EDUCATION 



The Educational Question 



The question of the proper curriculum for 

 a forest school was freely discussed at the 

 forestry convention, held in Washington last 

 January. Many points of view were pre- 

 sented, and there were many papers pro and 

 con each way. Some of these points were 

 very well taken, and will undoubtedly tend 

 toward a uniform standard in all the schools 

 in the country. There are some, however, 

 which seem to be receiving more attention 

 than they rightfully deserve. 



One point, especially, which was threshed 

 over and over was the question of whether 

 it is the duty of the school to give instruc- 

 tion in "practical" work. The opinions on 

 the subject seem to be widely divergent, but 

 will not a careful analysis of these opinions 

 show that it is mostly a seeming difference, 

 and that the real difference lies in the defini- 

 tion of "practical work?" Some take the 

 stand that all work taught outside the class- 

 room is "practical;" others apply the term 

 only to such manual labor as bears but indi- 

 rectly on the science of forestry. Some are 

 in favor of "practical" work, others think 

 that it has no place in the school at all. In 

 any case, they all seem to agree — such is 

 the only inference — that all classroom work 

 is impractical. Of course, that is not at all 

 what is meant, but it is the impression given. 

 All work is practical, whether given in the 

 classroom or field, if it teaches anything 

 useful ; if it does not teach anything useful, 

 it should be cut out in no matter what class 

 it may happen to belong. On this same prin- 

 ciple, all useful (practical) work which can 

 be learned more readily in the school than 

 anywhere else should be included in the 

 regular course. 



It has now, for many years, been the tend- 

 ency in the development of modern educa- 

 tional work to do more and more of the 

 teaching in scientific lines in the laboratorv. 

 Ocular demonstration will teach the average 

 student more in a week than he can learn in 

 the class-room in a month. This has been 

 generally accepted in most lines of work ; 

 why should we deny its application in the 

 teaching of forestry? The nursery and the 

 forest form the laboratory for the work in 

 technical forestry. One afternoon's work in 

 the seed bed will teach more of the handling 

 of seedlings than a month of lectures, and 

 no amount of instruction can take the place 

 of a little actual practice in thinning. The 

 one supplements the other, and only the two 

 together can make an efficient worker, with 

 the ability and self-reliance to carry on inde- 

 pendent work. That much of the practical 

 is absolutely necessary, probably even the 

 strongest supporters of the strictly theoretical 

 would not deny. 



The work which meets the most objection 

 is that in the lumber camp, sawmill, and na- 

 tional forest. It is held that this is not 

 the proper work for a school and can be 

 learned better elsewhere. This is partly true 

 in that there is not the time to take it up 

 in the short period allotted to school work. 

 It is, however, an important part of the for- 

 ester's training. The properly trained for- 

 ester is supposed to know thoroughly all the 

 work connected with the formation, care, 

 harvesting, and marketing of the timber crop. 

 He should know enough about them to super- 

 vise and direct all these operations. 



Any captain of industry, whatever the par- 

 ticular industry may be, will tell you that a 

 man cannot be a successful director, no mat- 

 ter how complete his theoretical training may 

 have been, unless he has worked through all 

 the stages of the business and learned all the 

 details. This is no less true in forestry than 

 in anything else. The more of such work a 

 man has had, the better prepared he is to take 

 up his life work, to perform the duties of a 

 forester. This is true in Germany, where the 

 theoretical side has been most highly devel- 

 oped, and it is even more true in the United 

 States, where the forester is more closely 

 mixed up with these lines of work. It is a 

 well-known fact that the school graduate 

 must serve a year or two of apprenticeship 

 before he is capable of doing his work. This 

 is true in any profession, and cannot very 

 well be entirely remedied, but it can be helped 

 some. The more of this apprenticeship work 

 that can be done before graduation, the less 

 there is to do afterward, and the better pre 

 pared the graduate is. The practice work 

 should never be allowed to interfere with the 

 theoretical and scientific studies — for these 

 cannot be obtained anywhere else — but all of 

 it that can be sandwiched into the spare hours 

 is so much gained. 



Vacations passed in this way are invalu- 

 able. The insight gained on the nature of 

 the work and the knowledge of woods con- 

 ditions enable the student to discriminate in 

 his subsequent studies and see the application 

 of theories he is learning. Many things which 

 he would have otherwise been obliged to take 

 on faith, and only half understand, are per- 

 fectly clear when fitted into their proper place 

 in the field of his experience. The same 

 amount of this work, after graduation, would 

 not be nearly so beneficial. Many of the 

 theories which the student should then apply 

 he will have forgotten because he only half 

 understood them when he studied them. 



If these premises are correct, it follows 

 that all such work is essential to a proper 

 school training. Let all the work of the 

 school be practical, and let there be as much 

 practical work as possible. — The Minnesota 

 Forester. 



499 



