ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

From Inside the DLP

No. 2, February 1972

ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries, Vol. 33, No. 2

By Dr. Katharine M. Stokes

College and University Library Specialist, Training and Resources Branch, Division of Library Programs, Bureau of Libraries and Educational Technology, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202.

The National Center for Educational Statistics has added fourteen items to its list of academic library statistics publications since 1960. Library Statistics of Colleges and Universities: Fall, 1969, Analytic Report, by Dr. Bronson Price and Mrs. Doris Holladay of the Library Surveys Branch is now available for $1.00 from the Government Printing Office. The Documents Catalog no. is HE 5.215:15031-69. A copy has been sent to each higher education institution and to all its major components, including branch campuses, but it probably doesn’t reach the librarian in a number of places.

I turned first to Table 1, in Appendix C, p.52, to see what advances had been made in volume count since the Fall 1968 Analytic Report for the different types of institutions which have been receiving library resources grants under Title II-A (HEA). Of course, there were sixty-one more academic libraries in fall 1969, than in fall 1968; thirty-nine of these being in two-year institutions. The total number of libraries with less than 50,000 volumes in four- year undergraduate colleges, or with less than 20,000 volumes in two-year institutions, showed a modest, but real decrease, as shown below.

Four-Year Institutions Without Graduate Students with Libraries Having Less Than50,000 Volumes

TWO-YEAR INSTITUTIONS WITH LIBRARIES HAVING LESS THAN 20,000 VOLUMES

Among the 785 four-year colleges with graduate students, fall 1969, there were still 17 public institutions and 182 private ones with libraries of less than 50,000 volumes. The corresponding figures for 1968 were 21 and 189.

Perhaps such slight improvements in holdings is explained in Chapter II, “Detailed Findings,” p.ll.

Microform holdings show relatively marked increases over the 1967-68 holdings of that nature. For microfilm reels, the increase was 20 percent. . . .For other physical units of microtext, the increase was 30 percent. … If in both the fall 1968 and fall 1969 surveys the “volume equivalents” of these holdings had been reported so that in each year they could have been added to the number of physical volumes, it is clear that the increase in the total number of physical volumes and volume equivalents to which students and faculty have had access would be perceptibly higher than the increase for physical volumes alone.

College & Research Libraries is published by the Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, 17 times yearly—6 bimonthly journal issues and II monthly, combining July- August, News issues at 1201-05 Bluff St., Fulton, Mo. 65251. Subscription, $10.00 a year or, to members of the division, $5.00, included in dues. Circulation and advertising office: American Library Association, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, III. 60611. Second-class postage paid at Fulton, Missouri 65251.

News editor: Michael Herbison, Library, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Center, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907. Editor: Richard M. Dougherty, School of Library Science, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y. 13210. President, ACRL: Joseph H. Reason. Executive Secretary, AĆRL: J. Donald Thomas, ALA.

For each of the four types of institutions, chart 2 shows the holdings of microfilm reels, with percent increases from the previous year. Similar data for physical units of microtext other than microfilm reels are given in chart 3. For both types of microform the increases were relatively large for the 4-year institutions with graduate students and the 2-year institutions. Although in fall 1969 the 2-year institutions had only slight holdings of microtext other than microfilm reels, these holdings represented a near doubling (93 percent) from the previous year.

The authors’ comments on p. 10-11 are in line with the current thinking of the Office of Education’s Higher Education agencies, advocating consortia activities as a solution to dwindling funds.

There is comparatively little variation from one type or size of institution to another with respect to holdings or expenditures per student. Understandable though this may be, it does not mean that access to library resources is about the same in larger or smaller institutions. Indeed, the comparatively small holdings of the smaller institutions must occasion a rather severe handicap, relatively speaking, for their students and faculties in respect to library resources. For the future one can hope that more of the smaller institutions can be served by joint libraries or other arrangements to expedite access to larger holdings. ■ ■