ridiculously overpriced text books.
Not a bigger than scam than Social Security. Congress should worry about *their* scams before worrying about others.
Congress needs to tie this mandate in with the grants these colleges apply for. It CAN be that easy.
but I suppose the publishers have to recoup the losses on books like Cindy Sheehans that only sold 2 copies.
Prices haven't tripled because they included a 25 cent CD. Prices tripled because you are a captive market.
LOL! The books are often written by the professors who change the books every couple years to foil used book sales. The NYTimes and the U.S. Congress are clueless.
Amen to that.
bookmark for later
Having actually collaborated on a textbook, (technical material, not that soft liberal arts crap) I can understand much of the cost of the final product. The amount of research and fact checking, technical expertise and sheer time involved in getting it out the door is tremendous. Compared to mass market books, textbooks are small potatoes in terms of sales, and the publishers have to be able to make it worthwhile for the SME to be involved.
Having said that, I noticed that the same book that retailed for $98 in the college bookstores could be had for $59 through Amazon or B&N online. That doesn’t help pay the royalties, but it does get the book to the students a little more cheaply.
As a former college teacher I can comfortably say that textbooks are ONE of the biggest rip-offs in higher education.
Furthermore, few students actually open them.
A big part of the price could be reduced by publishing the entire book on a DVD disc.
e-books like Amazon.com
Besides paying tuition, the best feature of my ROTC scholarship was it paid for books. Plus, I had a job after I graduated.
The primary reason textbooks are expensive is not "marginally useful CD-ROMs and other supplements," but simply that students will pay these prices. Why will students pay them? Because they are critical to succeeding in so many classes. Why are they critical to succeeding in so many classes? Because professors build their classes around textbooks. Why do professors build their classes around textbooks? Because publishers make life easy for them by writing canned exams, study guides, web supplements to (even replacements of) traditional lectures, etc. Professors, in turn, have little incentive to care what their students pay, and so publishers can get away with all of this. Publishers also use the new-edition tactic to gut the used-textbook market, which would otherwise eat a lot into sales.
I teach 5 classes on a regular basis. In one I use no text at all, in two others I use standard textbooks but make them optional, and in the other two I have mandatory books, but books which are not traditional textbooks but mass-market books by Thomas Sowell that are a lot cheaper but do not have "problem sets," web supplements, etc. But that requires that I create and grade my own tests, not lean on the publishers' add-ons as busywork for students, and otherwise actually aggressively teach my classes. It is old-fashioned, but students appreciate it. There is some justification for the traditional textbook model in some science and language classes, where repetitive problem-solving and/or drills are important, but the fault otherwise lies with professors who don't want to do the work of teaching.
Two words: Designed obsolescence.
"Feedom of the press" is a tough concept for the New York Times editorial board?
I mean, I know they're dumber than a box of rocks, but still...
NY Times Textbook Publishing, Inc.
The New York Times thinks textbook prices are “outrageous” and calls for reform, including Congressional legislation to regulate various industry practices.
To me, this reaction seems strange. After all, the Times is a for-profit company in the business of providing information. If it really thought that some type of information (that is, textbooks) was vastly overpriced, wouldn't the Times view this as a great business opportunity? Instead of merely editorializing, why not enter the market and offer a better product at a lower price? The Times knows how to hire writers, editors, printers, etc. There are no barriers to entry in the textbook market, and the Times starts with a pretty good brand name.
My guess is that the Times business managers would not view starting a new textbook publisher as an exceptionally profitable business opportunity, which if true only goes to undermine the premise of its editorial writers.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/04/ny-times-textbook-publishing-inc.html
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus