RATING SCALK FOR FORESTERS 145 



The phraseology of the second portion of this first heading has been 

 chosen for the particular purpose of including a man's public service 

 relation, broadly speaking, and not narrow the weight of this item 

 to success in serving Forest users. A man's actual altruistic public 

 spiritedness, his influence for progress and his usefulness as a citizen in 

 the community should be determined. In dealing with Forest users 

 and all people a man may be equally courteous, accommodating and 

 diplomatic with comparable benefit to the Forest Service and its 

 larger work. 



Caption numl)er two is intended to cover all the training a man has 

 which will be of value to him in his work. No differentiation is made 

 between one kind of knowledge and another if they arrive at the same 

 point or are of com})arable value. It is the amount of "know what 

 to do and how to do it" that a man has as professional tools to work 

 with. 



Training in Forest Service work, obviously, is not restricted to work 

 actually performed for the United States Forest Service. It is the 

 training, skill and experience a man has acquired in the technique of 

 performance in lines of work which will be of value to him in the 

 Forest Service. It is the sum total of all of these weighed for their 

 respective value which is required. Professional knowledge may be a 

 product of either a forest school course, individual study, or the school 

 of hard knocks in the woods, any one or all combined. 



General education is also a broad term and intended to cover educa- 

 tional qualifications for what they mean and produce. It is immaterial 

 whether a man acquired his education in an institution of and for 

 learning, or outside its walls. 



It is obvious that the different items under this heading would be 

 required in different weight for the different positions. A supervisor 

 would require a greater degree of training in technical forest manage- 

 ment compared to his actual experience in woods work than a ranger 

 where the reverse would be true. A supervisor's experience and 

 training in administrative ])Ositions would also be important whereas 

 the qualifications in a ranger would be perhaps of the least importance. 

 General education would be required perhaps in an equal comparative 

 degree in both, but a supervisor would require a different and more 

 extensive type. 



There was no attempt, however, to compare the scales one to the 

 other in this way. They were entirely separate and were so considered. 



