College and Research Libraries Library Provision for Undergraduates IN SEPTEMBER 1964 a deputation from the Association of Research Libraries met at Hull, England, with that country's Standing Conference of National and University Libraries to discuss common problems. Among other matters, the con- B. S. PAGE "Library provision for undergraduates" I shall take to mean, first, book buying in relation to undergraduates, and sec- ondly, administrative arrangements for the undergraduate in the library. I ought perhaps to state that the British point of view which I am about to present would appear slightly to the left of center if orthodoxy were measured, as it could very reasonably be measured, by the recent SCONUL submission to the University Grants Committee, Com- mittee on Libraries-a document which I have naturally kept in mind as a standard and to which I shall appeal from time to time: 1 the divergence, in so far as it is significant, doubtless owes something to the fact that I am at pres- ent occupied with planning a separate undergraduate library building for the University of Leeds-a building which will, to the best of my knowledge, be the first of its kind to be opened in this country since 1939. The year 1939 is a; good year in which to begin. In or about that year the follow- ing sentence was written by a distin- guished British university librarian: "It Mr. Page is Librarian of the Brotherton Library, University of Leeds. ferees directed their attention to library service to undergraduates, and-to evoke such discussion-the following · two pa- pers were ·read expressing the bases for English and American approaches to the problem. In England may be safely asserted that it is the aim of most university librarians to devote the minimum of expenditure to purchases which are only of interest to undergrad- uates in preparing for examinations, and to apply the great bulk of available funds to the acquisition of books .and period- icals of a kind which assist research in as many fields as possible." The case would be stated rather differently now-less bluntly but still, I think, with a recogniz- able undertone of impatience; thus, the SCONUL document says: "This Con- ference would wish to stress the fact that every extra copy of a students' textbook acquired by the library means one less additional work purchased by the li- brary.: The competing claims of research needs and undergraduate study needs are indeed acutely felt in our university libraries partly because library budgets are still. grossly inadequate and partly 1 In 1963 the University Grants Committee ap- pointed a committee " to cons ider the most effective and economical arrangements for meeting the needs of the universities and the colleg es of Advanced Tech- nology and Central Institutions for books and periodi- cals. . . ." SCONUL in common with other pro- fess ional bodies received from this committee a questionnaire coverin g most aspects of university librarianshiP ,. and its det ailed reply to this question- naire is the document referred to. This document is unpublished, but the brief quotations (which are included here by permiss ion ) are self-explana tory. I 219 220 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1965 because the British student has tradi- tionally been expected to equip himself with the books essential for his course of study. In the last quarter of a century the student population has grown enor- mously (almost fourfold in my own uni- versity), the student himself is more in- sistent on his claims, and the appeal of self-help is noticeably less prominent in society at large. Whatever we may think of these tendencies, it seems hardly like- ly that we can influence them, and most university librarians would now accord- ingly take the view that they were called upon to duplicate-by which of course I mean "obtain . multiple copies of"-a considerable number of students' text- books and recommended books of one kind or another. They would, however, still wish to assume that there was a nucleus of essential books which the stu- dent bought for himself. ·' Most students do in fact buy at least a modest number of books-this has been shown by several recent investigations- and those students who are supported at the university by a state or local authori- ty grant receive as part of this grant a sum of £30 a year for books, instruments, and materials, though nothing at all is done officially to ensure that the sum is used for the purpose intended. The SCONUL document says that "in some university libraries an attempt is made to encourage students to buy their text- books by providing only reference copies of the books which students should buy for themselves." The difficulty in apply- ing such an arrangement is to know pre- cisely what are the books which students should buy for themselves; and therefore what is urgently needed is that mem- bers of the teaching staff should be per- suaded always to indicate clearly both to their students and to the library which items on their reading lists they consider that the student should own and which he should obtain from the library. More interest in and more planning of stu- dents' reading by members of the teach- ing staff, and earlier and more continu- ous cooperation between them and the library would obviate much wastage of money and effort; the library would know in general where and when the demand would be greatest, and in a par- ticular case could decide whether to acquire additional copies or temporarily restrict the circulation of existing copies. Admittedly the library may itself be at fault in not doing more to organize this cooperation. In the meantime some uni- versity libraries are reducing the tension of which I spoke earlier-the tension between research needs and study needs -by having separate funds for the du- plication of students' books and also by harnessing the departmental library in the cause of providing more copies for an ever-increasing student body. I now turn to my other main topic-the undergraduate in the library. It is a part of an undergraduate's education to find his way about a large collection of books: few university librarians would, I imagine, dissent in principle from this statement. Is the inference then that the undergraduate has only to be let loose in a large library to find his reward unaided? Quite frankly, I used to think that it was. I now see two diffi- culties: first, a university library is nor- mally designed for research as well as for undergraduate study, and a time comes when the number of undergraduate readers is so large as seriously to impede the use of the main collections and main services by the research scholar. The undergraduate takes over the reading room, and if he is allowed, takes over the stack: he appropriates (not unrea- sonably from his point of view) any ac- commodation within sight. The Yale Uni- versity librarian's report for 1959 says- "We are continuing to look for, and adopt, measures which will care for both the undergraduate's need for a quiet place to study and the research scholar's need for ready access to our books and manuscripts and a quiet and orderly Library Provision for Undergraduates I 221 place in which to use them." My second difficulty is this: some students have the sort of intellectual curiosity which will enable them or rather compel them to make themselves at home in a large col- lection of books (these people of course are nature's librarians or researchers or both) : but do most students really react in this way to a library of (to take a rela- tively low figure) half a million vol- umes? Do they not need a point d' appui, and do they not need also somebody strategically placed to give them guid- ance and stimulus? If these two difficulties are genuine, there seems to be an undeniable case for having in a library of sufficient size with a student clientele of sufficient size a separate division for undergraduates. (Mr. Bowyer in his admirable article in the I ournal of Documentation2 says "a separate service," but I think that up to this point at least we should be in general agreement.) Separation does not of course mean segregation, and there is no thought of confining the under- graduate to a part of the library. On the other hand, as I have already intimated, one of the principal duties of the special· staff of the undergraduate division would be to refer the undergraduate to the main collections. The SCONUL document warns of the danger that in "small undergraduate collections" the students will not venture outside their limits. But the less good student, what- ever the library organization, will hard- ly venture even outside the limits of his prescribed reading unless he is active- ly encouraged to do so, and is he more likely to be encouraged in a functionally undifferentiated library or in one which provides a special service for his needs? The best student may be hampered by having to look for his material in two places, but no library can be so orga- nized as to avoid this necessity altogether ~ T. H. Bowyer, "Considerations on Book Provision for Undergraduates in British University Libraries," Journal of Documentation, XIX (1963), 151-67. (even if it were desirable that it should). As to the size of the undergraduate col- lection, opinions differ. It has been said that a smaller collection, by showing its limitations, is better calculated to send the student elsewhere. It has also been said that a standard collection ap- plicable to all libraries could be worked out by analyzing the demands of stu- dents in a particular library (this of course has a beguiling suggestion of economy, but suggestions of economy are in this context to be regarded with suspicion) . My own belief is that standardization is not advisable (each library should build up its stock to meet its own conditions), that too small a collection looks dry and unappetizing and that there should be elbow room for browsing; if pressed to be more ex- plicit, I should postulate that the size of the undergraduate collection should be adequate to give the undergraduate qua student an intelligible and attractive conspectus of the literature of each sub- ject covered by the curriculum. I say "the undergraduate qua student" be- cause of course the undergraduate is or ought to be for part of his time an ap- prentice in research and for this purpose will clearly need to make use of the main collections. · Lastly-what is perhaps the most con- troversial issue-is a separate building desirable? I should doubt whether "de- sirable" is the right word. If the under- graduate division could be suitably planned in the main university library building, this might well be ideal. Sep- arate buildings have usually, perhaps always, been the result of a space prob- lem in the main library. Yet it would seem possible to make a very sizeable virtue out of this necessity. Clearly the undergraduate library must be near the main library and must communicate with it as directly and as comfortably as pos- sible. Granted this, your separate build- ing could have an appeal of its own: the undergraduate might come to have --------~----------_. .... L---------------~~------------------~~ 222 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1965 toward it "a proprietary feeling" (this is Mr. Wagman's3 phrase) and might enter it more readily and more hopefully than if he approached it through the doors of the main library. With more students coming to our universities every year- many of them a different type of student not so much dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge in a specialized field as con- cerned with continuing their education for a further three years-the undergrad- 3 Mr. Frederick Wagman, Director of Libraries, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. STEPHEN A. McCARTHY Prior to -World War II the common pattern of library organization and ser- vice in most American universities pro- vided a cenh·al, general library which served faculty members, graduate stu- dents, and undergraduates. In most in- stitutions there was also a system of de- partmental and college or school li- braries which varied greatly in size and extent from institution to institution. Within the central library most of the services were common services; that is, they were intended to serve any member of the community who might have oc- casion to use them. In addition to the common core of services, there were cer- tain services, such as interlibrary loan and rare books and manuscripts, which were primarily intended for and used by graduate students and faculty members; and there were other services, notably the reserve service, of which the heaviest use was made by undergraduates. In some relatively few institutions there Dr. McCarthy is Director of Libraries at Cornell University. uate library could conceivably be a powerful instrument in adapting the tra- ditional values of a university to the needs of a new society. That of course is a large question, and outside my scope. The success of the separate undergrad- uate library from the practical point of view would depend very largely on two things: it must' be inviting and stimulat- ing as a building, and it must have a special staff ready to interpret it to the undergraduate not as a substitute for the main library but as an extension of it designed for his special benefit. In the United States were rather more specialized provisions for undergraduates. These might take the form of special reading rooms either within the central building or elsewhere which undertook to concentrate for con- venient use by undergraduates those ma- terials which were most frequently used. In some institutions these were perhaps not much more than a special reserve collection, but there were instances as at Columbia and Chicago, where the college library included a small refer- ence collection and supplementary and background reading material. Although there were these relatively few instances of special provision for undergraduates, it was generally true that the undergrad- uate found his library collection and services in the central library and as a part of the prinCipal services of that li- brary. A major change in library service to undergraduates occurred with the open- ing of the Lamont library at Harvard in January 1949. The construction of a separate building designed to meet the particular needs of undergraduates and Library Provision for Undergraduates I 223 housing a collection chosen with the particular needs of undergraduates as the principal criterion of selection con- stituted a new and more positive attempt to provide high quality library service to undergraduates. Important as the La- mont library was in improving library service to undergraduates at Harvard, it seems probable that it may prove to have been even more important because of the new pattern of central library service which it established. In the years since 1949, in a number of universities, the provision of a separate building, either through new construction or through remodeling, to serve as the undergraduate or college library has oc- curred. Plans announced or under dis- cussion in still other institutions indicate that the next ten years will see the crea- tion of additional undergraduate or col- lege libraries. Thus in a period of rough- ly twenty-B.ve years, the single central library will have been replaced in a group of American universities by a two- building central library, one of which will be especially devoted to service to undergraduates. It should be immediately noted that although the separate undergraduate or college library has been adopted as the pattern of library service in a group of institutions, it has either not been con- sidered or it has been rejected by others which provide central library service to the university community in a single building~ The separate undergraduate library has been regarded as a means of im- proving library service to undergrad- uates by giving them their own special facilities, a book and periodical collec- tion chosen to meet their needs and a staff interested in providing library ser- vice to young college students. At the same time, the general or research li- brary has been enabled to direct its at- tention and services primarily to the needs of graduate students and faculty and thus, it is assum~d, has been able to provide improved service to these elements in the university community. Since both libraries are open to all stu- dents and faculty who wish or need to use them, no barrier is created by the division. Instead, it is hoped that use is facilitated by the nature of the collec- tions and services and that easy transi- tions from one library to the other can be made as need arises. Undergraduate libraries commonly are open-shelf libraries, with a series of reading rooms, group study rooms, al- coves and carrels, and facilities for typ- ing, the use of microforms, and audio- visual materials. The organization tends to follow the traditional lines of circula- tion, reference, and reserve with modest provisions for periodicals and documents. In such buildings relatively little staff work space is required as acquisition and processing are normally carried on as part of the central operation. In stocking the Lamont library, Har- vard used a combination of library staff and faculty to select the volumes which comprised the basic collection. The pub- lished catalog of this collection has served as a guide in the formation ·of subsequent undergraduate collections with varying degrees of reliance. The shelflist of the undergraduate library at the University of Michigan has also been used as a guide. In most institutions that have formed undergraduate collections the effort has been made to enlist the assistance of the faculty in choosing the titles to be included. The size of the collections in the undergraduate libraries has ranged from twenty to twenty-B.ve thousand titles up to forty thousand and from thirty-B.ve to B.fty thousand volumes. The expressed intention has been that these collections would not exceed one hun- dred thousand volumes or one hundred twenty-B.ve thousand volumes. When this size is reached, it is planned that the collections will be weeded and thus kept at an approximately stable B.gure. 224 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1965 Up to this point it has not been noted that in each institution that has provided an undergraduate library there was se- rious need of additional library space. The undergraduate library has provided some of the needed space. The plan once adopted can be rationalized as a good, or a superior, means of rendering library service to undergraduates. It can be that. Approached in another way it can be argued that when book collections and the number of readers to be served be- come very large, it is desirable to break up the collections and the readers into smaller, more manageable units. The undergraduate library is one plausible way of making such a division. It is also apparent that for a given institution this device may provide an economical solu- tion to a difficult capital funding prob- lem. Regardless of the rationalization or explanation one may prefer to use, it seems likely that as enrollments continue to increase and as book collections con- tinue to grow the separate undergrad- uate library will provide an attractive and useful form of decentralization of the central library service for many large institutions. It should be clear, however, that not all American university librarians re- gard the undergraduate library as the best means of serving undergraduates. Direct exposure to a large book collec- tion, not one especially selected for him, is considered a valuable education- al experience for the undergraduate. This is best provided in a single central library in which undergraduates have access to the stacks. Another approach, perhaps a new type, is exemplified in the new Notre Dame library in which the first two floors constitute the college library and the research library is housed in a tower stack. The college library is conceived as serving a broader function than ser- vice to undergraduates-it serves the en- tire university community with an open- shelf collection of the more commonly used books. The user goes to the re- search stack when he requires less fre- quently used material. The experience of American university libraries in their growth and expansion indicates that there are various ways of providing library service to undergrad- uates and that in the varying circum- stances in which institutions find them- selves it is important for each institu- . tion to analyze its own needs and adopt or devise the best solution it can sup- port. •• ACRL Professional Booth At Conference IF YOU WANT INFORMATION about ACRL activities come to booth 1380 in the professional exhibit area at the Detroit Conference. Arrangements for servicing the booth are being made by the ACRL Committee on Local Arrangements under the chairmanship of Robert T. Grazier, Wayne State University. Other members of the committee include Carl Orgren, University of Detroit; Mary Ruskin, Oakland University, Rochester; Norman Tanis, Henry Ford Com- munity College, Dearborn; and Harold Young, University of Mich- igan Dearborn Center. ••