Resources
February 11, 2004
Pat Schroeder's Response to the CALPIRG study (Feb. 3, 2004)
February 3, 2004
Mr. Ivan Frishberg, Director
State PIRGs’ Higher Education Project
218 D Street, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
Dear Mr. Frishberg:
On November 18, 2003, the Association of American Publishers wrote to CALPIRG, sending the letter to Los Angeles headquarters and to seven California campus chapters. Phone calls were also made to the Washington offices of the State PIRGs’ Higher Education Project. No one has ever replied.
On January 28, 2004, CALPIRG released "Ripoff 101: How the Current Practices of the Textbook Industry Drive up the Cost of College Textbooks." Publishers were never contacted in the course of your study, although we made every effort to present our side. We believe your report is totally one-sided and fatally flawed. There are more than 44,500 faculty members in California. Your report is based on interviews with 151. Here are some of the multiple issues you have not addressed:
One of the reasons higher education in America is the envy of the entire world is the freedom professors have to create and assemble their own courses. American publishers are proud of the amazing array of excellent textbooks and instructional materials they can offer professors for their selection. Obviously, the instructor is the most important player in the learning process, but the materials selected are clearly a strong second.Surely CALPIRG is not advocating that professors lose that freedom of choice to select materials tailored to their course? Surely CALPIRG is not advocating that professors be limited to selecting books only? Students are being educated for the future, not the past! Professors often want Internet access, CDs, and other materials made possible by new technology, integrating them to enrich and enhance their courses. The integrated learning programs developed and maintained by publishers support opportunities for distance learning, making higher education available not only to students on campus but to students everywhere.
You attack the practice of assembling customized instructional materials with textbooks, and yet a substantial number of faculty members tell us that is exactly what they want.
Faculty members have told publishers they want and need the flexibility to deal with remediation and other special needs their students may have. Contrary to your assertion that the practice is coercive, customized instructional packages are all about choice! Students who do not want the entire recommended package are always free to seek (and usually find) the textbook, either from the bookseller, online, or directly from the publisher. The diverse materials we produce in integrated learning programs are necessary to educate a diverse group of student learners. It’s about choice!
The hyperbolic claims about textbook prices spiraling out of control are not borne out by data from the independent market research firm, Student Monitor LLC, nor from the prestigious College Board. According to both sources, student spending on new and used course materials has risen between 3 and 4 percent annually over the past four years— a far cry from the double-digit inflationary spiral your report would have us believe.
Publishers are deeply concerned about the increasing burden borne by students and families as state and federal funding is drying up and education budgets are being pared to the bone, accelerating unprecedented increases in college tuition and fees. Your report, however, adds nothing to the dialogue.Indeed, it does a disservice by deflecting attention away from the basic problems underlying the current crisis in higher education in this country. Scapegoating publishers and instructional materials will not help any of us find constructive ways to deal with this crisis. We would still welcome a dialogue with you, but we believe it must be based on an understanding that American publishers are part of the answer to the crisis in higher education, not part of the problem.
Sincerely,
Patricia S. Schroeder