Re: Disappearing microform titles (Dan Lester) Marcia Tuttle 12 Sep 2001 13:32 UTC

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:47:57 -0600
From: Dan Lester <>
Subject: Re: Disappearing microform titles (Albert Henderson

Monday, September 10, 2001, 6:05:03 PM, you wrote:

> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:22:22 -0400
> From: Albert Henderson <chessNIC@COMPUSERVE.COM>

>         The institutions who wish to continue to claim the
>         social status accorded by having excellent cultural
>         resources better do it, even if it means dipping into
>         the misers' treasury.

I'd love to find where that special treasury is in a state supported

>         scratches the surface. There are at least three studies
>         that I can cite demonstrating that the major libraries
>         simply are not acquiring most new knowledge that
>         is published in academic disciplines. Moreover, the ACRL

True enough.  Not many of us would argue that.  As always, you keep
talking about these secret treasuries.  I suppose they may exist in
some wealthy private colleges, but they sure don't in state
institutions.  If you know where one is in Idaho, let me know and
we'll give you a finder's fee.

>         standards for college libraries once called for 6% of
>         general and educational expenditures to go to the library.
>         I never heard of any institution losing its accreditation
>         by not meeting that test.

The ACRL standards don't have anything to do with accreditation by the
regional accrediting agencies.  I believe all, and certainly most, of
the regional agencies have dropped quantitative measures for such.

> Nearly all should have been
>         red-tagged. Why was this and other finite measures dropped?

Because institutions that are otherwise considered excellent didn't
meet the magic numbers.

>         There is nothing lucrative about formats that libraries are
>         not buying. Most periodical publishers trash their overrun.

No argument.

>         You want them to maintain and continuously upgrade, probably
>         with multiple formats, for free.

I, at least, would be happy with only one format for scholarly
journals.  Electronic, in PDF or other pretty format, plus ASCII text
and any other ways that may be considered more "permanent".  No, ASCII
doesn't make it more expensive.

> Electronic technology does
>         not save money, as is pointed out repeatedly by Andrew W
>         Mellon Foundatation studies in TECHNOLOGY & SCHOLARLY
>         COMMUNICATION (Quandt & Ekman. U Calif Press).

It sure doesn't cost more.  It doesn't waste paper.  It doesn't waste
space.  It is easily distributed.  It is easily distributed on paper
for those who want print.

>         Library impoverishment is more lucrative for universities,
>         of course. By cutting library spending by a point, the
>         higher education institutsions added a point to surplus
>         revenues. Two more points to go.

Lucrative for universities my foot.  Where is all that lucre going?
Where will you find it?  Will you come to Idaho and find some for me
and my library?  Please?

Let's get away from talking about wealthy private universities and
talk about the majority of the real world, those that are supported by
taxpayers.  (NOTE, I'm not suggesting that private universities are
doing what you say....I don't know....I just know about the public


Dan Lester, Data Wrangler
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA  Stop Global Whining!