posted
Textbooks also require an incredible amount of research and expertise (I'm thinking of college level textbooks here). Most are contracted out chapter by chapter. In addition, all the photos and illustrations are usually contracted out. All of this contributes to the exorbitant price.
As for screen vs. paper. I agree, I hate reading things on screen, and do so only to try to save paper (and because there are a great number of things you can only read on a computer screen.). But I think this is changing. A generation of people who grow up reading things more and more on screen, vs. on paper, don't mind it as much. In fact, I've known some people to say they prefer reading things on screens because they don't have to deal with flipping pages. Furthermore, as screen technology gets better, reading on screen will become a more pleasant experience.
posted
You can only buy a used book if the course will still be using that edition, and if you can find a student to buy it from.
All too often, there is a new edition required by the professor.
The college bookstores sometimes buy back books (for which they pay the students a pittance) and then turn around and charge much more than that as the used price which is still somewhat less than the cost of a new book.
The thing is, the college bookstores usually don't buy very many books from the students, and so there aren't very many available at the "used" price for the students who will need it next.
posted
I'd say the text book market is anti-capitalist, not capitalist---after all, the "facts" of history can't vary, so what does it matter which textbook the student gets them out of? No, the decision is made to buy one and only one textbook, and in bulk at that, and everybody learns from that.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robert I think you meant to put a "should be" instead of an is.
The text book companies cry about all these reasons why their books cost more, (which are decisions they made in the first place, why do I need full color glossies in a piece of junk I'm only gonna look at for four months of my life?) but look at the numbers they make a ton of profit, which isn't much of a deal, every company has a right to make tons of money. But when I'm looking at my shrinking bank account, I just don't have any pity for them. (one thing that has saved me $300 and counting is to wait for the first day to get my books. Most of the time teachers will say, "We won't be using that book so don't buy it," followed by twenty groans. These days it is computers telling you what books to buy.)
And on another rant, they don't even have the decency to proofread the things. There should not be 100s of typos in a book about grammar!
posted
I'll stick with is here. I've seen this practice in other areas with the same effect. Single supplier...high price...any number of middlemen who get a cut...high pressure tactics to encourage purchase...
Textbooking is kind of a racket---a good deal on one could bring the publishers millions.
Books, textbooks or others, cost a fraction of their set prices to produce as artifacts. Everything else is overhead.
posted
Just wanted to post a link to this blog which compares CreateSpace (Amazon's publishing venture) to LuLu (both of which, I believe, do print on demand publishing.
posted
I noticed. I also followed the link. Some of the information presented by the blogger doesn't exactly comport with what Lulu and CreateSpace represent on their Web sites.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed the old topic warning right away. I stand by most of what I originally said...I've recently become acquainted with a certain manipulation of "facts" in textbook publishing, but everything else is still the opinion I hold.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |