I FIND The Cavalier Daily's characterization of the University's e-textbook pilot initiative ("Textbook education," Jan. 20) somewhat odd. Digital textbooks are a good thing, but not because publishers get to make more money.
Why should any of us care about textbook publishing companies, who are known to release new editions of textbooks with the same text but different practice problems? The University does not exist for the benefit of textbook publishers, nor are the profits of textbook publishers in any way relevant to the University's mission. We are here to become educated people, and we need textbooks in order to pursue that goal; textbook publishing companies serve our needs by printing textbooks, and their profits are only relevant in that textbook publishing companies could not stay in business if they were not realizing profits.
Printing textbooks is no longer necessary. We have computers and software that allow us to read and use textbooks electronically. We also have computer networks which can be used to distribute textbooks rapidly and at almost no cost. The proper response to this reality is not to work out how textbook publishers can stay in business or how they can realize even higher profits. Given the realities of the 21st century, we should question whether textbook companies should be in business at all - whether they are still serving our needs better than any alternative.
It is not as if we owe the textbook publishers anything: They provided us with decent quality textbooks at high prices, demonstrating that their relationship with us is not personal, but business. There is nothing wrong with that sort of relationship, but unlike a personal relationship there is no need for us to worry about what happens to publishing companies. Their profits are not our problem, just like whether or not students have beer money left after buying their books is not the publishers' problem.
Digital textbooks offer us an opportunity to break free from textbook publishing companies. We should be working on ways to facilitate the creation, distribution and "maintenance" - that is, error correction, updating with new facts, etc. - of textbooks using computers and computer networks. Publishing companies should only enter into the conversation if they can offer more than merely holding copyrights on existing textbooks.
We have an opportunity to have textbooks that cost nothing, that can be used and shared freely and indefinitely, and that can be updated efficiently and at no cost. We should not squander this opportunity by wasting time worrying about whether an old business model can become more profitable, or even if it can remain profitable at all.
I propose a complete rethinking of the publishing process. The Internet should be used as a distribution medium and universities should collaborate with each other to create books. Professors who write textbooks should be given special incentives such as bonus pay, consideration for tenure and time away from committee responsibilities.
In addition, professors can periodically spend time reviewing other professors' books, suggesting edits and deciding on books which would be useful for courses, with some appropriate incentive system in place. Universities have substantial computing resources; books could be distributed among universities in a peer-to-peer manner with revision histories being stored as books are updated, thus ensuring that every edition of every book is always available. Students at a university could download books directly from their university's servers and would be free to use those books however they please. Ideally, this would include sending copies to other people.
Even if the plan I outlined is ultimately shown to be unworkable in practice, we should not fall into the trap of focusing on publishing company profits. Our only concern with publishing companies should be getting the best textbooks we can get, at prices we can afford and only if we cannot legally get our books by some other means.
Benjamin R. Kreuter is a graduate Engineering student.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
