Re: Snooze/lose (Was: Academics and coursepacks)

On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Bernard Katz <bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Most universities have cut their libraries' share of the budget, as
> > reports from the Mellon Foundation and the National Center for Education
> > Statistics (and others) have pointed out. LSU has made it a priority.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > I think blaming the "skyrocketing cost of the academic journal"
> > is misleading. THE STATUS OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES IN THE UNITED
> > STATES (NCES 97-413 June 1997)cites an ACRL study suggesting
> > that academic libraries should receive about 6 percent of their
> > university's total budget. That standard has never been achieved.
> > The national average is 3.8% in 1992. Research Universities
> > average 2.6 (public)to 2.8 (private).
> >
> > In 1968, Jacques Barzun wrote in THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY that
> > universities like Columbia allocated 6 percent to their library.
> > In CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Columbia professor James
> > Shapiro wrote recently that most faculty never set foot in
> > the library any more (LXV,16:B4-5, Dec 12, 1997)
> >
> > If photocopying had nothing to do with the decimation of
> > library collections like Columbia and LSU, I'll eat my hat.
>
> I have hesitated to respond to the posting by Albert Henderson giving
> data about the declining budget share of university libraries over
> the years, especially since this thread has drifted somewhat off the
> lists' concerns. However, I have just read the Aug./98 issue of the
> Assoc. of Research Libraries Newsletter and there are two reports
> that are highly relevant to his comments. Firstly, the ARL reports
> a decline, from fiscal 1981/82 to 1995/96 (latest available) of
> "library expenditures as a percentage of E&G [educational and general]
> expenditures" from 3.9% to 3.23% -- ie a drop of about 17% in 14 years.
> The report also notes that "the rate of descent has been much less over
> the last four years than previously" (from about 3.32% to 3.23%). (p.6)

This is supposed to be good news? Two points: First, reform of copright has been proposed by the universities to solve they problem they created by cutting down the library share of spending. Second, U.S. academic research activity, on a constant dollar basis (according to the National Science Board), doubled during this period while major libraries received a pitiful increase -- about a third more.

Advocates of the "new paradigm" made copyright a library financing issue as they excuse the decimation of collections by spouting "access not ownership."

> By the way, there is some good discussion in the report about why
> the support seems so much lower in the US (all $$ are in USD) than in
> Canada, where the 11 reporting institutional members of the ARL report
> an average support of 5.47% for fiscal 1995/96, and it seems that
> there is a problem in what gets counted as E&G in the U.S. So it may
> well be that the data can be massaged (adjusted?) to read a lot closer
> to the magic 6% that has been postulated by many as being the ideal.

Sarah Pritchard, who handled these statistics for ARL some years ago, told me that Canadian accounting conventions suggested that Canadian libraries received a higher percentage. This was one reason she gave me that the statistics should not be published.

> In the same issue there is also a report on the increasing costs
> of serials (journals and other periodicals) and monographs from
> 1985/86-1996/97. The per unit average cost of serials climbed from
> $88.81 to $238.69 (+169%) and overall expenditures on serials rose
> by 143% (because the no.of serial sub- scriptions purchased fell
> by 6%). Over the same time period, the per unit average cost of
> books climbed from $28.65 to $46.42 (+62%) while overall expenditures
> on monographs rose by 30% (because the no.of books purchased fell
> by 14%). (p.5) Note: all $$ are in USD.
>
> Now when these two sets of data are examined, it seems clear enough to
> me that the drop in financial support to research libraries as a
> proportion of university educational and general expenditures simply
> does NOT compare in any way to the extraordinary rise in the cost of and
> expenditures on serial and book publication. Per unit average serial
> costs rose an average of 9.4% PER YEAR over the 12 years reported, while
> the 14 year decline in proportional support was only 17%. Per unit
> average book costs rose 4.5% per year in the same 12 year period.
>
> Has there been an impact from photocopying? Yes. Has it been in any
> way significant? No. And I'm prepared to eat *my* hat on this score.
> By the way, if my medium-sized institution is any measure, faculty
> certainly have not stopped coming into the library in any way shape or
> form.

You left out ARL's rise of interlibrary borrowing -- mostly photocopies -- up 132%! (p. 10) And, at some institutions like LSU, the largely undocumented rise of "document delivery."

Would you prefer ketsup or mustard?

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Tue Sep 08 1998 - 13:30:35 GMT