Many of today's arguments about forestry education proceed on the assumptio
n that the past was glorious, the present is bleak, the future is doomed. I
n fact, foresters have disagreed about the proper balance between academic
and practical training since the days of Bernhard Fernow, Gifford Pinchot,
and Carl Schenck. The two main options for education-depth in technical for
estry and breadth in natural resource management-reflect equally old, and f
undamentally opposing, views of forestry and the profession's place in soci
ety.