College and Research Libraries


By J O H N J. L U N D 

The Cataloging Process in the 
University Library: A Pro-
posal for Reorganisation 
Mr. Lund is librarian, Duke University 

Library. 

A, I O N G the recent developments in the catalog and the cataloging process^ 
there are two that will undoubtedly be of 

the greatest significance to those concerned 

with the organization and administration 

of university1 libraries. T h e one is the 

division of the dictionary catalog into an 

author-title catalog and a subject catalog;2 

the other, the division of the cataloging de-

partment into a descriptive cataloging sec-

tion and a subject cataloging section.3 

Neither of these, however, is properly a 

division, but they represent, rather, the 

resolution of the catalog and the cataloging 

process into their original component 

parts. Furthermore, although the two 

developments have so far apparently been 

independent of each other,4 there is a very 

close correspondence, on the one hand, be-
1 T h e university library is here considered in its 

function as a scholarly r e f e r e n c e and research li-
brary. T h i s function comprises service to f a c u l t y 
members, research workers, graduate students, and 
to undergraduates in their advanced work in their 
" m a j o r " field during the j u n i o r and senior years. T h e 
other function of a university library, that of pro-
viding library service for the general education pro-
gram of undergraduates during the freshman and 
sophomore years and part of the j u n i o r and senior 
years, though certainly no less important, is entirely 
distinct from the former function and properly re-
quires separate organization and administration. 

2 T h i s division has recently been made at the Uni-
versity of C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 3 8 ) , D u k e U n i v e r s i t y (1940), 
the U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a ( 1 9 4 1 ) , and else-
where. 

3 This division has been made, among other places, 
at the New Y o r k Public L i b r a r y and the L i b r a r y of 
Congress. 

4 T h e r e seems to be no example as yet of the two 
occurring in any one library. 

tween the author-title catalog and the 

descriptive cataloging section, and on the 

other hand, between the subject catalog 

and the subject cataloging section. 

A s to the division of the dictionary cata-

log, we might very well ask why it did not 

begin earlier. For we have certainly been 

aware that author-title and subject entries 

were intended to serve entirely different 

purposes5—the former to locate books al-

ready identified by author or title and the 

latter to identify books on particular sub-

jects—and since it is just as useful to keep 

unlike things apart as it is to keep like 

things together, a priori logic would cer-

tainly favor the separation and place the 

burden of proof on those who proposed 

combining the two.6 And even as a mere 

practical device for reminding us of the 

distinct function of the two types of entry 

and aiding us in adapting each to its own 

0 C f . M a n n , Margaret. Introduction to the Cata-
loging and Classification of Books. Chicago, 1930, 
p. 135 f f . ; and Bishop, William W a r n e r . Practical 
Handbook of Modern Library Cataloging. 2nd ed. 
Baltimore, 1924, p. 37 if. 

6 It is not easy to determine from the available 
literature exactly when and why the dictionary form 
was adopted. One explanation is that the dictionary 
catalog did not evolve f r o m the combination of 
separate author-title and alphabetical subject catalogs, 
but rather that it developed from the author-title 
catalog alone by the gradual increase in title, in-
verted title, catchword, and other added e n t r i e s — t h e 
accompanying subject catalog in classified form then 
disappearing as it was superseded by the subject en-
tries in the author-title catalog. C f . Cutter, Charles 
A . " L i b r a r y C a t a l o g s . " Public Libraries in the 
United States of America . . . Special report, De-
partment of the Interior, Bureau of Education, pt. I. 
Washington, 1876, p. 526-622; also Heiss, R u t h M . 
The Card Catalog in Libraries in the U.S. before 
1876. ( M . S . in L . S . thesis, U . of Illinois, 1938), 
P. 31-34. 

212 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



particular purpose, the division w o u l d like-
wise seem justified. Furthermore, w e have 
seen that much of the talk about simplify-
ing and reducing the cost and complexity 
of the dictionary catalog, w i t h o u t chang-
ing its basic form, has been of little avail. 

Similarly, w e might ask w h y our recog-
nition of the t w o distinctly different types 
of w o r k that make up the cataloging 
process have not brought about their sepa-
ration before n o w . O n the one hand, 
there is the bibliographical description of 
the book, w i t h the making of the usual 
author, title, and other added entry cards, 
and on the other, the entirely different 
process of examining the subject matter of 
the book and determining the subject head-
ings and the classification number under 
which it belongs.7 It is not that w e have 
been u n w i l l i n g to create additional depart-
ments or sections—in fact, it w o u l d seem 
that nothing short of an active desire for 
a n e w department could explain the setting 
up, as is sometimes done, of a separate 
department for classification, apart from 
the regular catalog department where the 
subject headings are assigned. A t any 
rate, w i t h the division into descriptive 
cataloging and subject cataloging w e have 
unquestionably made the first step in the 
rationalization of the w h o l e cataloging 
process and are already further along than 
all our general talk about reducing the cost 
and complexity of cataloging could ever 
bring us.8 

T h e next important development in the 
7 T h e terms " d e s c r i p t i v e c a t a l o g i n g " and " s u b j e c t 

c a t a l o g i n g " are used to designate these two func-
tions, as is done at the L i b r a r y of Congress. Euro-
pean librarians have a l w a y s kept the two separate, 
though they usually also separate the classification 
of the books on the shelves, since with them the latter 
is, o f t e n not a matter of subject classification at all. 

/8iThe f a i l u r e to separate the two types of work 
has made it impossible to determine the professional 
level of cataloging work and has likewise made it 
difficult to state the essential qualifications and the 
proper training f o r a cataloger. F o r descriptive 
cataloging and subject cataloging each require their 
own answers to these questions. 

JUNE, 1942 

organization of the cataloging process w i l l 
come w h e n the interdependence of the t w o 
distinctions here mentioned is f u l l y recog-
nized. T h e t w o divisions w i l l then be 
made in the same library and coordinated 
so that the descriptive cataloging section 
assumes the responsibility for the author-
title catalog and the subject cataloging 
section for the subject catalog. B u t even 
w i t h this rationalization of the cataloging 
process itself, w e shall merely have laid 
the foundation for the integration of this 
process w i t h the other library f u n c t i o n s — 
acquisition and service. For the descrip-
tive cataloging done by the cataloging 
department cannot—in the interests of 
good management—be separated from 
the bibliographical work that must be done 
in the course of ordering and accessioning 
books, any more than—in the interests of 
good service—the subject cataloging done 
by the cataloging department can be sepa-
rated from the subject work done by the 
reference staff, whether by means of the 
catalog, bibliographies, or their o w n 
knowledge. 

Proposal for Reorganization of Functions 

W e come thus to a concrete proposal for 
the reorganization of those library func-
tions included under the terms "technical 
processes" and "reference service."9 T h e 
proposal is simply that the ordering, ac-
cessioning, and descriptive cataloging proc-
esses be organized as a unified division 
and that subject cataloging and reference 
service be likewise organized as a unified 
division. Instead of creating an additional 
department by the separation of descriptive 
from subject cataloging, w e shall thus have 
greatly reduced the number of administra-

9 W i t h the exception of circulation service, we have 
taken into account all the major library functions. 
It must still be remembered, of course, that we are 
dealing with the university library only as a research 
or scholarly library (see footnote i ) . 

213 



tive units and considerably simplified the 
organization of the library. T h i s simplifi-
cation, however, would be only one result 
of the proposed reorganization—the real 
justification rests on other considerations. 

Bibliographical Work and Descriptive 
Cataloging 

T h e close connection between the biblio-
graphical work done in the process of or-
dering and the work that falls under the 
head of descriptive cataloging is readily 
apparent. Both involve the establishing 
of the entry and the identification and 
enumeration of the bibliographical and 
physical characteristics of the book. Most 
libraries have recognized this to the extent 
that they have attempted to prevent dupli-
cation of this work by the order and the 
cataloging departments. These attempts, 
however, have not proved particularly suc-
cessful, and we still find the catalogers 
verifying the information secured by the 
order department if it is passed on to them 
or securing it anew if it is not passed on. 
Obviously there would be nothing to be 
lost and much to be gained by letting the 
same group prepare the catalog cards for 
a book for which they had already secured 
the information needed to check and order 
it. T h e simplification of records that 
would result would not be the least of the 
benefits of combining the two. Such a 
unified bibliographical department would 
have a subdivision for the clerical work 
of writing orders, checking bills, accession-
ing, etc., and perhaps also a subdivision for 
serial publications, without affecting its 
essential unity. 

O n the other hand, the combination of 
subject cataloging and reference work may 
require some explanation. Once we recog-
nize two factors, however, the desirability 

of combining the two is obvious. In the 
first place, satisfactory subject cataloging 
and subject classification in a university 
library can only be done by persons with 
advanced academic training in the subjects 
they deal w i t h ; likewise, satisfactory refer-
ence service in a university library can only 
be done by persons w h o have academic 
training equal to those whom they serve. 
And since no one person can be competent 
in all or even very many fields, we have 
tried and are still trying to build up a staff 
of subject specialists in both the cataloging 
and the reference departments. T h e cost 
of this duplication of what must neces-
sarily be high-salaried persons is unjustifi-
able under normal conditions and will 
become prohibitive in the period we are 
now entering. Furthermore, within the 
limits of the staff of each department, it 
is often impossible to secure coverage of 
the entire range of subject fields. But by 
combining the two we shall have elimi-
nated this duplication and shall have avail-
able twice the number of people to cover 
the subject fields.10 In the second place, 
with the continual change in our subject 
divisions and approaches, the subject cata-
log of any particular collection can no 
longer be regarded as the final and com-
plete guide to the subject matter of the 
collection—and certainly not to the sub-
ject material in other collections, which 
the scholar cannot ignore. T h e personal 
knowledge and service of the reference 
librarians and both general and special 
bibliographies are taking places of at least 
equal importance with the subject catalog. 
And proper coordination of the three can 
certainly best be secured by combining 
them in one administrative unit. In fact, 

10 I n addition to clerical help, each r e f e r e n c e li-
b r a r i a n in c h a r g e of a s u b j e c t field or group may-
h a v e one or more professional assistants or " u n d e r -
s t u d i e s . " I n this w a y new r e f e r e n c e librarians can 
be t r a i n e d . 

214 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



the need for closer cooperation between 
the reference and cataloging departments 
has been felt for some time and efforts 
made to obtain it. F u l l combination of 
the two, however, has only become pos-
sible w i t h the separation of subject from 
descriptive cataloging. 

Two Divisions 

In place of the usual order, cataloging, 
and reference departments, w e then have 
t w o divisions—one of professional library 
work in a technical sense, covering biblio-
graphical checking and descriptive catalog-
ing, and the other of professional library 
work in an academic sense, covering subject 
cataloging and reference service. U n d e r 
this organization the "processing" of a n e w 
book w o u l d be carried out somewhat as 
follows. Preparatory to placing the order, 
the bibliographers—as w e shall call the 
assistants in the first division—will, as 
usual, check the entry, title, and imprint 
in order to identify the book and prevent 
duplication, and w i l l make a preliminary 
card. W h e n the book is received, this card 
w i l l be revised as necessary to conform w i t h 
the book, collation added, and the title, 
editor, and other added entries determined. 
T h e distribution of books among the sev-
eral bibliographers may w e l l be made by 
language, or by form, rather than by sub-
ject. 

T h e book is then taken over by the 
reference librarian (or subject cataloger) 
in whose particular subject field it falls. 
T h e book is classified, subject headings 
are assigned—subject to some centralized 
revision—and the title entered in special 
lists or checked in printed bibliographies 
as the reference librarian sees fit. In the 
course of the subject cataloging procedure 
the reference librarians actually handle 
and have an opportunity to familiarize 

themselves w i t h the books being added to 
the library in their respective fields. T h i s 
is undoubtedly one of the greatest values 
of the arrangement. 

T h e book then goes to the stacks, the 
cards are typed, traced, and filed—in the 
author-title catalog under the supervision 
of the bibliographers and in the subject 
catalog under the supervision of the refer-
ence librarians.11 

Use of L.C. Cards 

In this basic outline of the "processing" 
of books there are several points that may 
need amplification. T h e r e are also certain 
possible variations and innovations that 
merit consideration.1 2 T a k e first, for ex-
ample, the question of using L . C . cards in 
a university library. T h e r e is no doubt 
that the information contained on L . C . 
cards is very helpful in the descriptive 
cataloging process and can save a good 
deal of time. B u t it is certainly reasonable 
to suppose that if university libraries had 
been making these cards instead of the Li-
brary of Congress, they w o u l d have ar-
rived at a different form. A n d since 
university libraries cannot get L . C . cards 
for all their books, they are forced to 
choose between using L . C . form for the 
cards they make themselves and having 
t w o different types of cards in their cata-
logs.1 3 B u t perhaps w e are worrying too 
much about the form of descriptive catalog-
ing and perhaps consistency is the most 

1 1 It may, of course, prove advisable, as is o f t e n 
done now, to file a temporary card in the author-title 
catalog as soon as the book is received and the entry 
established. 

12 Some of these would be applicable to other f o r m s 
of organization than the one here proposed. 

13 T h e r e is, of course, also the delay and expense 
of ordering L . C . cards to be taken into account. W e 
might have the benefit of the information on the 
card without necessarily adopting the card itself by 
simply using the depository catalog (as H a r v a r d 
does) or if a depository catalog is not available, order-
ing one L . C . card f o r each book at the time the book 
itself is ordered. A n o t h e r possibility would be f o r 
publishers to supply information f o r cataloging along 
with each book. 

JUNE, 1942 215 



important consideration. For descriptive 
cataloging is, after all, only one step in the 
cataloging process, even though the primary 
step.14 

It is when we come to subject cataloging 
that we meet the real difficulty. Here the 
value of the subject headings and classifi-
cation numbers on L . C . cards is very 
doubtful. For while it is possible to make 
universal descriptive cataloging rules, it 
is not possible to do the same satisfactorily 
for subject cataloging. Subject cataloging, 
including classification, cannot be done 
once and for all like descriptive cataloging 
but must be constantly changed and re-
vised to meet changing approaches and 
conceptions. Each library must face and 
solve this problem in terms of its own 
peculiar conditions and purposes and the 
needs of its users—and also must be pre-
pared to revise and change the solution 
continually.15 Perhaps centralized subject 
cataloging cannot even be satisfactory 
within a library that has departmental 
libraries and it should be left to each sepa-
rate unit. One reason, undoubtedly, why 
libraries have used the subject headings 
on L . C . cards is that they have not had 
subject catalogers competent to work out 
their own system of subject headings. T h e 
combination of subject cataloging and 
reference work in one department should, 
however, make this possible. 

Classification 

T h e second point that needs special con-

sideration is classification and its place in 

14 W e must g u a r d a g a i n s t a s s u m i n g that by solving 
the problem of a descriptive c a t a l o g i n g code or of 
c e n t r a l i z e d d e s c r i p t i v e c a t a l o g i n g we h a v e t h e r e b y 
solved the c a t a l o g i n g problem. T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y 
p e r t i n e n t now that we are c o n s i d e r i n g the n e w A . L . A . 
code and proposals by the L . C . E x p e r i m e n t a l Divi-
sion of L i b r a r y Cooperation f o r a c e n t r a l i z e d card-
m a k i n g b u r e a u . 

1 5 N o one will d e n y that o u r lists of s u b j e c t head-
ings a n d o u r classification schemes are in need of 
revision, if not complete r e w o r k i n g . 

the processing of a book. If the book could 

be classified by the descriptive catalogers— 

instead of the subject catalogers, as we 

have proposed—we could make a further 

improvement in the routine, for the des-

criptive catalogers could then file their 

cards in the author-title catalog as soon as 

the call number was added, before turning 

the book over to the subject catalogers— 

thus eliminating perhaps the need for a 

temporary card.16 A t the same time they 

could make, say, three or four extra cards 

to be sent along with the book, to which 

the subject catalogers could add subject 

headings before filing them in the subject 

catalog. But to have classification done 

by the descriptive catalogers would violate 

the basic principle by which we are pro-

posing to reorganize the processing opera-

tions, because separating from the subject 

cataloging classifications would require 

descriptive catalogers with the same subject 

knowledge as the subject catalogers. 

T h e r e is, however, one way in which 

classification could be done by descriptive 

catalogers with no special subject knowl-

edge but it would mean either adopting 

a scheme of subject classification so broad 

that no particular academic knowledge 

would be required to classify a book by 

it,17 or else giving up subject classification 

on the shelves altogether and choosing 

1 6 T r a c i n g s f o r added e n t r i e s in the author-title 
c a t a l o g could be put on the s h e l f l i s t c a r d by the 
descriptive c a t a l o g e r s and then sent on to the s u b j e c t 
c a t a l o g e r s w h o would t r a c e their s u b j e c t e n t r i e s on 
it b e f o r e it w a s filed in the shelflist. 

17 T h i s could v e r y easily be worked out for the 
d e p a r t m e n t a l libraries of a u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r y . T h e 
d e s c r i p t i v e c a t a l o g i n g could be c e n t r a l i z e d in the 
main l i b r a r y , j u s t a s the o r d e r i n g i s — t h e cards in the 
u n i o n author-title c a t a l o g simply stamped " d e p a r t -
mental l i b r a r y " and filed, and then a c e r t a i n n u m b e r 
of s u b j e c t cards (also some f o r the departmental li-
b r a r y author-title file) g o i n g with the book to the 
departmental l i b r a r i a n ( w h o f u n c t i o n s as the r e f e r -
ence librarian and s u b j e c t cataloger in that field), and 
she would then do her s u b j e c t c a t a l o g i n g and shelf 
a r r a n g i n g as she saw best, i n d e p e n d e n t of the main 
l i b r a r y or other d e p a r t m e n t a l libraries. ( S u c h an 
a r r a n g e m e n t would parallel a national situation in 
w h i c h descriptive c a t a l o g i n g is done b y a central 
a g e n c y , but s u b j e c t c a t a l o g i n g l e f t to each i n d i v i d u a l 
l i b r a r y . ) 

216 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



some factor other than subject as a basis 
for arranging the books in the stacks— 
such as order of accession, date of publica-
tion, country of origin, size, alphabetical 
sequence of authors' names, or a combina-
tion of any of these. T h e r e is more than 
a remote probability that we shall event-
ually come to the latter, and in any event, 
with detailed subject classification proving 
to be less and less useful18 and less and 
less permanent, some other system based 
on some more permanent characteristic 
should at least be considered.19 

Another important point that can be 
discussed further is the manner of making 
subject entries. One of the chief obstacles 
to continual and regular revision of the 
subject catalog is undoubtedly the physical 
problem of changing the subject headings 
typed on the cards. But if subject head-
ings were not actually typed or written 
on the cards and instead guide cards were 
used, the various titles could be refiled 
from time to time and new headings added 
and old ones removed with little difficulty. 
O f course, this would mean that we would 
have to give up tracing and run the risk 
of having subject cards in the catalog for 
books that had been reclassified or with-
drawn. Here we would have to weigh 
advantages and disadvantages against one 
another.20 

18 C f . K e l l e y , G r a c e O. The Classification of 
Books; an Inquiry into Its Usefulness to the Reader. 
N e w Y o r k , W i l s o n , 1937. 

1 9 F o r e x a m p l e : country of origin w o u l d be a v e r y 
u s e f u l basis, f o r books published in G e r m a n y in the 
present period, f o r instance, are o f t e n more impor-
tant f o r this f a c t itself than f o r their s u b j e c t matter. 
C l a s s i f y i n g books first by c o u n t r y of origin, then b y 
y e a r of publication, and then alphabetically by author, 
would be e x t r e m e l y u s e f u l f r o m several points of 
v i e w , besides the f a c t that it would be p e r m a n e n t 
and would also enable one to find a specific book 
in the stacks without first l o o k i n g up a call n u m b e r 
-—something which cannot_ r e g u l a r l y be done with a 
classification based on s u b j e c t . 

20 W e could, of course, l e a v e call n u m b e r s off the 
s u b j e c t c a r d s altogether and r e q u i r e the u s e r to 
r e f e r to the author-title catalog to get the call num-
ber. T h e i n c o n v e n i e n c e of this w o u l d not be so 
g r e a t as might be supposed, f o r it has been shown 
that the s u b j e c t c a r d s are used much less than the 
author-title cards. 

JUNE j 1942 

Pamphlets and Similar Materials 

T h e treatment and servicing of pam-
phlet and other research material that does 
not warrant regular cataloging has always 
been a problem. However, under the pro-
posed reorganization with the reference 
librarians responsible for the subject cata-
loging and the subject approach to the 
material in their respective fields, whether 
listed in the subject card catalog or not, 
this material can simply be arranged in 
groups corresponding to the various subject 
fields and each reference librarian made 
responsible for his part of the collection. 
Since this type of material will not be 
listed in the author-title catalog, it can 
go directly to the reference librarians who 
can supervise its shelving in a special room 
or section of the stacks and make what-
ever special lists or indexes may be neces-
sary. In time these collections will develop 
into what may be called research collec-
tions and will include a great deal of 
material that belongs much more properly 
in such a collection than in the general 
stacks.21 For this type of material, then, 
the reference librarian, with the help of 
his shelf arrangement, actually takes the 
place of the subject catalog. And it is 
quite probable that he will be of more help 

2 1 T h e decision as to w h a t sort of material does 
belong in such a research collection presents some 
difficulty. It is possible, h o w e v e r , in a u n i v e r s i t y li-
b r a r y to draw a distinction b e t w e e n " r e f e r e n c e " 
material and " r e s e a r c h " material. T h e f o r m e r is 
material that is still r e f e r r e d to b y specific r e f e r -
ences and is still important f o r the original purpose 
f o r which it w a s w r i t t e n . T h e second is material 
that is not r e f e r r e d to by specific r e f e r e n c e and 
which has lost its o r i g i n a l l y intended significance and 
is important f o r some other r e a s o n — a s a 19th c e n t u r y 
textbook on c h e m i s t r y , important now o n l y in the 
study of the history of education. T h e f o r m e r ma-
terial should be f u l l y c a t a l o g e d and shelved in the 
g e n e r a l stack, the latter need not be cataloged by 
individual pieces and may well be housed together in 
a room apart f r o m the stacks w h e r e it is available 
to research w o r k e r s only. T h e r e c o g n i t i o n of this 
distinction and the possibility of t r e a t i n g " r e s e a r c h " 
material w i t h o u t r e g u l a r c a t a l o g i n g will enable the 
library to be more liberal in its c o l l e c t i n g policy and 
thereby solve a n o t h e r of its v e x i n g problems. C f . 
T a u b e , M o r t i m e r . " T h e T h e o r y of Book Selection, 
pt. I . " College and Research Libraries 2:221-25, 
J u n e 1 9 4 1 ; also " T h e Realities of L i b r a r y Coopera-
t i o n . " Library Quarterly 12:246-56, A p r . 1942. 

217 



to research workers than any subject cata-
log could ever be. 

T h e r e is a further responsibility that the 
reference librarians will be in an excellent 
position to assume—that of suggesting new 
titles for purchase in their fields. It is 
conceivable that each reference librarian 
might, in fact, act as the library represen-
tative for an academic department or two 
or more related departments and review 
their recommendations for new acquisitions 
before they are passed on for ordering.22 

In general, each reference librarian could 
function as a liaison agent between the 
faculty and graduate students of his de-
partment or departments.23 

Conclusion 

It may seem, then, from one point of 
view that we have proposed to solve the 
cataloging problem by eliminating the 
catalog department. From another point 
of view, however, we have greatly ex-
tended the cataloging function so that it 
takes in the bibliographical checking proc-
ess preparatory to ordering on the one 

22 A l l recommendations f o r purchase, h o w e v e r , will 
u l t i m a t e l y have to go through the hands of one per-
son in g e n e r a l c h a r g e of book selection to i n s u r e 
proper coordination. 

23 I t is understood throughout this discussion that 
separate provisions h a v e been made f o r the g e n e r a l 
education needs of u n d e r g r a d u a t e s . 

hand and extends over into the work of the 
reference department on the other. A t 
any rate, whatever the new arrangement 
does to the traditional cataloging depart-
ment, it assigns a new importance to cata-
loging itself and makes it a more integral 
part of the library's work. 

T h e foregoing presentation of the pro-
posed reorganization must, of course, be 
considered as an outline that includes only 
the basic steps of the processes involved. 
M a n y details remain to be worked out be-
fore it can be put into practice and once 
the reorganization has been made, further 
adjustments will be necessary. 

It is true that the proposed reorganiza-
tion will help reduce library administrative 
costs and that this will be an even more 
important factor in the immediate future 
than it is now. Economy, however, has 
not been the primary reason for proposing 
the reorganization. T h e ultimate purpose 
of the reorganization is the improvement 
of university library service to the faculty 
and advanced students, by making the con-
tents of the library accessible from the 
point of view of the scholar. T h e aim 
is to provide, not a librarian's library that 
the scholar may learn to use, but a scholar's 
library administered by the librarian. 

218 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES