College and Research Libraries HENDRIK EDELMAN and G. MARVIN TATUM, JR. The Development of Col.lections in American University Libraries Let no one connected with the promo- tion of graduate work deceive him- self-no single thing is more important in advanced work, that really ad- vances, than the literature of the sub- ject, be it in the sciences, pure and ap- plied, or in the humanities, impure and unapplied. 1 wITH THESE WORDS to the Association of American Universities in ·1913, Guy Stanton Ford, dean of the graduate school at the University of Minnesota, underscored the close relationship be- tween the quality of graduate educa- tion and research and the collections and services of the university library. This relationship is the dominant theme in the development of American uni- versity library collections. Mr. Ford issued his 1913 warning not without justification. At · that time grad- uate education in America had gone through a revolutionary childhood and adolescence. The Ph.D. degree had be- come an established standard and was well on its way to serving as "a pre- requisite for teaching positions of pro- fessorial rank in higher education."2 Some 150 institutions were already in- volved in graduate education at the turn of the century, but very few of them had library facilities that were even close to being adequate. Ford estimated 222 I that a collection of approximately 200,000 volumes would be needed as minimal support for a modest Ph.D. program. In 1910, only Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Princeton fell into that category. REcoGNITION OF LmRARY NEEDS Reports about inadequacies and frus- trations were numerous. The president of Columbia stated: "The university does not need or want books about sources, but the sources themselves."3 And from Illinois: "I have had more people whom I have approached to con- sider positions at the university ... de- cline . . . because of the lack of library facilities than for any other reason."4 Yet it should be recognized that dur- ing the previous forty years a true revo- lution had taken place in American higher education and in the university libraries. Prior to 1875, "productive scholarship in United States was not as- sociated in any close or direct way with a career in college teaching."5 America's transformation from a localized eco- nomic structure, characterized by artisan technology, into a self-generating na- tional industrial economy accelerated rapidly after the Civil War. The need for well-trained middle -~ .... management in the increasingly com- plex industrialized society became ap- parent, and when the waves of the new European scientific thought and meth- odology reached America, the founda- tions for the educational revolution were laid. "The explosion into a vac- uum is basically the reason why the United States, starting its scientific revo- lution much later than Europe, was able to proceed more rapidly to parity and then to outpacing."6 The system of elec- tives, the seminar method of teaching, and especially the emphasis on research {, by the university faculty necessitated! the establishment and building of li- brary resources as an integral part of the university. As Holley has indicated in his most useful description of the state of Amer- ican college libraries around 1876, some · of the libraries, notably Harvard, con- tained very valuable materials.7 By and large, however, the collections consisted of gatherings of gifts that never added up to balanced and reliable coverage. The inadequacies of the nation's li- braries for research were discussed re- peatedly through the first half of the nineteenth century, and the situation · had not changed much since 1850 when Jewett actually made a stu~y of the sources cited in a number of important works on a variety of subjects. He con- cluded that it would have been impos- sible for the authors to have done their work with the resources available to them in American libraries of that time. 8 MoDELS AND METHODS FOR DEVELOPING COLLEGriONS Like the German model Ph.D., the in- spiration as well as the experience for development of library collections serv- ing research purposes came from Ger- many. Up to the eighteenth century the library at Wolfenbiittel had stood as the outstanding scholarly collection. Ju- diciously built over many generations, Development of Collec~ions I 223 substantially with contemporary acquisi- tions, it . contained significant primary and secondary published sources of Eu- ropean scholarship. It was the university library at Gottingen more than any oth- er, however, that provided the link be- tween academic programs and research libraries. Developed over some hundred years, the Gottingen library was con- sidered in the nineteenth century the prime example of what could be achieved through careful planning and continued support. Christian Gottlob Heyne, its celebrated librarian from 1764 to 1812, summarized his concepts of academic collection development in 1810: "Proper selection rather than mere numbers of books is what makes real worth in a universitY library. Therefore, the uninterrupted, planned purchase of all important native and foreign publications produced by the development of knowledge is essential for a library with a scholarly plan."9 The quality of the Gottingen . library had a strong influence throughout Eu- rope, and it became the standard for the new American universities. From the very start until today, the use of a model, or a pace setter, has served as a strong force. in the develop- ment of university libraries. The Astor Library in New York was undoubtedly the best scholarly collection of its time, and in many ways it set the standard for what materials should be available and how they should be made available. Wil- lard Fiske, who came to Cornell in 1868, after several years at the Astor Library, wrote the president of the Board of Trustees in 1877: "The present situa- tion of the University Library is really deplorable .. I refer to the meagerness of its annual appropriation." Mter fur- ther describing in detail the deficiencies, he continued: "In a general way, too, the library is rapidly losing its relative rank among the college libraries of the country, and, within two or three · years, will be outstripped by Amherst, Mich- " 224 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976 igan, Princeton , and other institu- tions."10 The newly acquired research-oriented faculty needed a good library, and it was that same faculty that set out to achieve this goal. Actively supported by university presidents such as Gilman (Berkeley and Hopkins), Eliot ( Har- vard), and White (Cornell), faculty members began to inventory their re_. search needs, and book buying on an un- precedented scale began. The scramble to develop scholarly library collections on short notice brought about an all-out t effort to acquire small and large private collections of books and journals built by scholars in a wide range of fields. That method of acquisition, which began with such · collections as the Ebeling (American history, Harvard, 1818) and Neander (church history, Rochester, 1853) before the Civil War, became a major factor in the growth of the then emerging university libraries. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century the outflow of collections from Europe had become such a torrent as to arouse the European scholarly commu- nity. In Germany concerned scholars in the field of German language and lit- erature watched such major collections as the Scherer (Western Reserve, 1887), Zamcke (Cornell, 1893), Sauppe (Bryn Mawr, 1894), Hildebrand (Stanford, 1895), and Bechstein (Pennsylvania, 1896 )" make the one-way trip across the Atlantic. Articles and letters appeared in the press expressing alarm and call- ing for regulatioq of this traffic.11 Even in fields closer to home, such as Americana, it was the acquisition ( usu- ally by gift, but occasionally by pur- chase) of major private collections, such as the Jared Sparks (Cornell, 1872), John Carter Brown ( Brown, 1904), Hubert Howe Bancroft (Cali- fornia, 1905), William L. Clements (Michigan, 1922), Tracy McGregor (Virginia, 1939), and William Robert- son Coe (Yale, 1943), that added the depth to tum the recipient institutions into centers of research on the history of their own country. In addition to this, the libraries be- gan the effort to identify and ~ystemat­ ~ally acquire the -major scholarly sets and journals. These included the sig- nificant publications issued by govern- ments, such as parliamentary proceed- ings, statistical yearbooks, and other offi- cial publications; the journals of the European academies many of which dated back into the seventeenth century; the monumental published compilations of historical documents; and major edi- tions and standard literature in all branches of knowledge. Of prime im- portance were the scholarly and scien- tific journals reporting significant re- search output and, of course, the major bibliographical and reference tools. A great number of these books and jour- nals had to be imported from Europe and, from an early date on, the larger libraries established invaluable relation- ships with agents and booksellers, such I as the importing firms of F. W. Chris- tern and Gustav E. Stechert in New York, and overseas agents including Ed- ward G. Allen, B. F. Stevens & Brown, B. Quaritch, and H. Sotheran in Lon- don; F. A. Brockhaus, Gustav Fock, and Otto Harrassowitz in Leipzig; Em. Ter- quem in Paris; Martinus Nijhoff in The Hague; and Bjork & Borjesson in Stock- holm. Their ready expertise and tradi- tion of conscientious service were major factors in the development of the schol- arly collections that were beginning to take shape. By 1897, some forty libraries were using the services of the German agent Harrassowitz. By the outbreak of World War I that number had risen to 120.12 It is not difficult to imagine the effect of this tremendous buying activ- ity on availability and, of course,. prices of out-of-print and antiquarian books and journals. • • AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIP AND COLLECI'ION GROWTH American scholarship developed strongly in the last quarter of the nine- teenth century. Fifteen major scientific ) societies were founded between 1876 and 1905. Among these were the Amer- ican Chemical Society, the American Mathematical Society, the Modem Lan- guage Association, and the Geological Society of America. Increased speciali- zation ~n scientific and scholarly disci- plines changed publishing patterns. The traditional comprehensive treatment of a large subject field, the handbook, was replaced by the scholarly monograph de- scribing one aspect, fact, or figure in a critical fashion. The need to publish re- ports of research generated the found- ing of a large number of discipline- oriented journals, many of which were / sponsored by the newly founded learned societies. Among the most sig- nificant journals that came into being before the turn of the century were the Botanical Gazette ( 1875), American Historical Review ( 1895), PMLA ( 1884), Philosophical Review ( 1892), Physical Review ( 1893 ), and the Jour- nal of Political Economy ( 1892). The importance of systematically ac- quiring currently published material was only slowly recognized. Regular budgets did not really exist, and selec- tion by faculty was in most cases hap- hazard. Even at Harvard there was some skepticism regarding journals: "The val- ue of them is often in the main tem- porary, for the more important results are sure to appear sooner or later in the form of monographs. . . . We are con- stantly resisting the pressure to add new / ones to our list, yet in spite of ourselves we are spending over a third of our in- come for periodicals and the publica- tions of learned societies."ta Danton illustrated the quantitative development of collections by calculat- ing the mean annual growth of seven- Development of Collections I 225 teen university libraries: 14 185~ 1875-1,168 volumes 1875-1900-5,135 volumes 1900-1920-15,707 volumes With estimates of ·the accumulated world book production in 1908 at some 10,000,000 books and 70,000 journals, it becomes obvious that the share held by even the major American libraries was, to say the least, still rather modest.t5 Ex- amples have already been cited of user opinion on the quality of the collec- tions. In 1912 Richardson's review of the holdings of European historical sources showed unsatisfactory and very unevenly distributed collections. Of a total of 2,197 titles, Harvard reported having 1,600 (more than there were in all other libraries together), and it was busily acquiring the rest. Yale was add- ing rapidly too, but only ten other li- braries owned 10 percent of the Iist.t6 Even so, a survey of special collections published in the same year indicated pockets of remarkable research strength in a number of university as well as public libraries.t7 University library collections by 1910 consisted of miscellaneous gifts, books bought in support of classroom teach- ing, collections of research materials, and special collections. The diHerence in quality between the libraries was, of course, determined by the mixture of these elements. The universities with the strongest graduate programs had de- I veloped the strongest libraries, and that 1 early start has kept almost all of those libraries ranked among the best in the country. SELECI'ION POLICIES Money has always been the ultimate determining factor in the development of library collections, but planning con- cepts and selection practices are of al- most equal importance. It is not surpris- ing that in the transition period few j 226 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976 clear goals were set. In the established European tradition the concept of selec- tivity was held high. Only · the "good" books and journals were allowed to be- come part of the collection. However, there has never been general agreement on what constitutes quality. Europeans emphasized comprehensiveness within the well-bounded realm of their concept of solid research materials. American librarians, on the other hand, from an early date regarded almost all printed material as potentially- useful for re- search and, therefore, favored its gath- ering and retention. There has been, and continues to be, running debate on this subject, with the result that in practice no real standards of selection have been applied to the book collections. It has thus been found virtually impossible to design a collec- tion development plan, and a consid- erable discrepancy has developed be- · tween what might potentially be ac- quired and what actually was brought into the library. The discussion on the desirability of comprehensiveness led to the completely unfounded yet often re- curring statement that university li- braries can no longer buy all the books they need. In fact, at no time in Amer- ican library history, including the 1960s, was it ever the case that the research li- braries of the country could satisfy their appetite for books. An important factor in the shaping of the collections was the almost com- plete control by the university faculties of book selection and the allocation of book budgets. Because of the varying specialized interests of faculty mem- bers, it has always proved difficult to bal- ance a program of buying in support of immediate curricular needs with syste- matic long-range development of the collections of research tools. Immediate needs have tended to receive the lion's share of attention in those institutions with large numbers of students. Faculty involvement in library affairs has as- sumed an endless variety · of formats, but by 1910 most institutions were gov- -"' erned by a library board, which exer- •~ fcised control over the book budget. The available funds were usually allocated to a£_~demic depa_rtments, and members 'f> of the aepartments were responsible for making purchasing suggestions. The li- ~ brarian' s role was to approve and place th$ orders, or, at best;l:o~ourageor • discourage faculty members. . -. Only at the largest institutions, nota- bly Harvard and Yale, was the library · ~ staff seriously involved in the selection ,t(. process, and there can be little doubt that this participation contributed sub- '1L stantially to the successful collection de- velopment programs at those universi- ]' ties. Yale librarian James T. Babb stated: "At Yale the Librarian has al- ~.._ ways controlled the book funds and ,...., they have not been allocated to the ,. teaching departments. This makes for a more consistent acquisitions policy."18 · ~ DECENTRALIZATION AND CENTRALIZATION Another factor that influenced the f. book selection process was the decentral- "' ization of most university library col- \ lections. Following the example of the German institutes, the emerging uni- versities of the nineteenth century de- veloped a number-or-departmental li- braries, many of them quite indepen- • dent from the university library.19 At Johns Hopkins and Chicago especially .., these departmental collections for some ~ time held the most important library re- sources of the university. Since selec- ~ tion and buying were not coordinated, much duplication occurred, while cost- + ly purchases frequently could not be '- made because the funds were broken up into many small amounts. The process of centralization has sev- " eral aspects, including centralized ad- ministrative control, centralized process- ~ ing (acquisitions and cataloging), and ~ ,· the physical merger of collections. A j campuswide union catalog has usually f been one of the early benefits resulting , ..;> from centralized control, and in most cases this has been followed by at least some degree of centralized ordering and ..., cataloging. Centralized administrative control has ""' not been achieved easily within the ., larger and more complex institutions. At Harvard an abortive attempt was made in 1880 'by Justin Winsor to cen-l tralize acquisition and cataloging, but I it failed as a result of the absence of effective administrative control. Har- vard's long tradition of separate financ- ing, under the famous principle of ~·ev- ' ery tub on its own bottom," led to a pro- liferation of libraries and to the devel- .., opment of each along independent lines. Only with the appointment in ~ 1910 of Archibald Cary Coolidge to the .f. newly created post of director of the university library was a measure of co- ordination gradually achieved. At Chicago central control over de- partmental libraries dates from the ap- ~ pointment of Ernest D. Burton as the first director of libraries in 1910, while • at Berkeley a substantial measure of ( central authority was gained in 1911 by librarian Joseph C. Rowell and associ- ate librarian Harold L. Leupp, with the backing of university president Benja- ~ min Ide Wheeler. On the other hand it ~ was not until 1961 that direction of the libraries of the endowed and state-sup- ~ ported colleges of Cornell was central- ized under director of libraries Stephen A. McCarthy. The persistence of departmental li- braries can be credited in part to a wide- spread acceptance of the idea that the o~o needs of particular groups of students and scholars can best be served by locat- ing · specialized library collections in ' ;. close proximity to the departmental classrooms and laboratories. In part, ,., however, they have developed as a re- + sponse to the recurrent overcrowding that seems to be the inevitable lot of Development of Collections I 221 growing book collections. Conversely, the erection of major li- brary buildings has usually resulted in a consolidation of resources and ser- vices. In 1927 Chicago's associate librar- ian J. C. M. Hanson wrote: In 1902 the majority of the Faculty evidently favored a further develop- ment of the departmental system to which they had been accustomed since 1892. However, the situation has changed since then. Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Cornell, and other univer- sities here and abroad have demon- strated or are demonstrating the fact that the modern central library is in a position, not only to provide most of the advantages of the departmental system, but to improve on them; to fur- nish better service at less cost, better care and supervision of books, better equipment, more and better reference books, and, last but not least, oppor- tunities for that broadening influence which comes from contact with mem- bers of departments other than one's own.20 The decision to centralize the control of library operations has marked a turn- ing point in the history of each academ- ic library. It is almost unanimously agreed that administrative and later physical consolidation of library re- sources and services has increased effi- ciency in the expenditure of book funds and in processing costs and has greatly improved the utility of the uni- versity library as a research instrument. CooPERATION AND CoMPETITION From the tum of the century to date, the topic of cooperation between li- braries in the development of their col- lections has been on the minds of uni- versity administrators and librarians. Princeton librarian E. C. Richardson made a strong plea in 1899 for a nation- al lending library to alleviate the strug- les of the nation's libraries in their ef:. fort to .. cover the whole ground."21 An j 228 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976 even stronger identification of the prob- lem of competition was made by Guy Stanton Ford in 1912: At present, too many universities are buying without due reference to the neighboring collections. Four or five universities within a radius of a hun- dred to two hundred miles of each other in both eastern and middle west- em sections are bidding against each other, paying higher and higher prices for rarely used sets of which one or two in a section would by the courtesy of inter-library loans supply all needs. . . . I hesitate to name the universities whose libraries-irrespective of their faculties-furnish unrivaled facilities for studying Western history; the list of these, strong in the pamphlet and other source material of the French Revolution, is equally extensive. The next decade will see us bidding and building against each other for South American and Oriental history, pol- itics and literature-not a selected country or period or phase-but all South American and the whole Ori- ent.22 That was, of course, an administra- tor's point of view. Some local coopera- tive arrangements did work successfully. The joint approach by the University of Wisconsin Library and the State His- torical Society Library has certainly been eHective. The same is true for the coordination of selection between the University of Chicago, the John Crerar, and the Newberry libraries. However, faculty pressure to develop research re- sources locally prevailed; and, paradox- / ically, the real strength of most of the research libraries is based on the prin- ciple of competition. EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY ACIDEVEMENTS Table 1 at the end of this article il- lustrates the steady growth of major university library collections during the first four decades of this century, with World War I understandably causing serious interruptions. The most remark- able experience for university libraries during the war was the expression of mutual faith between them and Ger- man booksellers. In the full knowl- edge that the war would come to an end sooner or later, libraries were reserving and holding book funds to pay for the materials missed during the war years. Booksellers, unable to ship materials to library customers overseas, were holding periodical issues for delivery (and pay- ment) later. Libraries which were not so fortunate in their experi-ences, of course, had a lot of catching up when the war ended. In general, higher education, gradu- ate education, and especially scientific research grew rapidly. The number of students kept increasing, and the pres- 1 sure on university libraries was strongly felt. By 1925 the number of institutions seriously involved in graduate educa- tion had risen to forty, and many more L schools oHered master's programs. A substantial study of the situation in college and university libraries was prepared for the Association of Amer- ican Universities in 1926.23 Eighteen li- braries were surveyed, a representative sample of older and newer institutions. It seems useful to pay attention to some of that survey's findings. The format of graduate education, notably the re- quirements for the Ph.D. degree, had crystallized, but there was a consistent pattern of faculty dissatisfaction with library collections in those institutions where graduate programs were relative- ly new. Libraries always trailed behind, and considerable frustration was report- ed from both sides. The more central role that the library was playing in high- er education was reinforced by drastic changes in the methods for teaching un- ( dergraduates. The textbook was making room for the reading list; and the intro- duction of honors programs required a much broader choice of book and periodical collections. The division of ~ I loyalties between support for teaching / collections and for research collections ' characterized collection development in I almost all the libraries surveyed. It is known that in many libraries very large numbers of the additions are du- plicates for the reserved readings of undergraduates. It is also known that faculty members frequently mentioned the inadequacy of library resources for their researchers as well as those of their graduate students. . . . The in- adequacies are due in some instances to a lack of funds but in others they result from the handling of purchases in a manner that is not designed to make readily possible the securing of the basic materials necessary for re- search.24 The allocation of funds to academic departments was identified as the main stumbling block. Only in a few cases, notably at Illinois, was a large amount of money available to the graduate school for the strengthening of printed resources for research. Once again, the larger, well-established universities ex- perienced greater support for the con- tinued development of the research col- lections . because of faculty efforts. But as libraries grew larger, their ability (and sometimes interest) in developing special research resources diminished. "Evidence was found that in some in- stances the special collections had been established because of the indifference of the general library to the research and instructional needs of certain phases of university work."25 The interesting paradox, so charac- teristic of the large university library, is raised when the report recognized the value of these special collections, of government documents, report litera- ture, archives, etc., but warned sharply that they should not develop without careful consideration of future growth, budget, staffing, and handling. c'When ventures of this type are undertaken, the librarian and other administrative offi- cers of the college and university should Development of Collections I 229 be taken into the counsels from the be- ginning."26 The more immediate problems of col- lection development in university librar- ies in 1926 clustered around an increas- · ing volume of publication, rapidly ris- ing prices, and a decreasing availability of older materials. In addition, atten- 1 tion was directed to c'the much larger i number of periodicals that are available ' and that members of the faculty con- sider essential to successful conduct of their work. Many instances were found in which science departments were obliged to use all of their allotment for library purposes to purchase the period- ical literature that was regarded as nec- essary for the work of the depart- ment."27 Prices for a list of 633 periodicals re- ceived at Cornell increased 181.9 per- cent between 1910 and 1925.28 The con- tinuous buying of backsets of period- icals virtually deplete the market in Europe as well as in the U.S.29 What did come on the market consequently be- came more and more expensive. De- spite shortcomings and frustrations, sig- nificant additions were made to the na- tion's researph libraries. An ALA survey of 1927 shows approximately 4,500 spe- cial collections. When compared with earlier surveys, there are represented a much wider variety of subject fields and a greater geographical spread. 80 THE DEPRESSION YEARS William Warner Bishop wrote: "To anyone attempting review of the history of American libraries as a group it is apparent that their growth has been al- most entirely individual, unplanned with reference to any other library or group of libraries."31 This observation is certainly valid for the development of the collections in university libraries during the years of economic depression in the 1930s. State by state, institution by institu- tion, the experience was different. More 230 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976 and more students came to the univer- sities, more and more Ph.D.s were awarded. In most libraries acquisitions rates increased, but not enough to keep up with rising demands. "Extended and improved as they have been, the univer- f sity libraries cannot keep pace with the demands made upon them by the ever swelling miscellaneous student body."32 In addition, growth of research and teaching in the social sciences put new demands on libraries. The increased published output of primary data by government agencies required special at- tention. Virtually all the major libraries showed a decline in growth rate during the period between 1930 and 1933, but soon afterward the number of volumes acquired increased again. 33 In the last decade before World War II the collections in the five oldest uni- versity libraries grew an average of 42.3 percent; the five youngest increased by 93.6 percent, a clear indication of the strong pressure on those libraries to pro- vide basic resources for the growing graduate programs. Several institutions suffered severely during that period. Cornell and Johns Hopkins, of the old- er libraries, were forced to reduce their acquisitions rate. The rank order in size, deceptive as that may be, changed dra- matically as a result of uneven funding. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate some of these differences for a selected group of in- stitutions. The application of microfilm tech- { nology had far-reaching consequences for research libraries during this period. It opened up research resources not previously available in individual insti- tutions or, for that matter, in the coun- try. Now manuscript materials and early printed as well as ephemeral material could readily be added to coiiections·; and although not all librarians and pro- fessors were easily convinced, the active research community jumped at the op- portunity. "There is very little question that photographic copying, whether by photostat for short articles or by film for longer ones and for books, is going to be the solution to many of the dif- ficulties involved in building up compe- tent research materials in our librar- ies."34 WoRLD WAR II The independent and competitive de- velopment of university library coiiec- tions has been criticized repeatedly for its waste of financial resources.36 An- other unfortunate dimension of this lack of national planning became ap- parent at the outbreak of World War II. The stepped-up research efforts, espe- cially in war technology, revealed that a substantial number of important sci- entific books and journals from abroad had never been acquired by any of America's libraries. Renewed acquisi- tions efforts got under way, but when the Nether lands was occupied by Ger- many in May 1940, the supply stopped. "Until the American entry into the War, many American libraries, working through a Joint Committee on Importa- tions, which was particularly effective in dealing with British censorship, man- aged to obtain reasonably good coverage of European and Japanese journals."36 Sometimes the British would hold up shipments for considerable periods. In 1941 the British released, only after in- tense negotiation, $250,000 worth of materials from Europe destined for nongovernmental libraries. The Library of Congress was authorized to purchase these materials for distribution, mark- ing the first of a long series of actions by that agency in the procurement of foreign materials for research libraries. Efforts to supply the various war agen- cies with needed books and journals were quite successful, through the work of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Acquisition of Foreign Publica- tions.37 Some of the material thus ac- quired reached university libraries in the form of photocopy or microfilm. "' ' 4, ·" " '" . 3, /UU u IV 2, 'n" n In 1,.,. '" . . ~ 1--1--1....- ~ .... I--~ 1876 Source: See Table 1. COLLECTION GROWTH OF SEVEN UNNERSITY LIBRARIES ~ 1....- (1) Yale (2) Berkeley (3) Cornell (4) Texas (5) Wisconsin (6) Southern illinois (7) SUNY -Stony Brook /~ / / v ,I v v v v 1..--~ t:;:: P"' _v v v ..... v v --j....--t:: ~ ......... v -~ ~ ~ v~-"" -V v I,..- I,..- ..... v v 1-- -_j.....-1-- - 1--~ 1900 1910 1920 Year 1930 Fig. 1 J I 7 II --~ p / v I/ ..... v I/ v L..,....- v ..... v 1- 1940 Collection Growth of Seven University Libraries . [/ J v (1) h2 .... v I /"" v I I I J (3 7 I 1/ f/ J I I I I I l 1/ II I /7 1\"% 1/ I 1 J I I J IV IV 1/ J llj (5) 1/1/ /V / / /v /~/ ~ l'l ~ ~ r.z / )·'i ~v / r'{6) r/ ~v / /v/ / v / 1/ I ,I ..... v v / 1'7) v v ..,.......v /v ..,v I/ 1--~ _v 1950 1961 1971 1975 9 .n 8 .n 7 •n 6 " -c ~ -c '"' ell ~ 5 < •n a) ~ 41 '"' bO ~ 4 1n 3 •n 2 " v ,n 0 1876 I ! Source: See Table 1. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PH.D. DEGREES AWARDED AT SEVEN UNIVERSITIES (1) Yale (2) Berkeley (3) Cornell (4) Texas (5) Wisconsin (6) Southern Illinois (7) SUNY-Stony Brook : / / ~ ~ I-- ~~ , ~ ~ ~ Afl" / ..-~ ~ ~ ~ _v ~ -- ..-f-""' 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Year Fig. 2 Ph.D. Degrees Awarded at Seven Universities .... ,._ .. l- :or:- 4- I\ (5 I '\ II II'... I I I~ I I II I Ill I II I I 1?. I I I ''-. I! v ~ ~ I I I I /I I I _.....v ;/ I I -f.--: / 1-' v I I& / (1 / v Jv; / / )I' II ~ -f.-;: ~~- I ~ " / I ./ / v .......... \0 /"" l,....- _...., ~ ~ -~I'" 1950 1961 1971 1976 ~ I 1' >. ~ 1 i- r: But researchers needed not only war- time publications; there was a sharp rise in demand for backsets of significant German and other European scientific publications. With the supply lines com- pletely cut off, various reprint programs were started in 1943 under the auspices of the Alien Property Custodian. These programs eventually provided current as well as back issues of 116 periodical titles and some 700 books from enemy countries.38 Virtually all titles were in the sciences. The same program pro- pelled several new companies into the mainstream of library suppliers. Among these were Kraus Reprint, Johnson Re- print, and University Microfilms. In the same year, 1943, the Library of Congress was permitted to send a repre- sentative behind the troops in Africa and Italy and later in France to procure whatever materials were available. This, of course, did not help university li- braries very much. The model, however, led to the Cooperative Acquisitions . Project in 1945. The Library of Con- :1 gress, with appropriate help from other government agencies, acted as European agent in purchasing wartime materials in many different countries. In addition, confiscated Nazi collections, printed war propaganda, and military '1oof' were made available. A carefully worked out scheme of subject responsibilities and regional priorities allowed some 130 li- braries to receive wartime imprints at only nominal cost. In total, over two million pieces were distributed, with the largest part being received by the Li- brary of Congress, New York Public Li- brary, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Illinois, California, and Chicago.s9 + 1 An especially successful accomplish- ment of the project was the negotiated release from Russian authorities of large quantities of serial issues held for American libraries by Leipzig publishers and booksellers. "This remarkable ac- complishment, together with the general work of the project, made the World Development of Collections I 233 War II period one of the strongest, rather than one of the weakest periods in the holdings of American research libraries."'0 THE PosTWAR PEru:oo There is a more than adequate and easily accessible literature describing the causes and effects, the facts and figures of the spectacular rise in American higher education after World War II and likewise of the apparent decline/ during the past few years. In many ways the table at the end of this article dem- onstrates these fluctuations. What is of interest here and has not as yet been so well covered is an analysis of the acqui- sitions of university libraries during the last quarter century. Such an analysis, however, is difficult because there is no satisfactory descriptive model for uni- versity library coll.ections and their de- velopment. Since the 1930s greater emphasis has been placed on current coverage of the scholarly book and journal production, as well as on the acquisition of official and semiofficial publications. Strong faculty involvement in the selection over a long period of years made the collections of most of the libraries clearly reflect the strengths as well as the weaknesses of American scholarship. Prior to World War II this tradition was very much based on the Western European and Anglo-American experi- ence. Other than the traditional classi: cal studies of the ancient cultures in the Near and Far East, the rest of the world was largely viewed from the standpoint of European expansion. As a result, university libraries were almost wholly dominated by Western publica- tions. The lack of information on non- Western areas became acute during World War II, when America's military and political efforts suddenly developed on a global scale. The demand forma- terials with current economic, geograph- ic, linguistic, political, anthropological, I 234 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976 and sociological information on varied cultures and countries in Mrica and Asia rose rapidly. Area Study Programs American power around the world generated demands for trained person- nel in the postwar era, and the univer- sities responded with vigor to the chal- lenge. Area programs were organized at all major universities. With substantial help from the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and lately Mellon foundations, as well as from the government through the National Defense Education Act, professors and librarians began build- ing collections in new fields. Chinese and Japanese books and journals were rapidly acquired, with emphasis on vernacular language materials. The cold war and especially Sputnik in 1957 stimulated the development of Russian language collections. Latin American in- terest increased; South Asia, South East Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South Eastern Europe ·an required sub- stantial attention. There were numerous selection, acquisition, and cataloging problems to overcome, and large invest- ments in human resources became nec- essary to operate these library programs. A very substantial part of the growth of the large research libraries may be attributed to area . program-related ac- quisitions. The need for comprehen- sive coverage was obvious; the :resources in countries such as China and Russia were not accessible to American schol- ars. In many other non-Western coun- tries, no library programs for collecting and preserving printed materials existed at all. Within a very short period of time, America's universities developed library resources of unique depth and scope. Like earlier library developments, J however, independence and competition L were essential motivators. Only recently have the funding agencies attempted to concentrate their support on the most successful programs. Throughout the postwar period the Library of Congress has shared its ex- perience and expertise with other librar- ies. Using imaginative legislation, the Library of Congress started in 1962 a cooperative acquisitions program for India and Egypt under Public Law 480. 41 At various times the program op- erated in Israel, Pakistan,- Ceylon, In- donesia, Poland, and Yugoslavia, de- pending on available funds. Some of these publicly funded programs have been followed by joint acquisitions pro- grams in which individual libraries pay for their share. Some forty university libraries share in one or more of these programs. Various other cooperative acquisitions programs have been or are effective. The commercially operated Latin American program was terminated in 1974,42 but the Center for Chinese Research Ma- terials, operated by the Association of Research Libraries, continues to be most effective in reproducing and distributing scarce materials. Efforts to coordinate the development of the various area programs nationally by "dividing up the world" among major universities have, however, failed. Only the natural se- lection through survival seems effective in eliminating weaker programs. Fears are increasingly being expressed that the leading academic libraries will not be able to maintain the strength of their unique resources, not only because of diminished outside support but because of fiscal problems within universities themselves.43 As of this time, no solu- tion is in sight. European Materials Surprisingly enough, interest in Eu- rope has not developed in the same way. Traditional studies in history, literature, and the arts have continued to grow vig- orously, but until recently there has been no substantial organized interest in the study of modern European so- cieties. As a result, academic libraries t_ ,f. - + .. have not made as much of an effort to acquire the sociological, political, and economic literature originating outside the traditional publishing channels. Al- though a serious survey is long overdue, there is every indication that a large part of this "grey literature" has not been acquired systematically by any of this country's research libraries, with the possible exception of the Hoover In- stitution at Stanford University. The frustrating experience with Eu- ropean publications during World War II led to the much heralded beginning of the Farmington Plan in 1948. De- signed with severe limitations as to cov- erage, very complex distribution of sub- ject assignments among libraries, and the absence of an adequate control mechanism, the Farmington Plan in re- ality served little more than a symbolic purpose.44 Soon after the war was over, univer- sity libraries reestablished relationships with European dealers, and before long, large selections of "trade published" books and journals were being acquired. Shortly after 1960 many of the larger libraries established blanket order pro- 1 grams with European agents. Coverage f of these programs has been refined and broadened since the Library of Con- gress set up acquisitions offices in 1965 under the National Program for Acqui- sitions and Cataloging. During the past few years Europe has once again emerged as an academic "problem" area, and without doubt we shall soon see re- newed attention given to related library acquisitions. Ironically, language study require- ments in · American universities were steadily lowered during the rise of American political and military power abroad and the dominance of American scholarship in modern social science dis- ciplines. With the apparent decline of that influence in the late 1960s, there has been a visible increase in the quan- Development of Collections I 235 tity of research publication in other languages . Publication Rates and Higher Education In many of the large university li- braries more than 60 percent of acquisi- tions have come from abroad.45 World book production rose from an estimated 184,000 volumes in 193746 to 561,000 in 1972.47 U.S. book production also tripled: 10,640 in 1939 and 30,000 in 1974.48 The output of American univer- sity presses, to a certain extent an indi- cator of scholarly book production, rose from 727 titles in 1948 to 1,846 in 1974.49 But clearly, the growth of · the collections in university libraries has gone well beyond the increase in publi- cation of new titles. The dramatic rise in the number of students during the past twenty-five years has required the provision of large numbers of multiple copies, as well as numerous other purchases in support of the teaching programs. Recognizing the very different needs of graduate stu- dents and research faculty on the one hand and undergraduates on the other, many universities followed Harvard's example in establishing separate under- graduate libraries. The experience at other institutions, such as Michigan and Cornell, brought about a unique collab- orative effort of faculty members and librarians in conceptualizing the "ideal" college collection. This effort led ulti- mately to publication of the 'selection guide for three new campuses of the University of California.so The publi- cation of this list has had a notable im- pact on the development of academic library collections, and it was quickly raised to "Bible" status. Meanwhile, the spread of the number of universities offering Ph.D. degrees created a market large enough for com- mercial republication of large numbers of scholarly and scientific journals, as 1 well as of individual books. Library 1 236 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976 budget increases, because of intense fac- ulty pressure to make up for past de- ficiencies or to develop collections in fields not previously touched, resulted in a visible expansion of the market. A relatively small group of enterprising publishers and booksellers, domestic as well as foreign, jumped at this oppor- tunity, and their offerings quickly em- phasized the apparent shortcomings of the collections. This spiral movement of demand and supply was reinforced by the large sums of money made avail- 1 able to libraries under the Higher Edu- l cation Act of 1965. Not only had a good number of the standard sources become available again, but the availability of previously in- accessible materials, such as newspapers, historical archives, and complete collec- tions of early American and early Eng- lish books, greatly improved the research r r~sources of scholarly libraries. Much of this expansion was through publica- tion in microform. The same format of publishing assisted in solving prob- lems of space and physical deterioration of printed books and journals. New Selection Practices Recognizing the need for coordinated and systematic development of the col- lections, enlightened faculties at many universities increasingly relied on li- brarians to guide the selection process. A generation of uniquely capable bib- liographers such as Donald Wing at Yale, Felix Reichmann at Cornell, Ru- dolf Hirsch at Pennsylvania, and Elmer Grieder at Stanford made their mark. By the 1960s the scope and size of the selection process had grown well beyond the capabilities of part-time faculty se- lectors, and one by one each of the larger libraries appointed an in-house book selection staff. The subject bibli- ographer arrived on the scene, combin- ing selection responsibilities with li- brary-faculty liaison. Although individ- ual faculty members have continued to exert influence in development of col- lections, more and more the daily selec- tion tasks were transferred to the li- brary. • The high acquisition rate of current- ly published materials led to novel se- lection techniques. The imaginative and enterprising bookseller Richard Abel ex- r panded the old concept of the approval plan to a comprehensive level in various subject categories. As other booksellers followed suit, many university libraries were induced to sign up with one plan or another. The effectiveness of such ap- proval plans was highest in libraries that utilized the service as a means of identi- fying appropriate books to review for selection. When such screening had to be applied in the face of decreasing purchasing power in the 1970s, prob- lems arose, and with the financial de- mise of the Richard Abel Company in 1974 the popularity of approval plans dropped significantly. Nevertheless, new standards of service by American book- sellers to academic libraries had been set. Before World War II the publishing of scholarly and scientific periodicals was largely in the hands of learned so- cieties or other not-for-profit agencies. The explosion in the production of sci- entific information brought a prolifera- tion of new journals. The ready market attracted commercial publishers into the field, and the share of the book funds allocated for periodical subscriptions by the university libraries began to rise rapidly during the latter 1960s. In re- cent years that share has increased even more dramatically, as the result of in- flation and shifts in international cur- rency exchange rates. At present, bal- anced collection development plans are being seriously disrupted, and libraries have been forced either to sharply re- Jduce their subscription lists or to de- crease their book purchases dispropor- rtionately.51 'r'- Cooperative Programs We have already alluded to the fail- ure of attempts at establishing working agreements on divided collection devel- opment responsibilities among the ma- jor research libraries. Several coopera- tive programs have been successful, however. Under the auspices of the As- sociation of Research Libraries, Amer- ican doctoral dissertations have been made widely accessible through an ex- tensive program of microfilming by University Microfilms and the provision of comprehensive bibliographical tools. Several collecting programs at the Cen- ter for Research Libraries, notably those involving foreign doctoral dis- sertations, foreign newspapers, state -documents, and large microform proj- ects, have not only allowed individual libraries selectively to reduce their cov- erage but, more importantly, have pro- vided a reliable national resource. Special Resources Major research resources in the form of various special collections of rare books, manuscripts, and archives have been developed during the past twenty- five years. Harvard, Yale, and Indiana, among others, have built special facil- ities, thereby increasing service as well as visibility. Endowments, alumni, and "friends" are the main sources of fund- ing for these activities in most cases. Many of the newer university libraries have successfully developed collections of contemporary authors; other librar- ies have added archival collections of social, political, or historical signifi- cance. The most spectacular acquisitions program has been the building of the Humanities Research Center at the Uni- versity of Texas. Its creation proved that, even in a market of limited sup- ply, the combination of determination and a liberal supply of funds can still lead to the development of truly great research collections. Development of Collections I 237 CoNCLUSION Good scholars need good libraries, and good libraries attract good scholars. This interaction is the dominant theme in the story of American university libraries. With very few exceptions the prominent graduate programs at the turn of the century created the outstanding library collections of that time. Twenty-five years later, a review of perceived quality in graduate education closely correlated with the numerical ranking of the li- brary collections.52 (This correlation, it should be noted, applies principally to studies in the humanities and social sci- ences, and the academic prominence at that time of institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technol- ogy does not correlate strongly with the size of their collections.) A more sophisticated evaluation of graduate schools took place in 1965. sa Once again it was found the top twenty- five humanities and social science pro- grams are located at the universities that have the largest book collections, al- though the relative ranking in individ- ual subject fields does not necessarily match the overall strength of the respec- tive libraries. The notable exceptions in this listing are the Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, both of which are located in im- mediate proximity to excellent research library collections. The collections of American univer- sity libraries have been built with vision, ambition, knowledge, dedication, and large amounts of money. The influence of pacesetters has been great, yet each university library reflects very much the particular academic history of its insti- tution and especially the influence of a relatively small number of scholars and librarians. On balance, it has always been the scholar who provided the im- petus; the librarian has made it possible. State Institution (Year founded) Alabama Auburn . . . .. . (1856) Alabama . . ... (1831) Alaska Alaska . ..... . (1915) Arizona Arizona State . (1885) Arizona ••••• 0 (1885) Arkansas Arkansas . .. . . (1871) California Cal. Inst. Tech. (1891) Southern Cal. . (1879) Stanford ... . . . (1885) U. C. Berkeley . (1868) Davis . . . . . . (1908) Los Angeles . ( 1887) Riverside .. . (1907) San Diego .. (1912) Santa Barbara (1891) Colorado Colorado State . (1870) Colorado (1861) Denver . . . .... (1864) Connecticut Connecticut . . . (1881) Yale • • 0 •••••• (1701) Delaware Delaware •• 0 •• ( 1743) District of Columbia Catholic . . . . . . (1887) I TABLE 1 LmRARY HoLDINGs (IN THousANDs OF VoLuMES) oF AND PH.D. DEGREES AwARDED BY MAJOR AMERICAN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES, 1876-1975. 1876 I 1900 1910 I 1920 I 1930 I 1940 I 1950 1961 I 1971 I 1975 I Vols. PhD I Vols.l PhD Vols.l PhD I Vols. PhD I Vols.l PhD I Vols.l PhD I Vols.l PhD Vols. PhD I Vols.l PhD I Vols. PhD 3 13 23 47 81 150 298 16 92 733 6 25 30 34 75 250 357 694 29 748 236 1051 83 11 32 59 4 304 12 358 14 26 105 412 3 151 955 124 5 15 52 85 138 2 230 2 343 28 245 1723 219 1 15 14 35 98 161 271 459 29 684 115 752 3 9 1 25 18 53 30 75 70 129 73 238 117 293 15 40 127 8 274 33 566 101 963 139 1452 468 1670 328 65 . 2 174 5 320 6 530 41 773 42 1092 166 1691 219 3584 580 4092 515 14 99 2 248 6 479 23 756 83 1081 122 1665 244 2596 369 4009 798 4649 747 23 54 66 208 38 909 179 1234 225 138 347 762 79 1568 159 3038 572 3519 487 5 10 14 150 643 109 17 24 45 813 126 1102 167 4 15 36 51 149 844 36 1126 130 11 40 32 64 96 142 210 6 768 129 935 143 26 52 122 221 2 307 13 706 37 722 78 1401 249 1793 263 12 58 94 263 9 375 40 565 94 802 11 16 23 251 132 423 34 808 157 1400 193 100 309 26 575 27 1250 28 1983 83 2219 113 39,79 174 4478 238 5829 338 6618 348 7 14 17 27 41 78 150 328 16 766 949 31 40 3 123 5 300 23 286 45 405 81 594 85 854 210 968 _,~~~--r--~r ____ ~------~--· ~~--*~------ .. George Washington . (1821) 5 15 86 109 1 240 12 352 541 76 667 Georgetown ... (1789) 34 79 2 108 140 140 4 259 9 203 35 470 26 669 60 867 85 Howard ...... (1867) 10 14 26 38 54 128 267 376 657 837 34 Florida Florida State . . (1857) 3 12 36 83 231 568 64 916 218 1126 336 Florida : .. ... . (1853) 12 35 92 109 1 407 20 917 102 1487 273 1756 292 Miami .. .. . ... (1925) 27 232 585 953 56 1072 - Georgia Atlanta ..... .. (1865) 4 11 12 15 18 65 105 249 2 Emory .. . .. . . (1836) 9 20 30 50 115 178 332 710 24 966 76 1150 69 Georgia • 0 ••••• (1785) 19 30 36 66 66 146 2 254 1 458 4 1158 255 1522 282 Hawaii Hawaii .. .... . (1907) 21 50 Ill 227 348 7 1130 89 1379 Idaho Idaho ........ (1889) 4 22 44 91 93 129 213 727 57 828 Illinois Chicago ... ... (1891) 303 43 500 45 599 65 915 186 1300 163 1797 295 2142 209 3090 418 3622 439 Illinois . . . . . . . ( 1867) 11 47 157 12 461 29 836 70 1217 130 2383 226 3383 409 4609 824 5509 747 Northern Illinois ( 1895) 12 12 25 32 50 74 156 604 30 749 Northwestern . . ( 1851) 28 70 142 193 280 23 637 58 1013 109 1481 140 2364 276 2474 369 Southern Illinois (1874) 2 15 20 35 31 48 124 517 1403 166 1847 172 Indiana Indiana ••• 0. 0 ( 1820) 7 35 77 134 6 218 19 345 11 796 68 1414 170 2341 380 3891 588 Notre Dame .. (1842) 20 52 60 103 l 143 4 195 12 263 21 550 33 1093 147 1220 145 Purdue . ..... . (1865) 1 13 29 53 110 4 154 28 286 138 535 230 964 474 1231 367 Iowa Iowa State ... (1858) 5 14 31 77 2 180 27 297 53 413 101 518 151 831 314 1063 207 Iowa ... . .... . (1847) 7 60 80 4 162 11 366 33 473 86 633 151 1056 147 1584 388 1879 321 Kansas Kansas State .. (1863) 2 21 36 68 96 125 2 160 11 255 33 600 115 716 Kansas ..... .. (1863) 2 33 76 3 132 1 232 11 320 78 424 23 925 79 1568 261 1799 287 Kentucky Kentucky . .... (1865) 13 18 23 41 116 2 280 7 497 17 925 35 1153 135 1426 151 Louisiana Louisiana State ( 1860) 11 21 30 50 77 264 25 395 28 966 81 1348 205 1538 148 Tulane . . . . . . . (1834) 25 1 47 82 141 1 242 2 342 11 743 22 1071 133 1217 84 1876 1900 1910 I 1920 I 1930 1940 I 1950 I 1961 1971 1975 State Vols. l PhD Vols.l PhD PhD I Vols.l PhD I Vols.l PhD Vols.l PhD I Vols.l PhD Vols.l PhD Vols.l PhD Vols.l PhD Institution (Year founded) Vols. ~------------- Maine Maine .... .. . (1865) 3 24 41 68 84 179 233 319 437 23 497 Maryland Johns Hopkins . (1876) 5 194 35 142 25 225 31 376 64 567 65 839 84 1185 85 2085 194 2044 214 Maryland ..... (1807) 1 3 10 8 1 66 3 142 18 239 36 458 91 1049 346 1465 336 Massachusetts Amherst . .. ... (1821) 37 72 80 125 162 226 279 348 449 506 Boston College ( 1863) 9 31 125 5 175 3 232 541 828 56 909 Boston U niv. (1839') 7 25 2 122 6 58 142 4 207 20 319 48 521 138 831 220 1127 266 Brandeis .. .. .. (1948) 25 234 18 455 99 500 Clark •• •••• • 0 ( 1887) 18 8 55 14 95 11 126 12 162 6 200 27 233 19 282 26 336 Harvard . . .... (1636) 160 5 976 35 850 41 2028 49 2971 105 4159 153 5397 527 6848 344 8451 613 9206 477 U. Mass. Amherst (1863) 1 21 32 61 84 3 126 12 11 239 795 262 1362 337 MIT . .... . ... (1859) 3 64 86 4 140 5 260 365 64 450 126 745 213 1314 399 1573 312 Michigan Michigan State ( 1855) 4 23 31 45 75 4 152 10 416 68 825 200 1759 733 2102 603 Michigan . . . . . ( 1817) 30 160 4 270 9 432 14 784 81 1098 141 1415 194 2912 351 4200 784 4668 722 Wayne State . . ( 1868) 11 13 50 168 379 754 52 1367 208 1610 220 Minnesota Minnesota .. .. (1851) 13 60 3 145 300 1 654 67 1088 113 1528 154 2020 218 3112 615 3559 538 Mississippi Mississippi •• 0 0 (1844) 7 17 26 31 50 77 151 336 2 464 68 519 Missouri Missouri .. ... . (1839) 13 36 110 2 223 2 410 14 395 24 605 65 1043 90 1589 158 1793 227 St. Louis ..... (1818) 22 50 60 17 75 140 5 374 8 437 24 481 47 710 151 Washington u. (1853) 2 5 2 109 176 3 295 10 409 4 527 45 821 37 1421 154 1545 162 Montana Montana •• • 0. (1893) 7 16 46 183 212 303 561 32 676 Nebraska Nebraska . . .. . (1869) 2 53 90 1 147 3 256 11 353 471 690 77 976 223 1208 205 Nevada Nevada .... .. (1864) 13 17 35 50 63 90 164 413 23 512 New Hampshire Dartmouth . . . (1769) 48 105 120 150 250 1 512 666 829 1030 21 1172 51 New Hampshire ( 1866) 6 26 40 66 106 170 295 9 560 29 698 New Jersey 270 444 643 31 959 43 2715 Princeton ..... (1746) 46 144 3 9 1166 80 1689 140 2314 255 251 Rutgers .. . . .. (1766) 11 46 61 106 1 239 5 342 12 573 49 961 81 1164 182 1839 258 New Mexico . New Mexico .. ( 1889) 4 8 13 34 80 184 5 326 23 720 129 886 New York City College . . ( 1847) 19 33 39 71 100 245 370 522 112 863 Columbia .. . . (1754) 17 345 21 448 44 747 69 1222 184 1715 198 1897 456 2939 329 4241 505 4661 521 Cornell .... . . ( 1865) 39 268 19 383 35 630 45 810 129 844 131 1463 210 2198 239 3779 508 4272 460 Fordham . . .. . (1841) 50 100 7 llO 54 198 23 260 43 401 77 927 94 NYU ........ (1831) 4 54 7 100 10 153 6 319 46 592 125 888 179 1121 307 2111 567 2456 488 SUNY Albany ~1844) 2 15 30 46 65 611 50 1007 110 Buffalo ..... (1846) 29 62 161 195 374 29 1575 245 1523 241 Stony Brook . ( 1957) 35 586 55 956 98 Syracuse . 0 . 0. (1870) 9 64 78 1 109 2 195 2 322 3 348 36 559 94 1548 231 1541 216 Rochester ... . (1850) 12 40 52 83 190 2 360 25 514 36 721 61 1179 198 1402 200 North Carolina Duke ...... .. (1838) 12 16 40 192 8 600 23 994 46 1493 82 2231 220 2622 155 N. C. State . .. (1891) 4 8 10 30 55 108 226 48 550 203 692 North Carolina ( 1789) 17 43 58 93 223 27 386 34 557 100 1077 96 1819 245 2125 332 North Dakota North Dakota (1883) 10 35 58 98 89 2 165 2 226 10 85 341 Ohio Case Western Reserve •• 0 . ( 1826) 11 36 90 138 350 5 554 25 644 33 758 51 1175 326 1558 227 Cincinnati . . .. (1819) 1 32 118 1 125 2 256 14 491 27 649 20 813 5 1156 1553 147 Kent State . . . . (1910) 76 106 204 648 48 1066 103 Oberlin (1832) 15 59 98 204 323 404 486 552 695 Ohio State . ... (1870) 1 45 95 215 359 68 552 97 863 229 1447 260 2539 676 3033 649 Ohio Univ .... (1804) 6 17 30 52 2 75 127 197 312 5 460 108 652 Oklahoma Oklahoma State ( 1890) 14 25 58 139 5 275 15 619 53 1006 217 1141 213 Oklahoma .... (1890) 8 16 32 130 217 333 15 782 49 1158 220 1285 249 Oregon (1868) 8 93 172 4 Oregon State . . 3 41 252 20 396 52 643 208 736 Oregon ••••• 0 (1872) 11 30 94 233 2 307 2 451 12 822 49 1104 349 1266 250 Pennsylvania Lehigh ... .. . . (1865) 2 115 125 100 190 245 310 19 391 25 549 109 612 1 1876 1 19oo 1910 1 1920 1 1930 1 1940 1 1950 1 1961 1 1971 1 1975 _ 8 t_1n.n_e_itu_tio_n __ _.l __ v_o_ls. l PhD I Vols.l~ Vols. PhD I Vols.l PhD I Vols . . PhD! Vols. l PhD Vols.l PhD' Vols. ~~ Vols.1 1 PhD I Vols.l PhD Penn. State . . . (1855) 3 16 40 75 120 3 207 40 323 69 620 175 1165 601 1825 340 Pennsylvania . . ( 1740) 20 7 260 15 293 35 503 21 712 90 934 71 1194 124 1703 157 2329 362 2640 326 Pittsburgh .... (1787) 3 15 15 2 24 3 145 22 191 43 578 80 977 112 1456 357 1972 412 Temple . . . . . . ( 1884) 8 9 41 149 8 322 14 527 34 1029 147 1247 102 Puerto Rico Puerto Rico . . . ( 1900 ) Rhode Island Brown ( 1764) Rhode Island . ( 1892) South Carolina South Carolina ( 1801) South Dakota South Dakota . ( 1881 ) Tennessee Tennessee ( 1794) Vanderbilt . . . . ( 1872) Texas Houston . . . . . . ( 1934) Rice . . . . . . . . . ( 1891) Southern Methodist ( 1910) Texas Tech . . . ( 1923) Texas .. . . ... . (1887) Texas A & M . ( 1876) Utah Brigham Young (1875) Utah .. . ... . . (1850) Vermont Vermont . ... . (1791) Virginia Virginia . . . . . . ( 1819) Virginia Polytech. . . . ( 1872) Washington Washington State . . . . . . (1890) 8 25 73 123 538 879 46 135 3 186 5 270 3 403 11 573 19 735 35 1059 1390 156 1536 145 30 2 4 7 20 40 1 17 22 25 60 105 194 3 437 45 584 43 8 16 65 38 110 70 16 29 41 112 ~ 1 ~ 2 M 2 1W 156 103 212 135 496 7 934 80 1372 106 182 2 308 40 379 169 276 12 670 37 1122 262 1229 253 374 9 567 36 809 1301 189 1301 207 14 72 231 9 664 120 1192 192 81 3 151 6 206 12 392 26 660 115 875 88 45 9 30 89 50 4 7 2 72 31 80 70 12 23 4 194 62 105 120 30 74 4 83 16 422 67 102 128 172 61 200 19 16 2 112 70 639 46 117 149 152 338 406 26 2 283 531 49 955 100 471 9 102 946 934 86 1424 154 2427 438 3726 454 175 401 716 215 926 234 169 250 330 78 1267 58 438 55 1178 242 1520 245 200 220 592 36 1111 135 289 600 17 750 579 24 563 41 1699 223 2006 172 626 154 877 41 853 142 1010 162 - ~ '*"" .... .. • • ,(: ~ ... ~ ~ ~ Washington .. . ( 1861) 24 41 120 2 258 13 356 33 700 38 1104 113 1876 154 2187 386 West Virginia West Virginia . (1867) 4 17 4 232 3 461 5 684 101 814 Wisconsin Marquette . . . . ( 1857) 10 18 30 53 2 93 4 172 310 38 536 Wisconsin Madison ... (1836) 8 81 5 151 18 276 34 422 130 485 160 777 298 1455 397 2417 913 2973 819 Milwaukee . . ( 1908) 28 30 41 50 78 149 663 16 938 Wyoming Wyoming . . . . (1886) 14 28 46 75 104 154 284 7 465 89 Source: Figures in these tables were drawn from a variety of sources. They are, of course, based on differing counting techniques and are not necessarily compatible at all times. In cases of extreme variations we have omitted the information. The main sources on library collections were: Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education for 1876, 1900, and 1910; the Biennial Survey of Education for 1918-20, 1928-30 and 1938-40; the Library Statistics of Colleges and Universities: . In- stitutional Data for 1960-61 and 1970--71; and the Preliminary Report (December 1975) of the Survey of College and University Libraries of the National Center for Education Statistics. Additional data were retrieved from Public Libraries in the United States of America (1876), College and University Library Statistics 1919- 20-1961 (Princeton University Library); the Academic Library Statistics 1970--71 and the ARL Statistics 1974-75, both issued by the Association of Research Libraries, as well as editions of the American Library Directory. Opening dates of universities are quoted from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1974). In- formation on the number of Ph.D. degrees come from the above quoted Annual Reports and Biennial Surveys; M. Irwin, American Universities and Colleges, 6th ed. (1952); Index to American Doctoral Dissertations 1960- 61 and 1970--71 as well as from ARL Statistics 1974-75, accounting for the incomplete data for 1975. ~ ~ ~ ~ '!=' t:;j -~> oo Ill o o- · ra ~;=n ooo. OQ' ?=>F ~CD 1-d 1:0 t-t 0 b:l ~ .... ::; 0 -c-CD 0 • s :s ~ '"I ~ CJ) (I) ~ a cs· ;s § ~ C") 0 ~ ~ cs· .. ~ (:D' ~ S"~ g' ~CJ) ... CD cy--CD"' ~ () ~g. ...... = 8S.. at::~ ~g t-:)l";"' t-:)(ll .. '"'"' ~0 ~'"I ~ ~ ~Q§rf. 'f='e:t:r ~a-~~ ~~ = p. -;:;" ~0? t:;j ~::X:~o c.;) ~ ::t. a -:-'ci~~ ~ I ~ a>o a::+ ~z· o ... ~ ti: a~.lll ~Sll::l ~~ b:l ~ ~;;a~. [CD$ s· t::::~ t-:)~g ~~:r ~ ~ "?B!;)~ ~OQ ~ c- ~O~CD i'' ~~ o:>tlj"'d soaaCil ~ ~ ~.g. ~ ..... ;seD () l";"' -Ill ~ ~ ~ = ~ > (,.:1 R.. ~t-t ..... t-Q,_..~...., -:--sro~ lll~o ~ ~~ :>>.Q. ~~~ = ~ ... .; ~· cy-- ~ ~ ~ :2. 1:0-(1) ~(jC.:. ~t:r' .... ::-' 7• = ~ ~ -C")t:J:: zoo CD ~ >-1 ~(I)~ ~~ 0 OCCJ) *~· .. ~ $3 O~ q ;:;. ='b:lS" ~;s~a <; ~ CD ~§~P. 0 R.. .... '"I C") = ?'f).~'-1 ~ ~· ~(1)(")1-d o- :2 g. CD ~2· ~ ~· a ;s •• a c- ~· c:::>t:) ;s C") Ill C:::c;· 0 = s. (I)~ 8' ~~~F 1-d ci ~- b:l '"I 0 0 .; ~ ;s 0 ... 0 ~ ~ sr- CJ) 0)~ !;)(I) c.;) ;2. (I) ~ ..._,(1)~(") ,.. c;, I I ?=> f3g:(i!Ci ~ ..... S' . s·CD'"In ~ g '< . sc s:- a, '(D4 ~~s:-~ E"~CD~::+ ~c-CI) ~ gsa~ ~ ..... (D -~ Et-1-(j c.;) ~(ll 0 P.~§~ ~~~·a, .: 0 = Et- ~~"""'~CD 00 = t'O.Q.. a ~ ::-- s. a g;. "?<~lOS" ~CJ)=~:~ ~ ~ r+ l ... ~CJ) co Soli)~ • I I I ~ ~~trj 9'000.. .t...~~ ~~~Ill ~'"I - .0.. ~~0 = ........ ·~ ~~:I: ~(1)0 --l :::::::: ~G-~ ::x:l ~ ~~ ~~ s-m ~o· &t-t ~ .... ~c­ ~ '"I ;·~ c-.. (:D' Y:l(ll "'-l ..... .. = ~ ~~t:;j 0) .,.., CD ~~~ ~ (I) 1-(j 0.. ;..._.-CD oZ 00 ~~~ Ill ~1-d '"I '"I l";"' .... .. J6 Q~ ~ ... a~ c- ~· CJ) (") c:: §' s.(") ~ ,. ~ ~§ 8 0 0 Ill 1-t>~l::::jt:r. n~a§ If~~ a, ~ ~ =etr1 O~p. !ii· ;.a 1-d~~ '"I~= .; 0 0.. ~-'-1 1:0 • t-:) ~'-1 O~e:l ......... ;s i::l ~ 0 CD "' .... (ll • c-.. ~ 5-CJ) ~c:::a: a. (I) Ill ~ ~"'< .. ~ q~ ~· ~ . ~ 0~ '"'"'(I) """'~~ '9? ;-· >Q ~- E s a.c- ~~· (I) -gc:: .. ~ ~· ~CD ~ w~ ~ ~Q:t:r'~ (") ~ CD O 0 .. ~ ~~(ll ~a ~ ~ ~~ ~..., 0< ..... ~ w ~=~ ~ 0 ~ t:r' "?-Et!"~ ~s.--~~ • (I) .Q.. s· sr "::! t:r.~ ~s-o'< ~s:- (") 8 CD >~(Do 5 S:- ::l. '"I ~ ;s () $l) ~~ § 'il" I tj ~ c ] ;:! ~ .Q.. Q 0 ~ ~ ~. 0 ~ - ~ "" 244/ College & Research Libraries • May 1976 15. M. B. Iwinski, "La statistique intema- tionale des imprimees," Institut Interna- tional Bibliographie, Bulletin 16: 1-139 ( 1911 ). 16. American Historical Association, Commit- tee on Bibliography, A Union List of Col- lections on European History in American Libraries, Compiled by E. C. Richardson. Trial ed. (Princeton, 1912). Supplement. Copies Added, 1912-1915. (Princeton, 1915). 17. W. Dawson Johnston and Isadore G. Mudge, Special Collections in Libraries in the United States, U.S. Bureau of Educa- tion Bulletin, 1912, no.23, whole no.495 (Washington, 1912), p.85-88. Supplement in Library Journal 38:331-33 (June 1913). 18. James T. Babb, "The Yale University Li- brary," Library Trends 15:208 ( 1966). 19. Lawrence Thompson, "The Historical Background of Departmental and Collegi- . ate Libraries," Library Quarterly 12:49- 74 (Jan. 1942). 20. J. C. M. Hanson, "The University Library: Its Development and Problems," Universi- ty Record n.s. 13:207-08 (July 1927). 21. Ernest C. Richardson, "Cooperation in Lending Among College and Reference Li- braries," Library Journal 24:32-36 (July 1899). 22. Guy S. Ford, "The Library and the Gradu- ate School," p.44. 23. George A. Works, College and University Library Problems: A Study of a Selected Group of Institutions Prepared for the As- sociation of American Universities (Chi- cago: American Library Assn., 1927 ) . 24. Ibid. p.l4-15. 25. Ibid. p.75. 26. Ibid. p.76. 27. Ibid. p.39. 28. Ibid. p.40-41. 29. C. W. Smith, "The Vanishing Supply of Research Periodicals," Library Journal 49: 117 (Feb. 1, 1924). 30. Ernest C. Richardson, An Index Directory to Special Collections in North American Li- braries (Provisional ed., unedited; Yardley, Pa.: F. S. Cook, 1927). 31. W. W. Bishop, "Resources of American Li- braries," Library Quarterly 8:445 (Oct. 1938). 32. Abraham Flexner, Universities; American, English, German (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1930), p.79. 33. Princeton University Library, College and University Library Statistics; 1919/20- 1943/44 (Princeton, 1947). 34. Bishop, "Resources of American Libraries," p.475. 35. See, for example, Wilhelm Munthe, Amer- ican Librarianship from a European Angle. An Attempt at an Evaluation of Policies and Activities ( Chicago: American Library Assn., 1939). 36. Dan Lacy, "War Measures, Past and Pres- ent," in Pierce Butler, ed., Librarians, Scholars and Booksellers at Mid-Century (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1953), p.89. 37. Reuben Peiss, "European Wartime Acquisi- tions and the Library of Congress Mission," Library Journal 71:863-76 (June 15, 1946). 38. Carol A. Nemeyer, Scholarly Reprint Pub- lishing in the United States (New York: Bowker, 1972), p.50. 39. Robert B. Downs, "Wartime Co-operative Acquisitions," Library Quarterly 19: 157-65 (July 1949). 40. Lacy, "War Measures," p.89. 41. Edmond L. Applebaum, "Foreign Acquisi- tions Programs of the Library of Congress," in Theodore Samore, ed., Acquisition of Foreign Materials for U.S. Libraries (Me- tuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1973), p.1~27. 42. Glenn F. Read, "SALALM: Thoughts on the Birth and Development of an Organi- zation," in D. A. Clarke, ed., Acquisitions from the Third World (London: Mansell, 1975), p.l77-91. 43. Library Resources for International Edu- cation, A Report Submitted by the Task Force on Library and Information Re- sources to the Government/ Academic In- terface Committee, International Education Project, American Council on Education (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1975). '44. Hendrik Edelman, "The Death of the Farmington Plan," Library Journal 98: 1251-53 (April15, 1973). • 45. John Dessauer, .. Library Acquisitions. A Look into the Future," Publishers Weekly 207:17-28 (June 16, 1975). 46. Unesco, Book Production 1937-1954 and Translations 1950-1954 (Paris: 1955), p.13. 47. Unesco, Statistical Yearbook, 1973, p.612. 48. From annual compilations in Publishers Weekly. 49. From unpublished statistics compiled by the Association of American University Presses. 50. Books for College Libraries; A Selected List of Approximately 53,400 Titles Based on the Initial Selection Made for the Uni- versity of California's New Campuses Pro- Development of Collections I 245 gram (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1967). 2d ed. published in 1975. 51. Bernard Fry and Herbert S. White, Eco- nomics and Interaction of the Publisher- Library Relationship in the Production and Use of Scholarly and Research Journals. Fi- nal Report (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, Office of Science In- formation Services, 1975). 52. R. M. Hughes, A Study of the Graduate Schools of America; Read Before the Asso- ciation of American Colleges, January 1925 (Oxford, Ohio: Miami Univ., 1925). 53. Albert R. Bowker, "Quality and Quantity in Higher Education," Journal of the Amer- ican Statistical Association 40:1-15 (March 1965). Hendrik Edelman is assistant director for collection development, and G. Maroin Tatum, ]r., is humanities librarian, Cornell Uni-versity, Ithaca, New York .