Hell's Kitchen isn't a show about learning how to cook well. It isn't a How-to show in cooking. The whole appeal is in Gordon Ramsay tearing people apart. Either you enjoy that aspect of the show, or you don't. It's an acquired taste (no pun intended).
Ramsay's purpose is not to teach people how to cook better; he assumes their ability in the cooking department is already exceptional. He is taking them a step further by teaching them to work as a team and, at the end of the season, work in a position of power in the kitchen. The show is very successful when you take into account what it is attempting to do (other than make money, which it is still successful at). It places these already incredible chefs in a situation of becoming more than a great cook, which is why the focus is not on the food but the people.
Without Ramsay, however, this show would be yawn-worthy: he adds a certain spice to it (ok, that was intended) that any other reality/chef show can't hope to compete with. For a reality show, it certainly isn't a disappointing romp, and if you were bored at 9:00 on your Tuesday nights (like me) it certainly had its appeal.
Ramsay's purpose is not to teach people how to cook better; he assumes their ability in the cooking department is already exceptional. He is taking them a step further by teaching them to work as a team and, at the end of the season, work in a position of power in the kitchen. The show is very successful when you take into account what it is attempting to do (other than make money, which it is still successful at). It places these already incredible chefs in a situation of becoming more than a great cook, which is why the focus is not on the food but the people.
Without Ramsay, however, this show would be yawn-worthy: he adds a certain spice to it (ok, that was intended) that any other reality/chef show can't hope to compete with. For a reality show, it certainly isn't a disappointing romp, and if you were bored at 9:00 on your Tuesday nights (like me) it certainly had its appeal.