College and Research Libraries


By L O U I S S H O R E S 

Evaluating Library Service to 
Higher Education 
Louis Shores is director of the Library 

School of George Peabody College for 

Teachers. He is also chairman of the 

A.L.A. Subcommittee on Budgets, Com-

pensation, and Schemes of Service for Li-

braries Connected with Universities, 

Colleges, and Teacher Training Institu-

tions. 

SI N C E J u n e , 1939, a Committee of the A . C . R . L . on Budgets, Compensation, 
and Schemes of Service has been w o r k i n g 
w i t h a subcommittee of the A . L . A . Board 
on Salaries, Staff, and T e n u r e , on the 
problem of evaluating certain aspects of 
library service to higher education. As 
originally conceived, the task of this joint 
committee was to bring up to date the 
B r o w n report 1 and to integrate the result 
with such recommendations as are f o u n d 
in Classification and Pay Plans for Mu-
nicipal Public Libraries,2 a n d as a r e likely 
to be incorporated in comparable subse-
quent undertakings for school and special 
libraries. T h u s ultimately the object is 
to provide a unified set of personnel and 
budget standards for the library profession 
as a whole. 

As the w o r k of this joint committee 
progressed, it became increasingly evident 
that personnel and budget could not be 

1 Budgets, Classification and Compensation Plans 
for University and College Libraries . . . A . L . A . , 
1929-

2 Classification and Pay Plans for Municipal Pub-
lic Libraries. A . L . A . , 1938. 

considered independently of other aspects 
of library service such as book stock, build-
ing, and educational integration. T h a t 
this was the experience of both the B r o w n 
subcommittee and the A . L . A . Board on 
Salaries, Staff, and T e n u r e , is evident in 
their finished reports. T h e B r o w n plans, 
for example, include not only personnel 
specifications but budget allocations for 
books, periodicals, and bindings. T h e 
A . L . A . Classification and Pay Plans for 
Municipal Public Libraries p r e s e n t s a 
score card which includes in addition to 
staff and budget such items as book col-
lection, circulation, hours open, depart-
mental and branch organization. 

T h e r e were, besides, other reasons w h y 
the joint committee felt it desirable to 
broaden its undertaking. Several higher 
educational accrediting agencies, notably 
the American Association of J u n i o r Col-
leges, the American Association of T e a c h -
ers Colleges, and the Southern Association 
of Colleges and Secondary Schools were 
seeking to develop criteria for evaluating 
libraries as well as other units in Ameri-
can higher education. T h e libraries of 
medical, law, engineering, music, agricul-
ture, and other professional schools at-
tached to or associated w i t h institutions of 
higher education, expressed a desire to 
work w i t h or be included in the com-
mittee's undertaking. 

I n view of these and other considera-

JUNE, 1941 211 



tions, such as the opinion expressed by li-
brarians and college presidents in con-
nection with the job analysis and the first 
d r a f t 3 prepared by this committee, the 
following revised statement of aims and 
procedure was submitted to the A . C . R . L . 
board. 

As the joint committee sees its task, the 
broad purpose is " T o develop criteria for 
evaluating libraries of higher educational 
institutions with adequate recognition of 
the varying objectives of these institu-
tions." 

T o w a r d the realization of this aim, the 
committee has prepared or is preparing: 

1. A method by which a library may com-
pile for itself its service load 

2. A job analysis of the staff needs of 
libraries of each type and size 

3. A classification of positions in various 
types and sizes of libraries 

4. A practical rating scale by means of 
which any educational institution or accredit-
ing agency (or the library itself) may 
determine to what degree a specific library 
measures up to the criteria suggested 

Procedure 

As a first step the joint committee re-
viewed rather carefully the literature 
relating to standards for libraries in higher 
educational institutions. I t found that at 
various times both educators and librari-
ans favored different types and sets of 
criteria for evaluating libraries. In the 
early days heavy emphasis was placed on 
quantitative statements applied especially 
to book stock and budget. For the former 
a total number of 8000 volumes—1000 
for each of the eight so-called essential 
departments—was first specified by the 
N o r t h Central Association. Later this 

3 Classification and Pay Plans for Libraries in 
Junior Colleges, Four-year Colleges, Universities, 
and Teacher Training Institutions. A . L . A . , 1940. 
( M i m e o g r a p h e d r o u g h d r a f t ) 

figure was raised successively by various 
individuals until it reached the round 
number of ioo,ooo 4 volumes, when a 
reaction set in and emphasis was shifted 
to selection and relation to the educational 
program. 

T h e budget criterion also has under-
gone considerable development. T i m e was 
when library costs were computed on a 
$25 per student basis. T h e n someone 
suggested that perhaps faculty members 
constituted a more important part of the 
population to be served, and consequently, 
it was proposed that the library budget be 
fixed as a certain per cent of the total 
educational budget, usually 4 per cent. 
T h e Brown report utilized both the per 
student and the per cent of total edu-
cational budget criteria and in addition 
specified a minimum expenditure of 
$10,000 annually for institutions in class 
three, the lowest class listed. 

Efforts toward Adequate Standards 

In 1932, the Advisory G r o u p on Col-
lege Libraries of the Carnegie Corporation 
issued a set qf qualitative standards5 which 
avoided all quantitative specifications and 
described adequate library service in gen-
eral statements. T w o years later the 
N o r t h Central's famous patterns6 appeared 
likewise defining adequate library service 
somewhat generally and leaving the final 
judgment to the institution concerned or 
to the individual responsible for inter-
preting the application of the qualitative 
standards. 

All of these efforts to develop a measure 
of library excellence and many more, the 

4 Bishop, W . W . The Backs of Books. W i l l i a m s 
& W i l k i n s , 1926. p p . 202-25. 

5 C a r n e g i e C o r p o r a t i o n of N e w Y o r k . _ College Li-
brary Standards Adopted by the Advisory Group 
on College Libraries. 1932. 

6 N o r t h C e n t r a l A s s n . of Colleges a n d S e c o n d a r y 
Schools. Commission on I n s t i t u t i o n s of H i g h e r 
E d u c a t i o n . Manual of Accrediting Procedures. U n i -
v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1934. 

212 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



joint committee studied, discussed, ap-
plied. And then it turned to college and 
university librarians, presidents, officers of 
accrediting agencies and foundations. 
H u n d r e d s of letters were sent and re-
ceived, the opinions sifted, weighed, and 
incorporated wherever possible. Next, the 
libraries themselves were studied through 
A.L.A. and U.S. Office of Education sta-
tistics, the exhibits found in the recently 
released Eells7 and M a r s h 8 volumes, indi-
vidual institutional annual reports and 
manuals of procedure, and finally through 
a two-week job analysis conducted with 
the cooperation of some thirty libraries of 
all types and in all regions. 

Finally in M a r c h , 1940, a first rough 
d r a f t of the section on classes of libraries 
was issued and distributed to cooperating 
libraries. Both an open general meeting 
and several small meetings with librarians 
of professional medical, engineering, law, 
and agricultural libraries, were held in 
Cincinnati, and as a result of the criti-
cisms and suggestions received there and 
through correspondence with college presi-
dents, a second d r a f t was begun. I t is 
this second draft, now nearing completion 
and possibly to be presented in Boston, that 
is under consideration here. 

Result of Canvass 

A t the outset I should like to indicate 
briefly the result of the committee's can-
vass of library and educational opinion. 
T h e r e was general agreement on the need 
for revised standards, but a wide range of 
opinion on the essential elements of valid 
and reliable criteria. Perhaps the greatest 
differences were expressed on the follow-
ing questions: 

7 Eells, W . C. American Junior Colleges. Ameri-
can Council on E d u c a t i o n , 1940, pp. 119-484. 

8 M a r s h , C. S . American Universities and Col-
leges. A m e r i c a n Council on E d u c a t i o n , 1940, pp. 
167-1018. 

1. Quantitative versus qualitative stand-

ards. Those who favored the former 
pointed out the intangible nature of the 
latter, the resulting varying interpretation 
of adequacy, inability frequently to secure 
the high type of competence necessary to 
apply such standards. Those who favored 
the latter concentrated on the injustice of 
mere number of volumes, size of budget, 
amount of equipment in a particular situ-
ation where the library was eminently 
serving the educational needs of the pro-
gram. 

2 . Too high versus too low. T h o s e 
with generous library collections, equip-
ment, and budgets, feared low standards 
might stimulate their presidents to seek 
library retrenchments. Those with in-
adequate collections, equipment, and budg-
ets, feared the standards would be so 
high that their institutions would be dis-
couraged from even trying. 

3. Too detailed versus too general. 
About thirty college and university presi-
dents were asked to comment on the gen-
eral summary chart. Invariably they ob-
served that detailed specifications would be 
necessary for these weightings to mean 
anything at all. A like number of librari-
ans, asked to examine the detailed criteria, 
expressed fear that "they might break 
down of their own weight." 

4. Science versus art. Those statisti-
cally inclined generally sought a scientific 
basis for nearly every committee move. 
A number of the presidents reacted vio-
lently to any application of the method 
of physical sciences to anything as intan-
gible as adequate library service. 

Assumptions 

T h e committee has proceeded on the 
assumption that its responsibility involves 
libraries of all types of higher educational 

JUNE, 1941 213 



institutions—(a) junior colleges, normal 
schools, and other non-degree-conferring 
institutions above the high school level; 
( b ) liberal arts colleges, four-year teacher-
training colleges, technical schools, and 
other degree-conferring institutions largely 
on the undergraduate level; ( c ) univer-
sities and other institutions with m a j o r 
graduate instructional programs. 

A f u r t h e r assumption is that the fol-
lowing six criteria, not necessarily in order 
of importance, determine largely the ade-
quacy of library service: I. budget, 2. per-
sonnel, 3. book stock, 4. quarters and 
equipment, 5. organization, and 6. edu-
cational participation. These six criteria 
are represented in the rating chart sum-
mary tentatively weighted with the aid of 
librarians and educators throughout the 
country. Because at present the detailed 
weightings are still in process of deter-
mination, I can only indicate that out of 
one thousand points, 300 have been as-
signed to quantitative and qualitative as-
pects of the present collection and the 
annual expenditure for books during the 
last five years. Another 300 points have 
been assigned to personnel, including du-
ties, compensation, number, qualifications, 
etc. T h e remaining 400 points are divided 
equally between quarters and equipment, 
and organization and educational partici-
pation. 

It must be emphasized, however, that 
this summary is still highly tentative. 
Even among members of the committee, 
there are some who feel that the building 
is still weighted too heavily, the service 
inadequately, and the number of points 
under book stock are not distributed pro-
portionately. 

Service Load 

A t the outset the committee recognized 

the desirability of flexible standards to 
fit the varying needs, size, and educational 
aims of the institutions to be measured. 
Accordingly, the idea of a service load 
was born. T h i s idea began with the 
simple plan of counting the number of 
students to be served. I t was at once 
apparent, however, that a junior college 
of 5000 students and a university of 5000 
students required completely different li-
brary facilities; that two liberal arts col-
leges, one with a number of graduate and 
honors students and a faculty heavily en-
gaged in research required quite different 
facilities from those desirable in another 
college engaged almost entirely in under-
graduate instruction. 

Accordingly, after a careful study of the 
vital statistics of representative higher edu-
cational libraries of all types and in all 
regions, the following formula for deter-
mining service load was devised: 

Count each undergraduate under-class stu-
dent—one unit 

Count each undergraduate upper-class stu-
dent—two units 

Count each undergraduate honors student— 
three units 

Count each graduate student—four units 
Count each faculty member—five units 

T h u s , a liberal arts college with 300 
under class, 200 upper class, 50 honors, 
25 graduate students, and 50 faculty mem-
bers would have a library service load of 
1200 service units. A t present the Asso-
ciation of College Registrars' definition of 
full time student is accepted and the 
librarian is permitted to define faculty 
member as his institution does. 

Book Stock, Budget, Hours Open 

O n this basis the committee was able to 
develop flexible quantitative standards for 
present book stock, budget, and the num-

214 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



ber of hours a library was to remain open. 
For example, for book stock, the following 
quantitative standards have been proposed : 

E x h i b i t A . Quantitative Standing of 
Book Stock 

Your Library Has If It Serves an Institution That Is 

2- or 3-year*non 
degree 

4-year degree-
conferring (not 
emphasizing grad-
uate work) 

University (with 
graduate and pro-
fessional school 
emphasis) 

So books per unit 
for first 100 units 
(but in no case 
less than 5000 
volumes) 

50 books per unit 
for first 800 units 
(In no case less 
than 30,000 vol-
umes) 

70 books per unit 
for first 2000. (In 
no case less than 
200,000 volumes) 

10 vols, per unit 
for next 600 

30 vols, per unit 
for next 700 

40 vols, per unit 
for next 2000 

8 vols, per unit 
for next 500 

20 vols, per unit 
for next 1500 

30 vols, per unit 
over 4000 

S vols, per unit 
over 1200 

10 vols, per unit 
for over 3000 

F o r F o r 
Salaries Supplies, 

etc. 

$14 $4 

12 2 

Likewise, on the same service load basis, 
the following budget plan for books, sal-
aries, and supplies has been developed al-
though the actual figures are still highly 
tentative. 

E x h i b i t B . Budgets for Books, Salaries, 
Supplies 

The library spends F o r 
each year Books, 

etc. 
F o r each unit of 

first 2000 $7 
For each unit of 

second 2000 6 
For each unit of 

third 2000 4 8 1 
For each unit over 

6 0 0 0 3 6 .50 

Finally, for the number of hours the 
library should be open weekly, a graduated 
scale recommending 26 hours for libraries 
serving less than 200 units to 80 hours for 
a library serving more than 5000 units 
has been proposed. 

Qualitative Standards 

O n the qualitative side the task has 
been more difficult and the progress slower. 
For example, the qualitative evaluation of 
the book stock has involved some rather 

interesting experiments with sample lists 
of reference and periodical titles. T h e idea 
behind these sample lists is very much 
the same as that behind statistical sampling. 
W e are testing the assumption, for ex-
ample, that it is not necessary to check 
a list of 800 to 4000 reference titles to 
determine whether a reference collection 
is adequate, if one has a carefully selected 
sample list of as few as 20 core titles for 
junior college libraries, 40 for liberal arts 
colleges, and 80 for university libraries. 
T h e presence of these key or sample titles, 
we believe, assures a fairly strong refer-
ence collection. 

In other cases we have permitted the 
librarian and the faculty to evaluate their 
collection on a point basis from the stand-
point of the institution's curricular, co-
curricular, and research needs. 

Finally, on the basis of a job analysis 
conducted in some thirty libraries of all 
types of institutions and in all regions, the 
committee is attempting to set up a classi-
fication and pay plan for workers in higher 
educational libraries that will contribute 
to both a quantitative and a qualitative 
evaluation of personnel. 

T h e measurement of service presents 
many more difficulties. T o date we have 
succeeded in measuring such aspects of 
organization as acquisitions, preparations, 
circulation, and less successfully, reference. 
W e haven't, however, been able to reduce 
those intangible aspects of library ade-
quacy, which for want of a better term, 
we call educational participation. For the 
most part this has meant to us, library 
instruction, stimulation of student reading, 
publicity, assistance in formulation of edu-
cational policies, etc. 

O n e last problem has perplexed the 
committee—the need for regional adjust-

(Continued on page 236) 

JUNE, 1941 215 



rooms. For other areas the selection of 
the lighting system must meet the specific 
needs as outlined. 

T h e selection of lighting systems and 
equipment for other than illumination 
purposes should always be secondary to 
the functional use of such equipment. 

T h e attached bibliography has been se-
lected to enable interested individuals to 
obtain a broader knowledge of the require-
ments of lighting for seeing. 

References 
Illuminating Engineering Society. American 

Recommended Practice of School Lighting. 
The Society. Feb. 17, 1938. 

Luckiesh, M., and Moss, F. K. "Quality 
of Lighting." Illuminating Engineering 

Society. Transactions 30:531-62, July 
1935-

. "Prescribing Light and Light-
ing." Illuminating Engineering Society 
Transactions 32:19-48, Jan. 1937. 

. "Brightness-Contrast in See-
ing." Illuminating Engineering Society. 
Transactions 3 4 : 5 7 1 - 9 7 , June 1 9 3 9 . 

Lancaster, W . B. "Illumination Levels and 
Eye Comfort Conditions." Illuminating 
Engineering Society. Transactions 
33:964-73, Dec. 1938. 

Harrison, W a r d . "What Is Wrong with 
Our 50-foot-candle Installations." Illu-
minating Engineering Society. Transac-
tions 32:208-18, Feb. 1937. 

Potter, W . M., and Darley, K. G. "The 
Design of Luminaires for Fluores-
cent Lamps." Illuminating Engineering 
35:759-85. Nov. 1940. 

Evaluating Library Service to Higher Education 

(Continued from page 215) 

Exhibit C. Library Classification 

Libraries 
of Class Have a Rating of 

And Are 

A Over 1800 points High for sections 
high in resources 

B 1500 t o 1800 points High for country as 
a whole 

C 1000 t o 1500 points M i n i m u m for ad-
vanced sections; 
high for sections 
low in resources 

D 1000 points M i n i m u m for coun-
t r y as a whole 

E 800 to 1000 points M i n i m u m for sec-
tions low in re-
sources 

F 600 to 800 points S u b s t a n d a r d for ad-
vanced sections 

G 400 t o 600 points Below s t a n d a r d for 
whole c o u n t r y 

H Below 400 points Below s t a n d a r d for 
sections low in re-
sources 

ments. Standards considered too low 
among N e w England college libraries 

frequently proved too high for college 
- libraries in the South. Accordingly, a 

classification which would recognize a 
regional differential has been proposed 
which resembles very much the thermom-
eter used by the Eells Committee in the 
Cooperative Secondary School Standards. 
Roughly, this plan might provide for eight 
classes of libraries as shown in the table to 
the left. 

Perhaps some idea of the committee's 
work and problems has been presented. 
W e are hopeful that the second d r a f t of 
the committee's plan will be available in 
detail for criticism by the membership 
before Boston. In the meantime, we re-
peat our invitation to every member of 
the A . C . R . L . to contribute such ideas and 
suggestions as will advance the quest for 
an adequate measure of library service to 
institutions of higher education. 

236 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES