or curricula are to be the starting-point; whether we are most 
interested in the individual who is to do the work or in the 
MU    existing mechanisms which are available to train him. 
I think we should be most concerned with the qualifications of 
the individual.   That has been the approach that has made American 
medical schools the best in the world, and we should do well to 
use it* 
 
 
     To conclude this section of the discussion, I am going to 
ask  eopol K,Aing and Taylor to consider these thhngs further 
( rrIii6    htto be on this           ttee also, but he is already 
on two others, and anyway his view is in print), and to see what 
they (with Leopold as Chairman of the subomittee) can bring out 
of this congomeration of opinions---the sooner, the better.    It 
is some time yet until we shall have to report our progress to the 
Society, but time slips by quickly when we are all busy, and an 
ii-mediade start on this important Job will be none too soon. 
     The idea is for the subcommittee to decide:- (I) What shall 
be the approach?   (2) What are the real fundamentals?    (3) Should 
a specific curriculum and its corollaries be included in our report? 
---and anything else that grows out of their discussion.   This, 
I hope very much, can be in a  Otober 1   so that it can again go 
the rounds of the ooittee. 
     If, by the next meeting of the Society, we could have put 
together our views of personal and training standards, and if we 
could have made a good start (for further discussion at the meeting) 
on a set of Active Membership qualifications consistent with these 
standards, we could point to a good deal of progress. 
 
                                     Sincerely yours, 
 
 
106 Wildlife Conservation Building 
University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 
 
 
A 
 
 
-09 -w