Having solved all the country's really serious problems . . .

. . . the U.S. Congress turns to the huuuuuge problem of "expensive" college textbooks. (I paraphrase the wonderful Fark.com.)

The proposed legislation would be sad if it weren't so funny. Here, according to the New York Times, is one provision:

First, publishers would be required tell faculty how much their choices for textbooks will really cost the students. This would seem incredibly easy given Amazon.com, but many college professors routinely complain that basic information about the cost of textbooks is not easily available to them.

We at the Door, as a public service, will help these "many" "routinely-complaining" college professors. If they'll e-mail the Door, we will inform them about textbook prices.  Free of charge.

Problem solved.

Here's another provision:

Finally, and probably most important, the bill would require schools to post the list of required and recommended books long before students need to buy them. That would allow them enough time to shop for the best deals — online or in used bookstores.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe this is anything remotely resembling a problem. At my (state) university, the vast majority of required texts are known to students at least a week before classes; in most cases, I'd bet, they are known earlier. I believe my university is typical.

But even if students found out only on their first day of classes, how much time is "enough"? For $79/year, Amazon will provide free two-day shipping and $4 overnight shipping. (And probably the lowest, or close to the lowest, prices.)

Another phony problem solved. (Note to the Congress: you're welcome to contact me about my consulting rates. I can solve Big Problems cheap.)

But wait, there's more . . .

Intellectual support for this waste of time and energy is being provided by activists and at least one think tank: see the paper by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Mr. Baker cites a GAO study that finds, "the cost of textbooks and supplies came to $898 for an average first year, full-time student at a four-year public university in the 2003/2004 academic year." Mr. Baker then argues that "Textbooks are only expensive because they are subject to copyright protection, a relic of the medieval guild system." He proposes that instead of through copyright, textbooks be funded directly through the federal budget.

Blogger Timothy Lee does a fine job demolishing this really bad idea. Here's a key part:

. . . if textbooks are financed by taxpayers, the textbooks that get produced are likely to be determined more by politics and bureaucracy than by the needs of the customers. The result is likely to be a lot of mediocre textbooks focused on topics that federal officials think are needed, rather than what will actually get used. Second, there's a basic issue of equity here. College students tend to come from families that are wealthier, on average, than the general public. Less than half of young people attend four-year colleges. So it seems a little perverse to tax everybody in order to subsidize the textbook purchases of relatively privileged college students.

I'll add just two points. One, a reason why a lot of durable goods are "expensive" is that they can be resold. Even millenia ago when I went to college, there was a well-developed market in used texts. Today, that market is even better developed. It's not clear to me that the GAO report, or any of the activists complaining about expensive texts, account for this. (The GAO report seems not to, but I'm uncertain.) The existence of the used market means that students can probably, most of the time, recoup at least 50% of their expenditures. (But, hey, who cares about being off by a factor of two when we're regulating, or spending tax money?)

Two, the activists may want to complain about, instead, the racket that is required student "fees". At my (again, state) university, required fees for a full-time undergraduate have a list price of $1357/year. Even not counting fees going toward health services--kids can be terribly short-sighted and maybe there's an argument that universities should provide plenty of subsidized health service--the total amounts to $859/year. Some of those fees subsidize student politicians-in-training to search for "issues" the vast majority of students don't care about and to provide "programs" that the vast majority of students wouldn't pay a nickel for.

Textbook prices are not something the government--especially the federal government--should be involved in.

Comments

[kyle N]

The only problem with textbooks are Professors augmenting their income at the expense of students. For example I recently took a class on an aspect of world history which required three very expensive textbooks all written by the professor.
However only one was actually used for course material. The other two only had a few excerpts that could have been done as handouts. Also, there were no used textbooks available.

I later found out the professor got all the used copies "donated" to a colleague in Poland.

I gotta hand it to him, for a big lefty, he sure was a budding capitalist.

[Dean Baker]

I just love the "if the government touches it, it's crap" theory. In reality the government has touched many things that have turned out quite well. Can you say "Internet." Have you heard of NIH, how about the Centers for Disease Control? Is this all wasted money because the government touched it?

If you're interested in a serious discussion rather than making up a straw man to attack, take a look at the proposal. The funding would go out for long-term contracts for private firms who would produce textbooks. The textbooks would compete with textbooks produced under copyright. If the market did not show any demand for a company's books, then presumably they would not get another contract. It seems you have a pretty clear market test of the merits of this system. Why don't we appropriate a few dollars so the right-wingers can gloat when it doesn't work, or are you scared that it will?

btw, I assume you want to shut down Berkeley, UCLA, the University of Michigan, the University of Wisconsin and all the other public research universities, because we all know that if the government touches it, it must be crap.

[kyle N]

Well Dean that was certainly very erudite. But it appears to me that the burden of proof is on you my man. Sure there are a great many very necessary things the government does with a minimum of waste and abuse. But Government also does many other things that are not necessary. Maybe you want even more government involved in agriculture? How about more Federal interference in the school system, that's worked out so well.

Maybe you would like the government to set standardized tuitions, and standardize the pay of all professors and faculty. Hell, they government could write the textbooks and approve all the courses too.

Your statement was facetious. I know of none but the most blinkered libertarians who want no government. Government is great for protection, infrastructure, providing weights and standards, providing a currency, and providing a court system.

Everything else should be done at the lowest levels of government and leave the Fed's out of it.

I can say "Internet" and if the government would leave other things alone as much as they did the early internet, many things would work better. Can *you* say "Farm Programs"? I'll bet you can. Want to defend that one? Can you say "sugar subsidies"? Sure you can.
Talk about straw men. Got a problem with that beam in your eye? Can you show me *any* federally funded program that hasn't gotten bigger in the past 3 decades? And I hardly think a govt-funded writing program will solve the problem of producing and delivering books that are useful in college. Are you intimately familiar with the education publishing industry? It wouldn't seem like it.
Obviously not all money spent by the government is wasted, but that does not in any way equate to none of it being wasted. Or would you be prepared to make *that* argument.
The argument that you are so studiously avoiding (I assume, thus, that you *have* no counter argument to it or you would not be busy fling poo), is that not one of the suggested interventions shows any signs of resolving what might not even be a problem.
Perhaps we should take extra money from Left-wingers ("for the good of the rest of us" to paraphrase someone) to fund these hot, new government programs so they can gloat when it does work, or are you afraid that it will be (your) money down the drain? I suggest if Leftwingers are so sure this will work they should be willing to be taxed at a higher rate to prove it. Weenies.
Anyway. Having been a very broke student not too many years ago who now teaches in a university with a large number of first-in-the-family students, over half of whom work 20 hours per week, I am very aware of textbook costs. I email my booklist at least a month in advance and put the syllabus up online (including the text) at least two weeks prior to class. My booklist for my Summer class (starts June 30) is already online. I suggest that students look for good used copies, direct them to amazon.com and used book sites, tell them which older editions are acceptable, search for the best book I can get at the best price, and try to use the same book when possible.

Having said all that, which is more important? Getting the right book, or getting a book cheap?

[Carolina]

"I'm sorry, but I can't believe this is anything remotely resembling a problem. At my (state) university, the vast majority of required texts are known to students at least a week before classes; in most cases, I'd bet, they are known earlier. I believe my university is typical."

Not accurate. Before classes start, information on books required for NCSU classes is only available at the NCSU bookstore. The book store does not give you a list of the required books. To get your books, a student tells an employee the class and the instructor, the employee fetches the required books, and then the student pays the inflated price. In this model the only way a student can determine which books are required before classes start is to purchase them from the bookstore.

This is a racket! Check it out Prof. Newmark. The NCSU bookstore's tight control of this information exploits students and hinders a free market for the required text books.

I fully support legislation that requires Universities to supply a list of required books for a class in advance to give students a chance to purchase from the lowest bidder. It is time to break up the University bookstore monopoly.

[Carolina]

Kyle N,

“In reality the government has touched many things that have turned out quite well. Can you say "Internet." “

I’ve worked on the “Internet” since the early days of ARPANET, NSFNET, and the DDN (Defense Data Network), and commercial equipment and service providers. The uneducated give “the government” far more credit for “the internet” than it merits. For profit public and private companies have been the driving force behind the advancement and proliferation of internet technology, internet equipment, and internet services. It was private enterprise and VC capital that moved the world into the internet age. If left to the government, we would all still be using analog modems, character oriented services, and paying a fortune for limited communications services.

[JorgXMcKie]

I was 'online' (a bit, only a bit) when it was DARPANET, back in the latish 60s (I think '67 or '68, but my memory is hazy). At least that's what it was called at the Univ of Illinois when I was there. We had 3, I think, of the brand-new IMB 360s. Whoo-hoo!! (Not that I got to use them. We were still running our stuff on some old Univacs or something with tubes, anyway. A friend had a job testing and changing the tubes in the computer. Kewl.) I don't remember the govt poking its nose in much while the real geeks tinkered and built and re-built and fixed and fiddled and brought in Gooshmaker. A great deal, perhaps most, of the foundation of the internet was, I believe, done in the absence of much, if any, govt involvement. I also believe that Al Gore was, at the time busy having his bodyguards take photos of him with an M16 in 'Nam, so he wasn't being much help.

[Chris R]

I'm surprised you didn't mention the massive price discrimination that jacks up the price on US editions. On the $100+ books, importing an international edition usually costs less than half as much as buying a US edition.

So no, a week is actually not nearly enough time. A month would be much more suitable, especially since international editions sometimes take a while to hunt down. Your suggestion of paying Amazon $80 a year for occasional rush shipping is unfeasible, first because it's eighty friggin' dollars and second because Amazon rarely sells the international editions.

I'm not saying the gov't should be involved, but universities would do well not to be such dicks to their students about it.