The American Culinary Federation’s (ACF) Certified Master Chef (CMC) exam is evolving. As part of this process, the American Master Chefs’ Order (AMCO) has developed an assessment program for candidates interested in taking the exam.
“We did some research and found the biggest hurdles people encounter when going toward the exam are: lack of understanding about what it is; lack of exposure to a [CMC] or to access a mentor; and fear of showing up to the test and failing,” says Gerald Ford, CMC, Founder and Culinary Director of Legit Concepts and contributing editor for Club + Resort Chef.
In 2020, AMCO started a deep dive into common causes of failure and the deterrents to taking the test.
“We looked at what we call the pipeline to become a [CMC] and identified critical spaces along the way,” says Ford. “The assessment program is a way for anybody to start the process of preparing for the exam.”
Club + Resort Chef (C+RC): What’s the current failure rate for the CMC exam?
Gerald Ford (GF): Approximately one in four or one in five pass. It’s anywhere between a 17% pass rate and a 26% pass rate.
Our goal in measuring the success of the program is seeing the pass rate at least double in the next three years—not because the test is easier, but because people are coming to the test understanding what they’re getting into.
The assessment program is designed as a way for you to come and cook and have that experience without committing to a six-, eight-, or 10-day exam. You get that exposure and experience, and then you can see where you’re at in relation to a standard before committing. It is not a cheap endeavor. We want to make sure that we’re being effective with their resources as well, so they’re not committing to something without knowing what they’re getting themselves into. That’s one of the top three things we hear from those who took the test: that they had no idea what they were getting themselves into.
C+RC: What are the other two things you hear?
GF: Financial commitment in relation to the unknown. That’s a lot of money to spend without understanding what you’re getting yourself into.
There’s also the personal aspect. It is an intimidating test. People have said, ‘I’ve heard really bad things about the Master Chefs,’ or, ‘I’m scared of the Master Chefs.’ They’re intimidated by us and worried about trying to come into what could be perceived as a ‘good ol’ boys club.’ That’s not at all what we’re trying to be.
C+RC: For chefs who have that fear of failure, what do you recommend?
GF: Understand that small failures are a part of the process and ultimately set candidates up for larger successes. I recommend candidates, considering the exam, to come and fail small.
For all of us who’ve passed the exam, we all have a laundry list of failures in our approach and our preparation. Part of being successful requires that you get accustomed to that. If you fail and practice enough, you’ll be successful in the final exam. A lot of people are so afraid of failure that they don’t practice.
C+RC: Some CMCs talk about the mistakes they made during the test, and others won’t talk about it. What’s your take on that?
GF: Some people are comfortable talking about their failures, while others are not. For me, I have far more in common with chefs based on the failures that I’ve encountered. I made the Culinary Olympic Team because I sucked in competition for five years. I became a Certified Master Chef because I did almost a hundred practice runs, and 60 of them were awful. I just took the feedback and did the work. And I spent 20 years in an industry working for people who were giving me feedback and helping critique the food that I was cooking to help me be where I needed to be. And I am okay with saying that, but some people aren’t.
Maybe it’s a generational thing. Some of us are more okay talking about it than others. Ultimately, everybody has rough days, and many of us will tell you about them.
In my experience, nobody’s infallible. Nobody is perfect. The last thing I want is to be held to a standard of being perfect. I’m more than happy to say that I don’t know. Being on the other side of the exam, I don’t mind being held to a high standard, but I’m also okay with saying, ‘This is where I made mistakes. This is what I’ve learned.’ And I think that’s what helps make me an effective teacher.
C+RC: It seems that chefs are becoming more and more vulnerable and open to talking about their failures.
GF: I think it’s such a turn-off when people try to present themselves as perfect. If you’ve seen enough, you know that nobody is. I think we’ve all gotten a little raw based on the perfect filter of Instagram or any social media platform. And I think everybody is over it. It’s important to be genuine and authentic. And I can’t be genuine and authentic if I don’t talk about where I’ve screwed up.
Something I look for in people I work with or in the assessment program is confidence versus arrogance. Confidence comes from knowing effectively what you need to do to be successful and being good with that. Confidence in the kitchen comes from a specific series of things: knowing the food that you’re cooking, knowing your plan for the day and doing it. Arrogance is based on nothing. A far better predictor of success is having points of confidence along the way. And the assessment program is there to help you build confidence that you’re in the place where you’re prepared, not showing up and hoping for the best because hope isn’t a winning strategy. It can work. But it’s not a strategy.
The word I would use is ‘ignorance.’ They don’t know what they don’t know. That’s another piece of the assessment program: Have they been exposed to critique and to feedback? Arrogance generally roots in the unknown. We’re here to bring awareness to deficiencies.
We haven’t offered a test since October 2022. Many of us in the assessment program are working in an exam committee to redefine the exam. We’re targeting the first quarter of 2025 with the launch of an evolved exam that’s relevant to and understandable for today’s world. The assessment program is absolutely presenting people with what they would see at that exam.
C+RC: Can you elaborate on what you mean by an evolved exam? What are the goals?
GF: Make it relevant to today’s chef by re-examining the process and making sure that it makes sense for today’s chef.
In our exam committee, we’re doing a deep dive into all the pieces traditionally in the exam and seeing what is most relevant. It’s more relevant [today] to be able to cook for somebody with celiac or to be able to cook vegan. So [we’re] looking at it and saying, ‘What is the best way to evaluate that? What do we need to see from you to evaluate the mastery level?’
We also want to be very transparent in our evaluation. It’s just it’s not set in stone yet.
C+RC: What does that process look like? And how did you arrive on that timeline for 2025?
GF: We started mapping out what a test could look like and brainstorming and working through it early last year. Since then, we’ve been doing a deep dive into what’s relevant and what’s necessary. And now we’re at the point where we’re going through each one of the individual pieces, defining what it is that we’re actually evaluating, what is it that we need to evaluate, and then how that’s going to come together in the grand scheme of the test week?
We’re going segment by segment, then we’ll go day by day. And we’re cooking through these pieces as well.
C+RC: And who is leading this process?
GF: It’s board-directed, but there’s a committee of [CMCs] doing this work. We have John Johnstone, CMC, and Frank Vollkommer, CMPC. Then there are three more of us on the committee: Andrew Sayes, CMC, Olivier Andreini, CMC, and I run the assessment program. That’s why we’re involved in both, and we pull in subject matter experts as necessary. Then, our board is working with the ACF board to work through differences in the exam process.
C+RC: Do you expect to receive pushback about these changes?
GF: I would assume there’s always resistance. But I would expect that there’s a lot of excitement in the evolution. We’ve had a lot of people asking for a test. There are people who want to pursue mastery. … We’ve been slow in announcing because we want to make sure that we have vetted and researched and have a target that represents what it means to be an ACF Certified Master Chef and is something that is a valuable, achievable result for a candidate who’s properly prepared.
C+RC: What are the first steps for a chef interested in assessment?
GF: Attending an information session is the first piece. Our next information session will take place on Sunday, June 2nd.
At the information session, we can answer a ton of questions. Then we have a first assignment with a deadline. The point of this is to evaluate where chefs are in relationship to the standard of preparation. Can you meet a deadline? Can you write a menu? Can you meet the criteria that you’ve been given? We then evaluate those menus, then we start weekly Zoom meetings with everybody who goes through that process and is approved to join the assessment program.
Can you meet a deadline? Can you follow directions? It’s going to be really hard to be successful at the test if you can’t follow directions. But you’d be surprised by how many people don’t follow directions and can’t meet a deadline.
Then we meet weekly for 90 days and give them various menu-writing assignments and review those assignments with them. At the beginning, we focus on punctuation, spelling, terminology—really fundamental stuff. Then we start diving deeper into the philosophies of cooking, the mastery of the skill. Midpoint of the program, after we’ve evaluated menus for a while, we introduced them to the next live cooking assessment date.
Then we’ll give them the final assignment. We’ll evaluate and work with them on their menu and all the pieces that they need to come. Then a segment of the group will come and cook live in-person. We give them a hundred points of feedback in relation to the standard of mastery, focusing on all areas, from menu-writing, usage of terminology, organization, fundamental cooking techniques, management of the apprentice, cooking to the standard, time utilization, pastry skills. We give people their scores on a 10-point scale so they can understand where they are in relation to a standard and what they really need to focus on. Then we’ll spend a little bit of time helping them see a path forward.
People who are successful in that are then invited to come and cook with us in our events so that they can work with CMCs directly. From there, people can continue on or they can go back and focus on their business and do their own preparation.
The assessment program is designed to take a cross-section of all skills that will be evaluated in the exam.
C+RC: For a club chef who is hoping to take the exam, what would you recommend, or what advice might you give them in communicating that commitment to their club and to their membership?
GF: There are a few things a chef needs to do. They need to live the way they will be at the test every day. You can’t show up to the test and be successful as somebody else. It’s too long, it’s too hard, it’s too demanding. You need to be a master of the craft every day. It has to be who you are. From my experience, it’s much easier to dabble for a year and talk about a three- or four-year plan toward it. I think it’s a very reasonable ask for three to five years. It’s unreasonable to expect you to be ready in a year.
In order to do that, you have to budget resources for it. It depends on the candidate, but you’re looking at $5,000 to $10,000 a year for three to five years. That’s the total cost. If you’re resourceful, you can work a lot of your trial and practice into your menus and your operation. As you’re cooking through dishes that you’re not familiar with or working to master skills, you can absolutely work those pieces into your menus.
Then, we can help you see where you are in relation to the standard. You do need that external feedback to understand what you need to be successful.
C+RC: Are there any other misunderstandings about the exam?
GF: There is a huge misconception about needing a competition background to take the test. Aspects of competition can be helpful but not essential. I think there are chefs who dismiss the exam because they don’t compete or they don’t think they’ll be successful because they don’t compete. And that is absolutely not the case.
[Also], classical is a component of the test, but it’s not what the whole test is about. We want to see classical cooking because it’s part of where we come from. We want to see people cook international food with respect and reverence for the cultures from which they come. On the other side, we want to see where people can take where they come from to where we’re supposed to go. It’s okay to cook modern food when it’s appropriate.
I think a lot of people [think] we just want to see classical food. No, we want to see food that’s exceptional. Classical cooking methods get you to exceptional food first.