Slashdot Mirror


Univ. of Minnesota Compiles Database of Peer-Reviewed, Open-Access Textbooks

First time accepted submitter BigVig209 writes "Univ. of MN is cataloging open-access textbooks and enticing faculty to review the texts by offering $500 per review. From the article: 'The project is meant to address two faculty critiques of open-source texts: they are hard to locate and they are of indeterminate quality. By building up a peer-reviewed collection of textbooks, available to instructors anywhere, Minnesota officials hope to provide some of the same quality control that historically has come from publishers of traditional textbooks.'"

2 of 54 comments (clear)

  1. What about schools? by horza · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be good to have a set of peer reviewed books that covers education all the way up to 16 years old. Maths, languages, etc. This way no child will have to pay for books ever again. Children can get a Nook loaded with every book they will ever need the day they start school, so advanced students are able read ahead. A developing country could then simply localise a selection to create its own curriculum. Those deciding which modules to do can read the books they will be studying for that subject before choosing. Children moving country can download the new set in advance and familiarise themselves so they don't start their new school at a disadvantage.

    So many countries are bitching about ThePirateBay which is an international repository of arts and culture, but can't be bothered to create an international repository of where people can learn basic reading, writing and math skills.

    Phillip.

  2. Re:At risk proposal by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Duh, how do you think people would be employeed or government would get taxes if corporates did not have profits?

    This may come as a shock to you, but there are many possible economic-political systems, of which rapacious corporatist plutocracy is only one.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.