College and Research Libraries


B y W I L L I S K E R R 
t 

The Professor Looks 
at the Card Catalog 

Mr. Kerr, librarian of Claremont Col-

leges, read this paper before the Los An-

geles Regional Group of Catalogers, 

Pasadena, April 14, 1942, and before the 

Southern California Conference of Col-

lege and University Librarians, Pasadena, 

May 4, 1942. 

A S A COLLEGE L I B R A R I A N , I a m t r y i n g 

to represent our friend, the college 

professor, w h o in himself and in his influ-

ence is probably the largest user of the 

library card catalog. Indirectly I am 

speaking f o r his students. 

I thought I k n e w the mind of the pro-

fessor, but to be sure of my ground I sent 

a questionnaire to some eighty-two teach-

ers, deans, and presidents in nine institu-

tions of southern C a l i f o r n i a . I chose 

names f r o m all departments of instruction 

and included younger as w e l l as older 

teachers. Forty-seven replies came b a c k : 

three presidents, six deans, thirty-five pro-

fessors, and three librarians. T h e three 

librarians should be explained: one of the 

presidents and one of the deans promptly 

referred the questionnaire to his librarian. 

W h a t does a college have a librarian f o r ? 

O n e of the most suggestive answers came 

f r o m A n d r e w D . Osborn, of the H a r v a r d 

library, w h o is quoted later on. O n e of 

the presidents sent this r e p l y : " I am not 

competent to speak on the desirability of 

this or that card. I am one of those softies 

w h o , w h e n he w a n t s a book, has people 

w h o are wise and w h o bring him the 

book." 

I asked five main questions, breaking 

each into subtopics in order to obtain de-

tails of opinion. T h e five main points 

w e r e : 

1. For what do you usually consult your 
library card catalog? 

2. D o you consult the subject cards? 
3. D o you know how much it costs to 

catalog a book? 
4. W h a t do you tell your students about 

their use of the library catalog? 
5. In short, if you were doing it, how 

would you catalog your college (or univer-
sity) library? 

I am t r y i n g not to take sides in the 

moot points, but you w i l l judge my point 

of v i e w f r o m some of the questions I sub-

mitted. 

1. Uses of the Card Catalog 

O b v i o u s l y , a bull's-eye w a s scored by the 

first query: " D o you usually consult your 

library card catalog in order to ascertain 

whether your library has a certain book 

and, if so, its call n u m b e r ? " Forty-six 

replied enthusiastically " y e s . " Possibly 

the very unanimity should have a meaning 

for us. Query: " T o obtain f u l l name of 

author and w h e n he l i v e d ? " Sixteen say 

" y e s , " five say " n o , " four say "occasion-

a l l y " or " s e l d o m . " Six indicate that dates 

of birth and death do not signify. Query: 

134 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



" T o obtain exact title of b o o k ? " T h i s 

drew twenty-four affirmative answers, t w o 

negative, and seven qualified answers. 

O n e professorial friend remarks about 

author's f u l l name, dates, and exact title 

of book: " I rarely look in catalog for 

these two, but they should be s u p p l i e d — 

in case." Query: " T o v e r i f y place and 

publication date of b o o k ? " " Y e s , " eight-

een. " N o , " two. " S e l d o m " or other 

qualifications, five. O n e answer fancies 

especially the place of publication. 

Query: " T o learn whether the book was 

published in a certain series?" T h e an-

swers to this grieve me, because I dote on 

series entries. O n l y three say " y e s , " three 

are doubtful, and ten say positively " n o . " 

Query: " T o obtain f u l l description of 

book: number of pages, maps, illustrations, 

size (in centimeters or inches ? — I put that 

in wickedly, thinking I w o u l d get a rise 

from more than one p r o f e s s o r — b u t only 

one indicated preference f o r inches!), table 

of contents, edition?" T h i s "bibliographi-

cal embroidery," as M r . B o w k e r called it, 

is very dear to me, but only six of my 

friends value it, one is doubtful, one w a n t s 

number of pages only, t w o value table of 

contents, while ten coldly say " n o . " I 

can't believe they all mean it. I feel a 

little better about my next query: " D o you 

value notes (such as 'first e d i t i o n ' — o n l y 

t w o value t h a t — o r 'at head of title') 

or notation of 'bibliography, p. . . . ' ? " 

Fourteen are on my side w i t h " y e s " votes, 

nine say " n o , " and five ask specially for 

notation of bibliography. Query: " D o 

you like to k n o w w h o published the b o o k ? " 

T w e n t y - f o u r say " y e s , " seven answer "oc-

casionally" or " s e l d o m , " four don't care. 

I might have k n o w n the answer to my 

query: " D o you usually look for a book by 

its a u t h o r ? O r by its t i t l e ? " Forty-three 

say "by a u t h o r , " ten "by title," one neither. 

N o w it w i l l be noted that, statistically 

speaking, from these answers, the average 

professor uses the card c a t a l o g : I. T o 

ascertain whether the library has a certain 

book and w h e r e it is shelved; only a 

minority w a n t s f u l l name and dates of 

author. 2. Place and date of publication 

get in only by a narrow squeak. Pub-

lisher is wanted. T h e s e w o u l d give us 

on a card only author, title, place, date, 

and publisher. Subject cards are taken 

up in the next series of questions. 

B u t some of the answers do not arrange 

themselves by yes or no. T h e y need to 

be quoted: O n e w e l l - k n o w n professor of 

English says his use of the catalog "de-

pends upon my f o r g e t t e r y . " A n o t h e r 

equally w e l l - k n o w n professor of English 

confesses: " I usually get place and publi-

cation date, series note, bibliographical 

description, and notes ( w h e n I need them) 

from the sources; but the catalog should 

supply the i n f o r m a t i o n — i n case. In all 

such matters I tend to make the catalog 

an insurance p o l i c y — m y recourse if other 

things f a i l . " A college president asks for 

book evaluation in the catalog, t h u s : " A 

consensus of authoritative value j u d g -

ments w o u l d be helpful to students w h o 

have limited knowledge of bibliography. 

T h e y tend to 'believe' printed matter and 

need guidance of a critical sort." A pro-

fessor of history says the "entry of series 

under easy cross references is a problem, 

especially hard-to-find large series, such as 

C a l i f o r n i a state papers, inedited docu-

ments, etc." A professor of public ad-

ministration bluntly remarks: " I use the 

catalog only to secure the book. P r e f e r 

to get other data from the book itself." 

W h a t if the book is out, f r i e n d ? B u t 

your remark reminds me of the quip at-

tributed to Archibald C a r y Coolidge, of 

H a r v a r d ; " W h y should the card catalog 

MARCH', 1943 135 



describe the book? T h e library has i t . " 

A wise over-all point of v i e w is D r . 

Osborn's summary of the uses of the card 

c a t a l o g : " T h e official uses are for book 

selection, order w o r k , cataloging, inter-

library loan, etc. F o r readers' purposes, 

the use by students is lessened because of 

reserved reading, the browsing room, the 

new book shelves, the house ( d o r m i t o r y ) 

libraries, etc. F a c u l t y and research w o r k -

ers have access to stacks, and main use of 

the catalog is for locating k n o w n books." 

2. Subject Cards 

T h e query, " D o you consult the subject 

c a r d s ? " brought twenty-one affirmative 

answers, ten negatives, and three quali-

fied. In passing, it w i l l be noted that 

many of these queries are not answered by 

all our professorial f r i e n d s : in this case 

only twenty-one of forty-seven are definite 

in their use of subject c a r d s ; ten do not 

use them, three say " r a r e l y " or " s e l d o m , " 

and thirteen do n o t . a n s w e r — w h y ? T h e 

next query w a s : " D o you find it easy to 

hit upon the subjects used for the books in 

which you are interested?" Surprisingly, 

fifteen say " y e s , " fourteen say " n o , " and 

six answer "not a l w a y s , " " v a r i e s , " "sel-

d o m , " etc. Similarly, the query: " D o you 

find the subjects are up to d a t e ? " is an-

swered affirmatively by thirteen, nega-

tively by ten, and qualified by three. I 

w o u l d call this a vote of lack of confidence: 

thirteen to thirteen, w i t h twenty-one not 

voting. C o u p l e that w i t h the next query: 

" D o you use your o w n bibliographies 

rather than the library subject c a t a l o g ? " 

A f f i r m a t i v e answers are thirty-seven, w h i l e 

only seven report preference for the subject 

catalog. 

T h e g r o w i n g academic preference for 

subject bibliographies is nicely illustrated 

by a comparison of the first ( 1 9 2 9 ) and 

second ( 1 9 4 2 ) editions of a standard w o r k 

in social studies: G e o r g e A . L u n d b e r g . 

Social Research. N . Y . , Longmans. E d . 

1, 1929. E d . 2, 1942. T h e "selected 

references" in the first edition occupy 

forty-six pages ( 3 2 5 - 7 0 ) . T h e y are re-

placed in the second edition by "suggestions 

for further s t u d y " (critical annotations) 

at the end of each of the twelve chapters, 

usually a page or less, plus a "bibliography 

of bibliographies" ( t w o p a g e s ) . M o r e -

over the author remarks in his introductory 

c h a p t e r : 

For the general bibliography and appendi-
ces of the first edition I have substituted at 
the end of each chapter specific suggestions 
for further study of the subject under con-
sideration. T h e enormous increase during 
the past decade makes it necessary for the 
student in the future to re;ly on annotated 
bibliographies indicating which studies are 
likely to contain material relevant to a par-
ticular inquiry. On the subject of attitude 
research alone, for example, there appeared 
in periodicals in English, during the years 
I937~39 inclusive, some two hundred titles, 
not counting relatively inaccessible theses 
and papers and excluding all studies having 
no bearing on methodology. Annotated bib-
liographies for the field have, fortunately, 
become increasingly available, enabling stu-
dents to go more directly to the relevant 
sources. A bibliography of such bibliogra-
phies, aggregating many thousands of titles, 
is appended to the present volume. 

A g a i n , some of the answers on subject 

cards must be quoted to get at their m e a t : 

A professor of psychology says subjects are 

not up to date, for "some antiquarian in 

L i b r a r y of Congress must choose them." 

A professor of economics says, " M y ap-

proach is through subjects more frequently 

than persons or titles." Similarly, a dean of 

education reports: " M o r e frequently than 

any other use, I consult the catalog to 

find w h a t w e have concerning a subject or 

field. T h a t is, my needs are more often 

than not bibliographical." O n e answer 

136 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



declares, " S u b j e c t cards should be set up 

even though the subjects at times only 

approximate student interests." A pro-

fessor of English says it this w a y : " I t 

seems to me that subject cataloging has 

been less helpfully done than any other 

kind. So often in past years did I fail to 

get relevant information and guidance 

speedily that I tend to ignore this side of 

the catalog except in a real pinch. T h e n 

I expect to make a job of i t . " A librarian 

replies, " F o r our particular library I favor 

more analytics for parts of books and 

f e w e r general indefinite headings. M o r e 

cross references, especially from compound 

names." A historian says present subject 

headings are not up to d a t e : " T h e y served 

in the days of economic determinism and 

political emphasis. T h e y are entirely in-

adequate for social, intellectual, and re-

ligious aspects, w h i c h are now equally 

important." 

I conclude that w e have enough source 

material in these answers for several head-

aches and for a full-scale investigation of 

subject cataloging. 

3. Cost of Cataloging 

I thought w e might get some help on 

the age-long question of cataloging costs. 

Innocently, I asked: " D o you know how 

much it costs to catalog a b o o k ? " F o u r 

answer simply, " y e s " — b u t do not tell me 

h o w much. T w e n t y - o n e answer " n o . " 

O n e says, " N o t e x a c t l y . " " A m not con-

cerned." O n e says, " O f t e n as much as the 

book costs." O n e says, "twenty-five to 

f i f t y cents." T h r e e say, " f i f t y cents or 

m f r e . " T w o say "seventy-five cents." 

O n e says, " A b o u t f i f t y cents to one dollar, 

I believe." T w o say "one d o l l a r . " N o -

tice that only ten of thirty-seven answers 

give any figure. D r . Osborn says H a r v a r d 

costs are gross $1.50, actual $1.00,. less 

valuable books f i f t y - t w o Cents. T h e 

query, " H o w much do you think your 

institution is justified in spending for cata-

l o g i n g ? " brought an array of suggestions. 

Seven say, " N o more than necessary." 

T w o say, " N o t over f i f t y cents." T h r e e 

say, " M o r e than at present." O n e says, 

" F e w e r books w e l l cataloged." O n e says, 

" E n o u g h to avoid making the library a 

cemetery." O n e says, " A s k the librari-

ans." T h r e e say cataloging is indispens-

able, whatever the cost. E i g h t are f r a n k l y 

puzzled to answer. Evidently, they want 

a catalog. I next asked, " D o e s your li-

brary catalog become obsolescent?" F o u r 

reply " y e s , " eleven " n o , " six say "yes, in 

spots," or " s o m e w h a t . " W h e n I asked, 

" I s the obsolescence of the catalog or of the 

books?" nine said of the catalog, w h i l e 

seventeen put the blame on the books. 

M y last query under cataloging costs 

was poorly phrased. I asked, " I f ten col-

lege and university libraries in southern 

C a l i f o r n i a each buy Davies, Mission to 

Moscow, do you think each library should 

do its o w n cataloging for i t ? " In the first 

place, several of our professorial friends 

do not think any library should buy that 

book! B u t I had in mind centralized or 

regional cataloging, not simply the use of 

L . C . printed cards, which most of the 

answers urged. Because the question was 

not clear, I think the answers do not sig-

n i f y much. N i n e answer " y e s , " probably 

meaning by the use of L . C . cards; w h i l e 

sixteen say " n o , " probably meaning that 

L . C . cards should be used. O f course, 

they assume that w h e n you have the 

printed card all the cataloging is done. 

O n e answer is typical of several w h i c h 

show that to many cataloging and classifi-

cation are the same t h i n g : " I f cataloging is 

proving too expensive w h y not use classi-

fications as given on L i b r a r y of Congress 

MARCH', 1943 13 7 



cards since 1936 a p p r o x i m a t e l y ? " A n -

other answer shows some analysis has 

been m a d e : " I n the l o n g run, I f a v o r the 

efficiency of the local unit, w h a t e v e r it is." 

A n d someone else asks, " D o e s L . C . really 

pay in a small l i b r a r y ? " Several suggest 

printing of cards by publishers. 

T h r e e of the answers seem to catch my 

idea. O n e says, " N o t if a central cata-

loging office could be a r r a n g e d . " A n o t h e r 

says, " N o t if a unified system w o u l d be 

cheaper and not much less expeditious." 

Still another says "each library should no 

more do its o w n cataloging than each uni-

versity should print its o w n books." 

I venture to put a surmise and a prob-

lem in arithmetic before y o u : If there are 

one hundred libraries in southern C a l i -

fornia each buying the same one hundred 

books annually, that is ten thousand vol-

umes to be cataloged, either w i t h or w i t h -

out L . C . cards. If each library spends 

f i f t y cents per volume for labor cost of 

cataloging, that is five thousand dollars 

f o r cataloging the same one hundred 

books. If w e had a regional cataloging 

bureau, h o w much w o u l d it cost to deliver 

one hundred sets of cards ready to file, 

w i t h call numbers, subject headings, added 

entries, and a l l ? W o u l d you use such 

cards if they cost you twenty-five or thirty 

cents (that is a pure guess by me) instead 

of your present cataloging cost? O r are 

w e all f o l l o w i n g that will-o'-the-wisp, that 

the cataloging of an additional one hun-

dred books does not really cost us any-

thing? 

4. What Are Students Told? 

T h e next query was, " W h a t do you tell 

your students about their use of the library 

c a t a l o g ? " E l e v e n f r a n k l y answer, " N o t h -

i n g . " ( I w a s surprised at that.) H o w -

ever, one answer is: " I try to encourage 

all possible use of the catalog, f r o m all 

possible angles, such as subject references, 

accuracy in listing, preparation of bibliog-

raphies, e t c . " A n o t h e r answers sugges-

t i v e l y : " I tell them to w o r k through sub-

jects, bibliographies, other w o r k s of men 

thus discovered, other related aspects of 

subject, etc. I differentiate public docu-

ment, journal, and periodical material." 

H o w much more helpful are either of 

those, than this: " I tell them mostly that 

they should look books up by author and 

that the subject catalog is likely to be 

treacherous and cannot be really satisfac-

t o r y , " or this: " I tell them that they can't 

find much by the c a t a l o g . " 

Query: " I n your opinion, for w h a t does 

the average student use the c a t a l o g ? " O f 

course, there are the expected answers: 

develop bibliographies, check references, 

expand material, etc. O n e doubting 

T h o m a s says the average student's use of 

the catalog is "superficial hunting of some-

thing to cram o n . " A n o t h e r says, " I fancy 

students often try (and usually unsuccess-

f u l l y ) to use the subject i n d e x . " A n o t h e r 

says the same: " T h e average student looks 

up subjects in the subject catalog. H e is 

often unsuccessful even though the books 

are in the l i b r a r y . " N o t so gloomy is this: 

" T h e student uses the catalog as a substi-

tute f o r getting information f r o m the 

s t a f f ; also to make out bibliographies for 

term papers (usually without discrimina-

tion) . " A n o t h e r opines that students "use 

the catalog to find books but even more to 

look up subjects. T h e y should use bibli-

ographies, but they w o n ' t . " A n d finally 

here is this o n e : " T h e student uses the 

catalog to see whether the book is in the 

library, to get call number. Some use 

the subject index, but too much guessing is 

138 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



involved in trying to discover under w h a t 

subject a book w i l l be catalogued." 

5. How Would You Catalog Your Li-

brary? 

H o p i n g to get some come-backs, I 

asked, " I n short, if you were doing it, h o w 

w o u l d you catalog your college (or univer-

sity) l i b r a r y ? " I got the come-backs. 

First, there were eight w h o said the pres-

ent method is O . K . T w o said, " L . C . 

exclusively," one said, " A b o l i s h D e w e y 

"and use L . C . , " another, " O u r old D . C . 

catalog w a s very satisfactory." ( Y o u see, 

cataloging and classification are synony-

mous.) O t h e r answers a r e : "Separate 

author and subject cards. . . . " " M u c h 

more emphasis on subject catalog. . . . " 

" G e n e r o u s subject entries, simple entry. 

. . . " " B y title and author " " C o m -

pletely. . . . " " A special subject catalog. 

. . . " " B y m a j o r schools and departments. 

. . . " " G e t publisher to furnish cards." 

Several are sure in a different w a y : " I 

w o u l d n ' t . . . . " " N o t h i n g under heaven 

could induce me. . . . " " W o u l d refer it 

to M r . K e r r . . . . " " I ' d commit suicide. 

. . " H e a v e n s , n o ! . . . " " T h i s is an easy 

question!" 

Some of the more definite suggestions 

a r e : 

M o r e breakdown of general subjects, with 
classifications more nearly in accordance 
with ends being served by curriculum and 
research. 

I'd leave it to those who are trained to 
know how best to do it (known as passing 
the buck) ! Catalogs seem to me marvelous 
in their information and arrangement and 
cross cataloging. 

I don't see it as a problem, for our people 
are doing it very well for my purposes. 

Use L . C . cards as we do but put books 
into circulation more rapidly by use of tem-

MARCH', 1943 

porary slip in the catalog. Use more head-
ings in the catalog, with duplicate cards in 
each good place. 

I wouldn't t r y : T h i s is a matter for 
library experts. T h e y would know how 
best to make the library available as an 
important teaching tool and keep students 
interested in the library. 

M a k e generous topical filings. Eliminate 
all information except name, title, publisher, 
edition, and subject. 

In addition to the present general catalog, 
I would have brief catalogs of books desired 
according to courses and I would have these 
books grouped together on shelves accessible 
to students. 

By subjects and fields, but the greatest 
shortcoming of the present system is the 
placement of books [classification] by the 
ordinary meaning of title rather than by its 
content. T h i s is particularly serious in psy-
chology. 

T h i s is a technical question and the lay-
man and the mere user of a library is out 
of place to speak with any authority. I be-
lieve, however, that I would not have my 
catalog differ from the established practice, 
since we ought to be at home in any library 
after we have learned the setup of one. 
Doing otherwise would be like changing the 
alphabetic order of a dictionary—chaos 
would result. 

About as now (Library of Congress sys-
tem, modified), but: 
1. M a k e subject entries under geographic 
names for such things as trade, sports, 
churches and religion, transportation, educa-
tion, music, literature, etc. etc., so far as 
they directly apply to one region. 
2. Analyse all biographies under at least one 
subject, often two. 
3. T o save money (only), eliminate detailed 
collation. 
4. Create division, "Early works to [1800] 
for social as well as natural sciences." 

In this connection, the article by N . P . 

Barksdale, " F a c u l t y Cooperation w i t h the 

L i b r a r y S t a f f , " 1 among other methods sug-

1 Journal of Higher Education 13:146-49, M a r c h 
1 9 4 2 . 

139 



gests that members of instructional staff 

collaborate regularly and continuously 

w i t h the library catalogers in the selection 

and revision of subject headings, classifi-

cation, and the like. 

A n d r e w D . Osborn's method of catalog-

ing his college library w o u l d b e : 

1. Put the files of books for reserved 
reading in a visible index and classify them 
for that collection. Otherwise let the [re-
served] books go uncataloged. 

2. Follow circulation needs more closely, 
e.g., by keeping many variant editions as 
copies. 

3. Keep centralized order and catalog 
cards for the departmental libraries but do 
their cataloging as simply and naturally as 
they now do. 

4. Catalog less valuable books more eco-
nomically. Keep books of little value out 
of the regular classifications. Plan the 
classifications so that one class could be 
closed after a certain time and a new class 
started. 

5. Leave very many documents uncata-
loged. 

6. M a k e more title entries than we have 
done, likewise more subject references. 

7. Omit authority cards in general. 
8. W o r k cooperatively, but not blindly. 

6. Would You Rather Have "Your" 

Books Together? 

F o r a real flier, I added one postscript 

query: " O r w o u l d you rather have all 

'your' books in one room and have no card 

c a t a l o g ? " I deserved the answers I got, 

but among them are some good thoughts. 

A m o n g the obvious answers w e r e : " I m -

possible under many conditions and unde-

sirable under all c o n d i t i o n s . . . " W o u l d 

make library almost useless. . . " N o t 

much. . . "Impossible. . . . " " Y e s , but 

not practical. . . . " " Q u i t e acceptable to 

me. . . . " " W h a t do you m e a n — ' y o u r s ' ? " 

" N o , w e ' d be in an a w f u l j a m . . . . " 

" C h a o t i c — h e a v y loss of books. . . . " " A 

selfish desire. . . . " " V e r y definitely not. 

. . . " "Possible only w i t h w h o l e culture 

periods" (he k n e w w h a t I had in m i n d ) . 

H e r e are several of the more meaning-

f u l a n s w e r s : 

I like the plan of having books widely 
needed for a course segregated temporarily 
where students can get at them with a mini-
mum of trouble and where students can 
easily perceive the large nature and scope 
of the authorities or sources. ( N o t e : T h a t 
does not mean to "put them on reserve.") 

Heavens, no! I want range. I'd want 
books from "other" fields continually. 

No, but would keep them in the same 
place. T h e r e is too much shifting from 
section to section. Students complain that 
when they have learned location in stacks, 
the books are all changed around the next 
time they come to the shelves. 

Theoretically, but fear there is too much 
overlapping territory between "my" terri-
tory and "yours." 

N o t when dealing with collections the size 
of ours, but I do believe in a wise decentrali-
zation which can exploit the methods of the 
special library. 

I would arrange a library by major 
schools or departments—small, easily avail-
able. T h e old library at Pomona or Am-
herst or Smith was perfect—for me. T h e 
grandest library I have used is the one at 
Brookings: carefully chosen books, on 
shelves available to everybody, no librarian, 
self-charging. But that was a small group 
of mature students! W e l l , if we adopted 
an intelligent system, we would have small 
groups and perhaps more intelligent stu-
dents. 

In Summary 

I believe the foregoing is a fair cross 

section of the professorial mind as regards 

c a t a l o g i n g : 

1. H e w a n t s a good library, w e l l cata-

loged on standardized lines. 

2. H e w a n t s a simple catalog. 

3. H e w a n t s plenty of subject cards, but 

apparently not the present sort. 

140 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



4- H e is inclined to think that students 

do not get too much help from the present 

catalogs. 

5. H e believes in cooperative, central-

ized cataloging. 

6. H e is not particularly concerned 

about the cost of cataloging, if it is w e l l 

done. 

7. H e believes in his library staff. 

Some of My Own Thoughts 

1. I believe w e should take steps to 

have our teaching and institutional ad-

ministrative staffs understand more f u l l y 

w h a t cataloging involves and w h a t it costs. 

T h e legend of "enormous" or " f a b u l o u s " 

costs, which unhappily exists, should be 

brought to earth. T h e cost of acquiring a 

book, even the average cost of the book 

itself, plus the cost of cataloging (perhaps 

a total of five d o l l a r s ) , should be brought 

into comparison w i t h the unit-hour cost 

of instruction of a student (somewhere 

round five or six dollars an hour, or one 

hundred and f i f t y to t w o hundred dollars 

per y e a r ) . 

2. W e should make up our minds w h a t 

the catalog is for. I believe, for the ordi-

nary run-of-the-mill book, the catalog is a 

finding list, pure and simple. F o r the 

unusual (or rare) book, the catalog is also 

partially a bibliographical tool. W e 

should take steps to streamline the han-

dling and the cataloging of the ordinary 

book. A n d w e should d r a w the line 

somewhere as to w h a t constitutes a book 

requiring detailed, specialized handling in 

the acquisition and cataloging depart-

ments. 

3. I am inclined to think that classifi-

cation is partly responsible for our cata-

loging problems. Some evidence of the 

extent of the problem of classification in 

the minds of catalogers and classifiers is 

the analysis by M r . T a u b e r , of the U n i -

versity of Chicago libraries, of the topics 

treated in the first ten volumes of the 

Catalogers' and Classifiers' Yearbook:2 

classification leads the list w i t h eighteen 

papers, then f o l l o w centralization and co-

operation, nine, subject headings, nine, 

history and survey, eight, cataloging pro-

cedures, seven, costs, seven, organization 

and administration, six, tributes (to great 

catalogers), five, union catalogs, f o u r , 

arrangement of catalogs, four, handling of 

special material, four, abstracts of theses 

(summaries), four, rules, three, and 

twenty other subjects, twenty-seven. 

2 T a u b e r , M a u r i c e F . " R e v i e w of Catalogers' and 
Classifiers' Yearbook." Library Quarterly 12:297-
300, A p r i l 1942. 

MARCH', 1943 141