Come to my house. Everyone here is a critic of some kind... No, really; the best way to become a professional critic is to be willing to be critical among your friends in your own environment. "Criticism" does not have to be negative and hateful; many critics give positive ratings. Cricitism simply means to be able to perceive or determine what is good and right, and what is not. Okay, my first answer may have been short, and perceived as worthless, but putting lack of a sense of humor aside, if you are not willing to go out there and share your views with others, you won't make a very reliable professional critic. You will need the respect of others, and they need to be able to trust your instincts. Many people go to school to learn what they could learn in the real world, only to find out that experience is the best teacher. So yeah, come to my house, or anyone else's house, and start exercising your ability to criticize. Then if you see that others respect your views, you will have no problem receiving recommendations for a paid position.

Wow! According to Google, you can get a degree in food criticism!

Although most people seem to think that being a restaurant critic is an easy job that just about anyone can do (just read a "how-to" book and you're half-way there!), there actually are a few job requirements. Being interested in and knowledgeable about food isn't enough. First, you have to be able to write well, otherwise no one will even read your first article query. Some people go to school to learn to write well; others just practice. One thing that a writing program does for writers is that it teaches them to be good critics and editors for themselves, which is very important. Second, you have to have reporting skills. Some people acquire these in journalism school; others just start reporting and writing stories. Most people don't realize that anything you report, from the background of a chef to the date a restaurant opened to the ingredients of a dish, must be accurately reported, with backup. Most non-professionals don't think about the fact that if a chef says "I worked at Alain Ducasse," you can't report that until you have some confirmation of that fact. (And even professionals often overlook the finer points, such as the chef's position at Ducasse. Did he do a one-week stage there or was he sous-chef?) It is the domain of the reporter to do this kind of digging. If you become a critic for a magazine with a reasonable budget, fact-checkers will come after you and attempt to verify every single fact in your piece. Newspaper writers are responsible for their own facts, since there isn't time for fact-checkers to follow up. Third, you must have a passion for and knowledge about food. This site is populated by people who fit this bill. But I believe that to be a good critic, you also have to know how to cook. The reason for this is that you need to be able to work backwards, and figure out how a dish must have been constructed. And beyond loving food, you also need to be discerning, and possess a good palate. You should also know something about the food of other cultures, as well as food history. All these areas of knowledge must be brought to the table when you eat as a professional, and then brought to bear when you sit down to write. You need to be passionate because only if you're very, very lucky and beat some incredible odds will you be able to make a living at this. Fourth, you need to figure out how to navigate the world of editors and deadlines and other bothersome practicalities of journalism. How do you get that first job? By having clips to show an editor and a great idea, well-pitched, to get you in the door. How do you get clips? By writing, gratis perhaps, for a small publication until you amass a body of work that can get you in the door somewhere. And it may not be about food because everybody and their brother wants to write about food these days, so the competition's a little stiff. Oh, did I mention discipline? Deadlines are mean taskmasters. And finally, you need to know how to write a review, which is an art in itself. Food writing can be some of the most boring writing around, since descriptions of dishes all start to sound the same very quickly. Lot of people can write food descriptions that will interest, say chowhounds. But to write restaurant reviews for general interest publications, you have to be able to interest the general public, and that means a review has to have a shape and some color and perhaps even some drama. And most importantly, perhaps, and hardest to learn, your writing has to have a voice that will distinguish your writing from that of grillions of others who want one of the very few positions! I'd suggest reading Jonathan Gold's book Counter Intelligence for an example of a critic with a singular voice that makes reading his reviews a delight. That said, if you have the passion, the knowledge, the patience, and the desire, best of luck to you, and I hope you make it! --http://www.chowhound.com/boards/general1/messages/25871.html

There is some very good information to a similar question about this right here on AB. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/24923

There are a lot of good answers here. All I'd like to add is that restaurant criticism is a very intense job. It isn't as fun and easy as you'd expect. You have to be a full-time journalist who eats for homework. That means eating when you're sick, when it's blizzarding out, when you're not hungry, when others are on vacation, when your child is born. If you're in the mood for sushi, too bad, you have to eat pasta. If you want to eat the chicken dish on a menu, too bad, you have to order the duck with trout drippings because it's worth writing about. Critics burn out fast. You start to lose your love of food and dining out and you do gain weight. I'm married to a Beard-winning critic and it's been the most stressful time of our lives. Right now, he'd do anything to just sit at home and eat potato chips.

The next time you eat at McDonald's ... complain about your meal.