FORESTRY liDUCATlON 387 



nical education for foresters is a mistake. It is an old, old argument, 

 and one which the professional man of every kind has long been 

 familiar with. Possibly the argument in the case of the forester has 

 been difficult to meet successfully from the very fact that in some 

 ways our forestry education has been at fault. The less violent 

 partisans have undoubtedly felt that while in general forestry educa- 

 tion has been good, it is far from being totally immune to criticism. 

 R. C. Bryant, himself an educator, had this to say recently : ^ 



"It is one of the weak points of the profession that as yet we have not de- 

 veloped forester-economists who can speak authoritatively on the many vital 

 problems affecting forests and forestry. The profession should contain within 

 its ranks men who are regarded by jurists, economists, and laymen alike as 

 authorities on cost-finding methods as related to forest products, as experts on 

 tariff questions related to lumber, as experts on lumber distribution, and other 

 like subjects. Why are not foresters called into consultation by courts and 

 Government agencies on questions involving tariff legislation, export policy, 

 lumber transportation, and like issues? It is, I think, largely because we have 

 been content in the past to devote our attention to the problems which seem 

 more closely related to forestry and have neglected the broader economic 

 phases of the subject, which did not seem at the moment of so great interest or 

 of such vital importance." 



I do not know whether Professor Bryant had the forest schools 

 specifically in mind when he wrote this, but certainly his statement 

 fits their case. There are b'^.fore me the catalogues of half a dozen 

 representative forest schools of the United States, sent in response to 

 investigation was not without its chastening effects. (Incidentally the 

 investigation was not without its chastening etYects. Out of some 

 dozen schools addressed, nearly half wrote cordially to urge my ma- 

 triculation.) Two of these schools offer five-year courses leading to 

 a Master's degree, but for the present the discussion will be con- 

 fined to their four-year, or undergraduate, courses. The first school 

 requires the Bachelor of Science in Forestry to take three year-hours ^ 

 of college English, three year-hours of economics or history, seven 

 year-hours of electives, and the remainder of his course either in 

 elementary science or in forestry courses pure and simple. School 

 two requires four year-hours of English, one of public speaking, one 

 of economics, and all the rest science or forestry. School three re- 



' The War and the Lumber Industry, by R. C. Bryant, Journal of Forestry, 

 February, 1919. 



" By year-hour is meant one hour a week throughout the college year, exclu- 

 sive of the summer term. 



