2008 Woodie Awards
Letter to the Editor: Professors to blame for textbook price increases
Wayne Adams
Undergraduate, Finance
Issue date: 1/24/08 Section: Commentary
Inevitably, every year there's bound to be at least one article in every college publication about the high price of textbooks. Most go through the popular theories, genuinely comforting students with stressed wallets and pocketbooks trying to pay the high prices. This year, however, Kris DeRego has choosen not to focus on the several legitimate arguments on why textbook prices have risen. Instead we are told about a conspiracy amongst the "greedy" textbook publishing houses to have costs kept secret in order to price gouge us students against their will ("Textbook prices must come under control", Jan. 14). Although it's easy to blame big business for some ills, his statements are misleading and do not bring forth rational discussion or solutions.
The most plausible argument for why textbook prices have risen comes from the economic discipline of game theory. From this field, we learn about the phenomena of agency. It describes how people work to protect or destroy each other's interests while they complete an economic transaction. DeRego is correct in saying that there is an agent acting against the interest of us students. But the agent who keeps the price up for us is not a sinister cartel of textbook publishers. Unfortunately, and almost certainly innocently, the problem is the professor. More specifically, the problem is in the way he or she teaches.
You may ask, what part do the professors play in the economic transaction between our checking accounts and the publishing houses? DeRego acknowledges that it is the professors who choose our textbooks. Yet, he does not stop to wonder if that's not a more dubious action than it seems. The fact is, professors and their lists of required reading are, innocently enough, agents that force us into an economic transaction without any bargaining power. In economics, this is called an inelastic relationship. We have no flexibility. We have to get the material in order to pass the class.
Even though cheaper books and electronic formats would reduce costs in the short run, if professors still do the choosing, then this underlying structure will eventually lead to the same result: an inability for students to choose which publishing companies fit their budget.
But there's hope. This is not what happens in every case. When we take a survey course, there's usually a variety of recommended, but not required reading. We are then able to use our buying power to choose which books we think are best. This economic signal tells the publishing houses to make cheaper copies of books to entice us to buy from them instead of their competitors. In other countries, such as Taiwan and India, the university recommends a number of texts for each subject. Students are then free to choose from various combinations of the course material. These students have more freedom to choose how to learn. Consequently, these students emerge from their universities with a strong connection to the subjects they've studied and without a feeling that they've wasted their money.
Sincerely,
Wayne Adams
Undergraduate, Finance
The most plausible argument for why textbook prices have risen comes from the economic discipline of game theory. From this field, we learn about the phenomena of agency. It describes how people work to protect or destroy each other's interests while they complete an economic transaction. DeRego is correct in saying that there is an agent acting against the interest of us students. But the agent who keeps the price up for us is not a sinister cartel of textbook publishers. Unfortunately, and almost certainly innocently, the problem is the professor. More specifically, the problem is in the way he or she teaches.
You may ask, what part do the professors play in the economic transaction between our checking accounts and the publishing houses? DeRego acknowledges that it is the professors who choose our textbooks. Yet, he does not stop to wonder if that's not a more dubious action than it seems. The fact is, professors and their lists of required reading are, innocently enough, agents that force us into an economic transaction without any bargaining power. In economics, this is called an inelastic relationship. We have no flexibility. We have to get the material in order to pass the class.
Even though cheaper books and electronic formats would reduce costs in the short run, if professors still do the choosing, then this underlying structure will eventually lead to the same result: an inability for students to choose which publishing companies fit their budget.
But there's hope. This is not what happens in every case. When we take a survey course, there's usually a variety of recommended, but not required reading. We are then able to use our buying power to choose which books we think are best. This economic signal tells the publishing houses to make cheaper copies of books to entice us to buy from them instead of their competitors. In other countries, such as Taiwan and India, the university recommends a number of texts for each subject. Students are then free to choose from various combinations of the course material. These students have more freedom to choose how to learn. Consequently, these students emerge from their universities with a strong connection to the subjects they've studied and without a feeling that they've wasted their money.
Sincerely,
Wayne Adams
Undergraduate, Finance
***NOTE: Log in before posting a comment. Anonymous comments will not be posted.***
Be the first to comment on this story