The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)
The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)
The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
X. Housing 169<br />
Third! (<strong>The</strong>re is a happy ending--the Folio was recovered some 280<br />
years later, although at a fairly substantial price.) Most librarians<br />
<strong>of</strong> any experience can relate similar if less dramatic examples.<br />
In order to avoid the likelihood <strong>of</strong> intellectual tragedies, then,<br />
it appears essential that all items selected <strong>for</strong> discard be reviewed,<br />
preferably by "an intelligent, humane, book-loving librarian" who has<br />
at least "a touch <strong>of</strong> the Alexandrian tradition." 3 <strong>The</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> this<br />
review is estimated at $.70 per volume, 4 so the total processing cost<br />
<strong>of</strong> each volume considered <strong>for</strong> weeding becomes $1.70. For the<br />
5,758,000 volumes involved, this amounts to $9,788,000. It was assumed,<br />
somewhat conservatively, that perhaps 20 percent <strong>of</strong> the items<br />
considered <strong>for</strong> weeding would be retained, so the predicted number <strong>of</strong><br />
volumes to be discarded becomes 4,606,400. <strong>The</strong> volumes not discarded<br />
will <strong>of</strong> course add to the amount <strong>of</strong> additional construction needed on<br />
campus, and this raises the total cost <strong>of</strong> the weeding alternative to<br />
$56,384,000. This is still a substantial savings over the "base<br />
case"--an estimated $33,046,000--but as noted below there appear to<br />
be even more economical and attractive alternatives that do not involve<br />
the risks inherent in weeding. <strong>The</strong> weeding alternative is<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e not recommended.<br />
Differential Housing. <strong>The</strong> final approach to be considered is a<br />
differentiated approach to shelving <strong>of</strong> the materials. Fussler and<br />
Simon note that "it has long been assumed in American university libraries<br />
that all books not actually in use should be immediately<br />
available and shelved with all other books on the subject," but that<br />
this "presumed necessity <strong>for</strong> the immediate availability <strong>of</strong> books may<br />
deserve closer examination when the cost <strong>of</strong> providing it is compared<br />
with possible alternatives." 5<br />
3<br />
Ray L. Hefner, quoted in Robin Wilson, "Must We Burn Our Books?", p.<br />
24.<br />
4<br />
Based on calculations in Lee Ash, Yale's Selective Book Retirement<br />
Program, Shoestring Press, 1963, pp. 48-49.<br />
5<br />
Herman H. Fussler and Julian L. Simon, Patterns in the Use <strong>of</strong> Books in<br />
Large Research <strong>Libraries</strong>, <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press, 1969, pp.<br />
1-2.