do you agree with the following statement? Do "most people" in your country really think so?

To most people, a cook and a chef are the same thing. The two terms are used interchangeably to indicate someone working away in the kitchen, regardless of whether that individual is cutting vegetables or masterminding the entire menu.

Source: Do You Know The Difference Between a Professional Chef and a Cook?





london calling said:


> Let's be blunt, then. He's a cook. He's had no formal training.


So, although BE speakers tend to think of professional cooks who aren't very good and work in canteens, hospitals, etc. when they hear "cooks", you'd have to use "Cook" for that job title Kentix asked about, because there's no appropriate term for the ones in between (=good professional cooks who aren't chefs).


----------



## suzi br

I don’t agree that most people think a chef and a cook are the same thing.


----------



## You little ripper!

suzi br said:


> I don’t agree that most people think a chef and a cook are the same thing.


I agree. A ‘chef’ is a cook but a cook isn’t necessarily a ‘chef’.


----------



## meijin

Thank you all very much. I think this will be my last question in this thread, and it's probably for BE speakers only.

In the original post, I wrote "This is my friend Meg. She's a cook." And the following posts really helped.

Post #15:


suzi br said:


> If you said this to me I’d think Meg works in a canteen like a school or hospital. The staff who work in them are routinely called cooks.



Post #45:


elroy said:


> I wonder if we can conclude that for British English speakers, the terms "chef" and "cook" have strong connotations, "chef" connoting culinary excellence and "cook" connoting mediocrity or worse, so they're uncomfortable using either term for people in between, and would prefer to talk around it?



Post #52:


suzi br said:


> I like your summary of British sensibilities at #45 (45!!). I think you have sussed us out perfectly !




If your British friend said "This is my friend Meg. She's a *professional *cook", would you still think she works in a canteen in a school, hospital, etc. or would you think she works in a decent (not fancy) restaurant?


----------



## Barque

For what it's worth, if you introduced someone to me as a cook, I'd just take it to mean they earned their living by cooking. I'd be no more surprised to hear he/she was head chef at a Michelin starred restaurant than that he/she worked the breakfast shift at a hospital canteen. But if you said he/she was a chef, I'd specifically associate it with a restaurant of reasonable to very high quality.

I'd understand _professional cook_ the same way as a _cook_, i.e. that the person concerned earned their living by cooking.

But I can understand that a chef might prefer to be introduced as a chef than as a cook. _Chef_ connotes a higher status. A cook can mean a domestic cook too--someone who cooks in someone's house or in various people's houses, and many people would probably consider that much lower in status than a chef at a fancy restaurant. A chef would earn much more, for one thing.


----------



## meijin

Barque said:


> If you said she was a chef, I'd associate it with a restaurant of reasonable to very high quality.


But, if I'm not mistaken, there are cooks (who had no formal training) in restaurants of reasonable quality. If Meg was one of those cooks, an AmE speaker would introduce her saying "She's a cook" (if he wanted to mention her occupation, of course). But some BE speakers said "She's a cook" would mean she works in a canteen, not a restaurant of reasonable quality. So I wondered if adding "professional" would make a difference. It's good to know that it doesn't in India (or in your opinion), but that's probably because you wouldn't think she works in a canteen if you heard "She's a cook"?


----------



## You little ripper!

Adding ‘professional’ does lift the standard, but still doesn’t mean they are a chef.


----------



## Barque

meijin said:


> but that's probably because you wouldn't think she works in a canteen if you heard "She's a cook"?


I didn't say that. If I heard "She's a cook", I'd just assume she works as a cook. She could be a cook in a canteen, a cafe or a restaurant.


meijin said:


> So I wondered if adding "professional" would make a difference.


I'm not sure how much difference "professional" would make. Saying "She's a cook" by itself indicates she earns money by cooking.

_Cross-posted._


----------



## meijin

You little ripper! said:


> Adding ‘professional’ does lift the standard, but still doesn’t mean they are a chef.


That's really good to hear, because I don't want "She's a professional cook" to mean she's a chef. I hope UK members agree with you.



Barque said:


> If I heard "She's a cook", I'd just assume she works as a cook. She could be a cook in a canteen, a cafe or a restaurant.


I understood that. And that's why "making a difference" wouldn't happen (or is unnecessary) in your case. Unlike you, some BE speakers in this thread said "She's a cook" would mean she works in a canteen.


----------



## suzi br

A canteen or similar, and that’s a start of a list because there are other jobs where someone might be classed as a cook, especially in a small domestic setting. 

My friend is a cook who works at events, festivals and location catering; she also does party cooking for people in their homes. My mentioning of canteens, schools etc was not meant to be an exhaustive list, just the most obvious, routine ones.


----------



## meijin

So, would you still think Meg is a canteen cook, hospital cook, school cook, or something similar, NOT a skilled cook in a decent restaurant, if your friend said "This is my friend Meg. She's a _professional_ cook."?


----------



## suzi br

I’m thinking the additional word (professional) is highly unlikely from a native BE speaker. I’ve never noticed that combination. Obviously it’s “possible”, but improbable, so I don’t know what I’d think. 

I’d probably say: 
“Whatcha on about?”


----------



## london calling

suzi br said:


> I don’t agree that most people think a chef and a cook are the same thing.


Neither do I, as I have been saying ever since my first post.


suzi br said:


> I’m thinking the additional word (professional) is highly unlikely from a native BE speaker. I’ve never noticed that combination.


Ditto.  She works as a cook.


----------



## meijin

Thank you both very much. I'm still not sure if I understand correctly. In the original post, I said...


meijin said:


> if your friend didn't use any adjectives such as wonderful, excellent, and great and only said "This is my friend Meg. She's a cook.", it means she is a professional cook.




Then I got these replies...



Hermione Golightly said:


> I wouldn't because if I meant her profession I'd call her a chef.





london calling said:


> Me too (says the mother of a chef). If you're professionally trained you're a chef (there are different levels, of course). If (for example) you cook school dinners but have had no training you're a cook.



I never said Meg was professionally trained. Or does the expression "professional cook" (which I used in the quote) mean she is professionally trained?    

If Meg was a great cook who works in a decent restaurant but has had no formal training in the past, she would be a cook but you wouldn't say "She's a cook" because the listener would most likely think she was a canteen cook, school cook, hospital cook or something similar. Am I correct?


----------



## elroy

It's possible that because to British ears "cook" implies mediocrity or worse, "professional cook" sounds oxymoronic to them (rather like saying "professional amateur").

For me, "professional cook" suggests a certain level of quality (i.e. #5 in our dictionary).  In other words, "She's a professional cook" and "She cooked for a living" don't have the same connotations for me.


----------



## suzi br

No, I don’t go so far as “mediocrity”. It’s just a job. Functional. Everyday work, cooking meat and veg in some quantities for  hungry folk.

Chefs fiddle about with food, creating fancy food that comes with a higher price tag for a few people who can afford it, probably as a treat for special dates.

As for our use of the word “professional”, it just doesn’t fit in the OP sentence. Some of us might have used the word as part of our efforts to define the job or discuss this topic but that does not      mean we’d use it in the OP.

Say Mary was a nurse. Nursing is something you can do as a job (or as a verb) in everyday family life. My mum is currently nursing my dad at the end of his life. She isn’t “a nurse” in the sense of being professionally trained. However if she was trained I would not need to say it in the OP
She’s a nurse 
She’s a professional nurse 

The issue of amateur/professional has some currency for a few jobs, such as acting or playing football, but not for cooking.


----------



## meijin

Thanks for the explanations, suzi.


----------

