College and Research Libraries By F E L I X E. H I R S C H Facing the Future: O n the W a y to N e w College Library Standards TW E L V E Y E A R S have passed since the College and University Postwar Plan- ning Committee under William H . Carl- son's chairmanship recommended "that special concern and attention be devoted to those libraries, constituting the large majority of all higher educational li- braries in the land, which clearly fall be- low accepted levels of support and that continued attention be given to develop- ing standards and norms which will as- sist these libraries in improving their staffs, book stock, and service."1 Nobody can deny that considerable progress has been made at numerous institutions in the meantime. But anybody who has vis- ited some of the less famous college li- braries in the country is aware of the fact that they are still struggling against tremendous odds. Every administrator proclaims, of course, publicly that he considers the library to be the heart of his college, but a careful examination of the budget allocations will sometime lead to different conclusions. T h e present writer had some opportunity to observe this discrepancy, when he was a mem- ber of the New York Board of Regents' Committee on the Integration of College and University Library Resources and, more recently, while serving on evalua- tion teams for the Middle States Associa- tion of Colleges and Secondary Schools. His impressions have been confirmed 1 College and University P o s t w a r P l a n n i n g Commit- tee of the A L A and A C R L . College and University Li- braries and Librarianship. Chicago: A L A , 1946, p. 21. Dr. Hirsch is Librarian and Professor of History at Trenton State College. At present, he is Chairman of the ACRL Committee on Standards. by many letters from college librarians; e.g., the chairman of a regional com- mittee on standards wrote him a few months ago: "Our study of the standards in . . . has so far revealed only their almost complete absence." An analysis of the annual statistics published in CRL presents even more comprehensive cor- roborating evidence. While some of our leading colleges support their libraries generously, there are still far too many cases, where obviously the salaries are too low, and the collections are starved. This would be perilous at any time, but it creates the gravest apprehension now, because college libraries must face the obligations created by rapidly rising en- rollments. If we do not agree on new standards soon, and make every effort to implement them, many college students of the nineteen-sixties will be served by disgruntled, completely overworked li- brarians in overcrowded buildings and will look in vain for that variety of good up-to-date reading materials without which no solid papers can be written nor any real learning be accomplished.2 Considerations of this kind were prob- ably in the minds of the A C R L Board of Directors, when they authorized, at their meeting in Kansas City last June, the new chairman of the A C R L Com- mittee on Standards to start work on new college library standards. T h e commit- tee, under its previous chairman, Dr. Wayne S. Yenawine, had laid some 2 Some of the broader issues were presented by Wy- man W . P a r k e r of Wesleyan University in his ex- cellent paper on "College L i b r a r y S t a n d a r d s and the F u t u r e " at the Conference of E a s t e r n College L i b r a r - ians, Columbia University, November 30, 1957. This writer is in full agreement with M r . P a r k e r ' s basic points. MAY 1958 197 groundwork for this larger j o b by pre- paring two publications, a bibliography on college library standards3 and a com- pilation of accrediting standards.4 T h e committee began work on its new as- signment in the early fall of 1957. Its members are librarians from institutions of various types and from different re- gions,5 but they easily reached agreement on some fundamental issues. T h e y held a full-day work session at the A L A Mid- winter meeting in Chicago on J a n u a r y 27, 1958. A set of suggestions presented by the chairman served as the basis of frank and lively discussions. In the after- noon the committee was joined by twen- ty-seven outstanding college and univer- sity librarians. Nineteen states from Massachusetts to California were repre- sented in the room and all types of academic institutions were included.6 T h i s open meeting was extraordinarily successful in clarifying the issues. T h e committee received a great deal of sage counsel and strong encouragement for its efforts. T h a t same night the commit- tee planned the next steps in the light of the advice given by these experts. T h e work on the first draft of the new stand- ards was divided u p and an early date set for its completion. T h i s draft will be submitted to the twenty-seven ex- perts, to some other prominent librar- ians, to the spokesmen of the regional ac- 3 List of Writings on College Library Standards, 1930- 1954. Compiled by David C. W e b e r , 1956. Available f r e e of charge f r o m the office of the l i b r a r i a n , T r e n t o n S t a t e College. 4 College and University Library Accreditation Stand- ards—1957. Compiled by Eli M. Oboler, R u t h W a l l i n g a n d D a v i d C. W e b e r . A . C . R . L . M o n o g r a p h n o . 20. Chicago: A . C . R . L . , 1958. 6 M r s . M i n n i e R. Bowles, H a m p t o n I n s t i t u t e ; M i s s H e l e n M . Brown, Wellesley; M r s . K a t h a r i n e Brubeck, Baltimore, M a r y l a n d ; M r . E u g e n e A . H o l t m a n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ; M r . Roscoe F . Schaupp, E a s t e r n Il- l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y ; Miss R u t h W a l l i n g , E m o r y U n i v e r - sity. 6 P r e s e n t w e r e : M a r t h a Biggs, P a u l Bixler, A r n a Bontemps, Clyde C a n t r e l l , H . Vail Deale, W a l f r e d E r i c k s o n , J . W . Gordon Gourlay, Charles F . Gosnell, J o h n F . H a r v e y , H a r o l d W . H a y d e n , E d w a r d C. H e i n t z , R o b e r t H e r t e l , E s t h e r Hile, W . Stanley H o o l e , J o h n H . L e s t e r , F l o r a Belle L u d i n g t o n , A . H . M a t t l i n , Ralph W . McComb, J e a n M c F a r l a n d , Eli Oboler, Alice E . P a i n e , K a t h a r i n e Stokes, R. C. S w a n k , Donald E . T h o m p s o n , Eileen T h o r n t o n ( P r e s i d e n t of A C R L ) , F r i t z Veit, E u g e n e P . W a t s o n . crediting agencies, and to some academic administrators for their criticisms and suggestions. T h e n a second d r a f t will be prepared by the committee in late spring. T h i s second draft is to be presented at the A L A meeting in San Francisco for public discussion. T h e committee hopes, if all goes well, for an adoption of the new standards at the A L A Midwinter Meeting in J a n u a r y , 1959 or, at the latest, at the A L A Conference in Washington. While the committee is at work, it may benefit greatly from suggestions coming from the A C R L membership. Each time that this writer has discussed the problem of standards with groups of college librarians,7 valuable new points were raised by some of them; everywhere he was assured that the work of the committee is timely and indeed urgent. Based on these heartening ex- periences, he invites comments from fel- low librarians prior to the San Francisco Conference; every constructive sugges- tion will be taken u p by the committee. T h e new standards will fulfill their func- tion over a longer period of years only if they embody the best thinking of the profession. T h e committee does not aim to pre- pare an all-inclusive document. Nothing on the order of the Classification and Pay Plans for Libraries in Institutions of Higher Education (Chicago: A.L.A., 1942 and 1947) is under consideration. While this set of documents had great merits, it is felt that the profession needs today a much simpler and more flexible tool. T h e new standards will be phrased so that their implications can be easily grasped by busy college administrators and by the lay members of boards of edu- cation, trustees, etc. In some respects, the forceful language used in Public Library Service: A Guide to Evaluation, with 7 T h i s paper p r e s e n t s the essence of d i f f e r e n t speeches b e f o r e the A C R L Teacher E d u c a t i o n L i b r a r i e s Section, the A C R L Philadelphia c h a p t e r and the College and U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s Section of t h e New J e r s e y Li- b r a r y Association. 198 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES Minimum Standards (Chicago: A.L.A., 1956) may be taken as an example. Also Document No. 4.81 of the Middle States Association Evaluating the Library (Oc- tober, 1957) should be suggestive; it has indicated to what type of questions the new standards must provide the proper answers. Something could be said in favor of standards which would embrace all types of college and university libraries. But consultation with some leading univer- sity librarians led to the conclusion that the disadvantages of an all-inclusive doc- ument would outweigh the benefits. T h e basic problems of the small liberal arts college or teachers college library are so different from those of the large research library that it is almost impossible to find a common denominator. Therefore, it was decided that the new standards should apply only to those institutions which confine themselves to undergrad- uate instruction and/or graduate work on the master's level. Not only the re- search libraries were omitted, but also the junior college libraries, since separ- ate standards for them have just been prepared and should be published short- iy. T h e new standards will center around the formulation of principles. But they will also contain precise proposals on certain key issues. T h e committee felt (and many of the outside experts con- curred) that struggling college libraries will be helped effectively only if there are clear expectations for staff-size, finan- cial support, seating capacity, etc. Fre- quent reference will be made to the an- nual statistics published in CRL since they provide the most up-to-date infor- mation. It may be considered as a danger signal if a library consistently receives support below the median level indicat- ed for institutions of its kind. However, no dollar sign will appear in the new standards, since the real value of our currency has so frequently changed. Instead, it will be stated that normally a college library should receive 5 to 7 per cent of the total educational budget of the institution. T h i s is not an excessive- ly high percentage. Some of the college libraries with a long-established tradi- tion of excellence receive more than 6 per cent of the educational budget, e.g., Haverford (9.7), D a r t m o u t h (6.8), Swarthmore (6.73), Wesleyan University (6.54) and Vassar (6.31). T h e committee recognizes that this percentage may be hard to maintain in libraries of institutes of technology; even the M . I . T . library receives only 2.7 per cent of the total budget. But the demand for 5-7 per cent offers the most effective protection for all other types of academic libraries. In a period of rapid expansion, of course, even 7 per cent may not be enough to build up a college library properly and speedily. T h e committee does not plan to suggest any formula for the allocation of the library budget for specific purposes; it depends primarily on local circum- stances, what slices of the budget will be used for salaries, books, periodicals, equipment, etc. T h e ultimate responsi- bility for the proper apportionment must rest with the librarian; an unwise distri- bution will be a reflection on him. T h e proposed standards for the struc- ture and government of the college li- brary should not arouse much argument. T h e committee believes that the librar- ian should be directly responsible to the president or the head of the academic program of the institution. T h e lines of authority should be clearly drawn. T h e faculty library committee should be strictly limited to advisory functions. While the librarian must assume respon- sibility for the administration of the li- brary, he should seek the advice of his staff on all important matters of policy and procedure. More controversial will be some of the proposed standards for the staff, its size, and status. T h e committee urges MAY 1958 199 that every college library should have a minimum of three professional librar- ians, i.e., the head librarian and two as- sistants in charge of processing and read- ers services respectively. While there may be extraordinary circumstances under which a college library may d o an out- standing j o b with fewer professionals the minimum of three professional li- brarians should prevail as a rule. T h e committee believes that enrollment, rate of acquisitions, and instructional pro- gram determine the size of the staff. Therefore, it is hard to arrive at a rigid rule, but the staff formula developed by New York State University for its teach- ers colleges is quoted in the draft of the standards at lpast for its suggestive value. T h i s formula has the virtue of drawing attention to the need for adequate utili- zation of non-professional staff; able clerical workers may handle effectively many assignments formerly reserved for professionals. T h e committee recom- mended that all professional librarians receive academic status and with it the same, salary schedule and benefits en- joyed by the teaching faculty, such as tenure, sabbatical leave, and retirement provisions. However, equal privileges must be matched by equal responsibil- ities. For instance, if faculty promotions in an institution are based on advanced graduate work, professional librarians will have to follow the same pattern. T h e chief librarian should rank with other academic department heads; this seems obvious, but many colleges still relegate the librarian to an inconspicu- ous position. It is the duty of the librarian to see to it that the book collection is stimulating and well rounded. It falls also to him to fight excessive duplication of titles, al- though standard works in heavy demand should be available in multiple copies. H e can help protect intellectual freedom by securing a fair presentation of both sides on controversial issues. T h e com- mittee believes that the excellence of the book collection may be assured, if a library holds high percentages from certain standard lists, like the L a m o n t Library list, the list of reference books compiled by W. S. Hoole for the South- ern Association of Colleges, R . R . Hawk- ins' Bibliography of Scientific, Medical and Technical Books published in the U.S.A., and certain sections of the Shaw list, especially in the humanities. It is not enough, however, that the library has books of enduring value and that they fit the curriculum; it must also have them ift sufficient numbers if every stu- dent is to be given a fair opportunity. Therefore, the committee suggests a minimum size of the collection, based on the enrollment. Part-time extension stu- dents, usually the forgotten men on a college campus, are to be equated into full-time figures. A college with 600 stu- dents should have at least 40,000 vol- umes; 10,000 volumes should be provid- ed for every 200 additional students, un- til the collection reaches about 300,000 volumes. Of course, generous special pro- visions must be made in an institution offering graduate or honors work. T h e college library must also offer a comprehensive, carefully balanced, and intellectually stimulating choice of peri- odicals with adequate back files. Again some standard lists are to serve as yard- sticks, e.g., E. I. Farber's Classified List of Periodicals for the College Library (Boston: F. W. Faxon, 1957.) T h i s is the fourth edition of the list originally com- piled by Guy R . Lyle. It is also the function of the college library to secure up-to-date materials in various areas of audio-visual education, if no instruction- al department of the college makes ade- quate provisions in this respect. Another important part of the stand- ards will deal with the library building. It should be centrally located and func- tionally designed. Seating accommoda- (Continued on page 262) 200 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES N e w College Library Standards (Continued from page 200) tions for 25-331/3 per cent of the student body will be suggested; allowance for differences between the residential and commuter colleges will be made. Shelf space should be provided to take care of growth for at least a decade. S. Finally, the standards will urge close interlibrary cooperation along the lines suggested in A Plan for Meeting College Library Problems, the report of the Re- gents' Committee (Albany: State Educa- tion Department, 1954). A f r e q u e n t eval- uation of the library is also recommend- ed. Library staff and teaching faculty should ascertain by joint efforts that the standards of service are high and that the library fulfills its educational tasks. T h i s is no easy job, for how is one to measure the spirit of a library? T h e per capita circulation of books to students on two-week loan may offer some valu- able clues; in fact, some educators, such as H e n r y M. Wriston, consider it the best index of an institution's intellectual health. But, owing to special local con- | ditions, this figure may not always pro- vide a reliable yardstick and must, there- fore, be used with considerable caution. T h e A C R L Committee on Standards is well aware of the criticism that some of its proposals may provoke. New stand- ards cannot please everybody; to do so they would have to be confined to vague generalities. T h e h o u r calls for vision and boldness. W e must design standards which are high enough and flexible enough to protect and improve the posi- tion of the American college library as it faces the unprecedented challenge of t h e nineteen-sixties. Russian Bibliographical Guides (Continued from page 216) lications, and several other categories of material.4 3 Another such u n i o n list is the just- published Catalogue collectif des period- iques,44 p u t out by the Bibliotheque Na- t i o n a l in Paris, which lists the Cyrillic Slavic periodicals in the French univer- sity libraries, and in the Parisian librar- ies, as of 1950. T h e arrangement is al- phabetical by title. Each entry is also provided with call numbers in the vari- ous libraries. T h i s work was preceded by that of B. Unbegaun,4 5 which was pub- 13 F o r a detailed description of this work see: Constance M. Winchell, Guide to Reference Books, 7th ed., Chicago, 1951. p.94. 44 Bibliotheque Nationale, P a r i s . D e p a r t m e n t des periodiques. Catalogue collectif des periodiques con- serves dans les bibliotheques de Paris et dans les bib- liotheques universit aires de France, periodiques slaves en caracteres cyrilliques; etat des collections en 1950. Paris, 1956. 2 Vols. 45 U n b e g a u n , Boris, Catalogue des periodiques slaves et relatifs aux etudes slaves des bibliotheques de Paris. Paris, 1929. 221p. (Published as Volume I X to T r a v a u x publies par l ' l n s t i t u t d'etudes slaves.) lished in 1929. T h e latter lists all period- icals relating to Slavic affairs, in Slavic and other languages, available in the Paris libraries as of 1927. I n conclusion, we may say that once the Periodicheskaia Pechat' SSSR 1917- 1949 is completed, we will have a com- plete registration of the periodicals of the twentieth century, u p to the present time, as this work is the chronological continuation of the Predvaritel'nyi spi- sok periodicheskikh izdanii Rossii 1901- 1916, and in t u r n is continued by the Letopis' Periodicheskikh izdanii SSSR 1950-1954. U n f o r t u n a t e l y this is not true of newspapers, as the Periodicheskaia Pechat' SSSR does not include these. For these, as well as for chronological guid- ance to periodicals, we shall still have to t u r n to the numerous a n n u a l bibliog- raphies. 262 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES