CHE reports new plan for achieving tenure--Journal expense cited Albert Henderson 25 Jun 1998 21:25 UTC
Rob Atkinson <atkinson@FNAL.GOV> calls our attention: > The June 26th issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, on page A12, > carries a feature on a plan currently being promoted by a group of > scholars, and supported in part, by the ARL, to alter the way in which > tenure is earned, by allowing for the acceptance of superior "grades" on > papers, as given by independent review panels. It is thought that this > would decrease the dependence the tenure process has on journal > publication, and give greater validity to other forms of communication, > such as Web sites, which might cause journal subscription prices to drop. > The piece covers the issue of the high cost of journal subscriptions, Paul > Ginsparg, and electronic dissemination of papers. Just for accuracy sake, the plan comes from provosts, not scholars. Provosts may have been scholars or scientists at one time. But once they are told they are managers, they forget about the academic mission and act like bureaucrats. The article left out the bit about how the new plan would justify further cutting library funds, now averaging far below the ACRL standard (C&RLN April 1995). The brief reference to the Pew Higher Education Roundtable denotes the March issue of Policy Perspectives. The first paragraph of the unsigned report supplies a perfunctory confession: "For two decades the leaders of America's universities and colleges have sought relief from the growing costs of providing access to an ever expanding volume of scholarly output." Savor that for a moment. The candor is unique. Universities compete for sponsored research, brag about their output, then seek relief from spending money in the library so they can invest in real estate, give themselves interest free loans, travel, and hire greater numbers of bureaucrats. Yale recently gave itself a new VP in charge of New Haven while letting Stanford overtake its no. 2 rank in acquisitions spending. I can cite several reports that show libraries getting an ever smaller share of university spending. Digest of Education Statistics shows that by 1993 libraries and instruction lost (13% and 15%, respectively) of their 1946 share. Administration gained a massive 42%! Most college and university libraries now get 3% or less according to a National Center of Education Statistics report issued last year. In The American University (1968), Jacques Barzun maintained that universities like Columbia spent 6% of their funds on the library. The Mellon Foundation report issued in 1993 listed Columbia at 2.9% in 1990. James Shapiro surveys the damage in CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION Dec 12 1997 p. B4-5. The 1986 ACRL standard stipulates that the library's annual authorized expenditures shall be at least six percent of the total institutional expenditure for educational and general purposes. Would we be wrong to call any library not meeting that mark "substandard?" Can anyone doubt that the provosts' new plan is yet another excuse to feather the administrative nest? Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532@compuserve.com