EDUCATION IN FORESTRY. 19 



game itself? Haven't we a host of hard-headed, self-made men to emphasize 

 this truth? Yes, we can all learn one, perhaps two, of these faculties in 

 the school of experience, but it takes three legs to hold up a stool. One man 

 hi 100 may attain the power of coordination by his own efforts in the practical 

 school of experience. Thinkers are not confined to the college bred. But more 

 often such men have failed to attain the symmetry required of leaders. When 

 they are given these responsibilities, what happens? They throw a monkey 

 wrench into the machinery either by their failure to appreciate the vital rela- 

 tion of research to the health of the enterprise, or by lack of vision in dealing 

 with personnel, or else they can not swing the administrative problems con- 

 fronting them. The United States Forest Service has developed a few striking 

 instances of this one-sided inefficiency. Its effects upon an organization are 

 always serious and blighting. By contrast, the remarkable success of the 

 Forest Service, far exceeding that of any administrative branch of the Gov- 

 ernment in the same period of time, is due directly to the predominance of the 

 well-balanced type of leader, who can build constructively and inspire his 

 subordinates. 



In general this effect springs directly from the cause of the general training 

 in forestry received by so many of these men employed by the Forest Service. 

 Well-rounded college training is not a substitute for practical experience, but 

 it is almost certain to give to the student the maximum chance of coordinating 

 the three phases of his education and thus making out of him a leader as 

 well as a specialist. Just as the origin of man from the lower animals came 

 through coordinated development of all the senses leading to the power of 

 thought, so narrow technical specialization must be accompanied by symmetri- 

 cal development of practical business sense^and full human sympathy, if the 

 human race, or the profession of forestry, is to progress. 



Does the four-year course in forestry supply this balanced training, or can 

 it do so? This is not a question of technical training. It is not disputed 

 either that technicians in logging, wood technology, silviculture, or other spe- 

 ciul lines can be given adequate preparation in four years, or that we need a 

 much larger number of men in the ranks of forestry than in command. The 

 question is, rather, What will the fifth year do for the forester who takes it? 



F. H. Newell says: 



The human viewpoint is the most important part of education. Logic and 

 reason are not the controlling factors. Emotions, sentiment, and ideals are 

 more powerful. 



In the report of President Hadley, of Yale University, for 1920, is the state- 

 ment : 



Especially is it necessary that men trained along lines of applied science 

 should have a training not too narrow in extent or too highly specialized in 

 character. 



R. D. Forbes, in an article in the Journal of Forestry in April, 1920, on 

 education says: 



What forestry needs is not specialization, but generalization. Forestry more 

 perhaps than most professions needs men of broad training rather than special- 

 ists. In the present state of development of forestry in America we need ad- 

 ministrators (business men) and propagandists. 



Prof. R. C. Bryant says : 



It is one of the weak points in our profession that we have not developed 

 forestry-economists who can speak authoritatively on the many vital problems 

 affecting forests and forestry. We have neglected the broader economic phases 



of the subject. 



