When someone asks me “who are the talented budding stars in the class?” I’m really baffled.  It is a question too often asked, and it puts me in an uncomfortable, if not irritating situation.  It’s not that faces do not come to mind, but the question itself simply does not conjure in my mind a rational process by which I can make an objective decision.  Also, I’ve noticed that many schools and media use the words “star” and “talented” to draw our attention to the profession.

Let’s start with the “star” business.  The word too often means someone who successfully draws attention to their person, not necessarily their work.  A budding star can be someone who will legitimately one day deserve very close attention, but it can and often does mean someone who will know how to play the media, integrate with the flavour-of-the-month club, mimic the trends of the day to a tee, and smile perfectly for a camera.  The cooking world has mimicked Hollywood and sports so well it practically goes out of its way to shows itself as such on tv.

Now the word “talent” is a bit more dangerous in my estimation for it supposedly has this all or none aspect to it. Again, I’m not sure what aspects of my brain I’m supposed to draw from to make any conclusions about someone’s talent when it comes to cooking.  What am I supposed to be looking for?  Their artistic flair?  Please!  Athletes are scouted, rated and drafted according to their “raw talent”, their “raw skills”, such as how fast they can run, throw a ball, skate, shoot, or kick.  But even now, and more than ever, athletes are being assessed by how hard they work, their attitude, their desire to evolve to the next levels of success.

As a teacher I evaluate skills, and every skill in cooking requires development – mental, physical, and sensorial.  Some students develop quicker than others, often naturally so being more versed mentally, physically and experientially with the fundamentals of cooking; culinary development will always require putting in the necessary time.  Some will simply have to put in more time to catch up to the consistency and efficiency of others.  But one thing I know and know for sure from years of teaching is that the students who work the hardest during and after school, irrespective of their “talents” when they started the course, are the ones that are noticed for the long run in the industry, for they are the ones that persist, evolve, and do the necessary work to put excellent food on the plate.  It is their food, their personal evolution to become the best they can be, you notice.

Everyone can learn to cook.  Some get to a certain level with a lesser path of resistance, just as some athletes do.  But the best students I have ever taught are not those I noticed with having what is called “natural talent” or  “it”, but those simply with the most desire (unless that’s the “it” we’re referring to).  The quality of a cook depends more directly on the quantity of work put in.  That’s the “stuff” damn good cooks are made of.