THANKS to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, a number of us early this year had the privilege of getting together in Ann Arbor, Mich., to exchange ideas on the subject of field training. It was a satisfying experience and we covered a lot of ground. We were agreed on many points and differed on some. We agreed that supervised field training for people entering the public health field is a desirable experience. This training may precede or follow professional public health academic training. We agreed fairly well that the organization of a field training program is best undertaken on a state-wide basis. There is cost involved and the state is better able to meet this expense. It is when we come to the form of the organizational structure of a state-wide field training program that differences in practice and thought, and even in purposes begin to appear. In the light of these differences, it seems to me that we must recognize clearly several realistic facts and principles in connection with this subject. States differ in their needs for training. They differ in their facilities for training. They differ in the matter of available funds to support a training program. To be sure, we would all like to conduct the best program possible within our separate abilities and resources. We would like to agree on certain standards that will assist in maintaining a high quality of service, but in this desire we must not forget that considerable latitude must be permitted. Otherwise, many states will be prohibited from having a field training program. These are facts to be kept in mind when considering a national system of accrediting state training programs and local training stations.