Slashdot Mirror
University Reprimands Professor For Assigning Cheaper Textbook (slate.com)
schwit1 writes: California State University at Fullerton brought a grievance against associate professor Alain Bourget recently. It wasn't for poor results or questionable conduct — it happened because Bourget refused to assign a $180 textbook for his introductory linear algebra and differential equations course, instead using one that cost $75 and supplementing it with free online materials. "Bourget maintains that his choices are just as effective educationally and much less expensive, so he should have the right to use them. But the university says that it makes sense for courses that have multiple sections to all use the same textbooks. Both Bourget and the university say their positions are based on principles of academic freedom."
The Fullerton text in question is Differential Equations and Linear Algebra, published by Pearson with a suggested price of $196, but available at the Fullerton bookstore for $180 (used editions for much less). The authors are Stephen W. Goode and Scott A. Annin, the chair and vice chair, respectively, of the mathematics department at Fullerton.
Now it all makes sense.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It seems that some academics want to be more free than others.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
I was a professor at a major engineering school, and I got tired of the Institute forcing me to do everything in their prescribed bureaucratic way. Every decision was designed to line someone's pocket. Which textbooks to use, which equipment was required for labs, and even the labs were designed to use sole-source parts from particular vendors (Altera PLDs, for example).
There is no academic freedom in academia. None whatsoever. So, I quit. I started my own company and have never been happier.
Any (former) student will tell you that you never buy the textbook until the prof tells you whether you need it or not. Heck, sometimes they'll even tell you that you can use an earlier revision which will be significantly cheaper.
I believe that the GP misunderstood the summary's statement of "courses with multiple sections" to mean "multi-semester courses," which I do not believe is the case here -- certainly not for an introductory linear algebra course. Multiple sections means that there are multiple sessions of the exact same class going on at the same time.
As a former professor (in mathematics, even!), I would agree with the initial sentiment. The university should make sure that courses taught are consistent. This may even affect their accreditation. Who is this associate professor to break the uniformity of the students' education?
However, if you read the article, you'll see that the authors of the department-assigned text are the chair and vice-chair of the department. Which is largely unethical in my opinion. (But don't get me started on ethics and the textbook industry...)
When I was in university it was standard to have the same text, and even the same assigned problems across the entire course. Which generally makes sense since the same exam was administered across sections too. Of course no reason a dedicated professor couldn't do the legwork to ensure their students had similar problems.
At this point though we should be using open textbooks, basic math isn't changing.
What is going on is that the same class, say Math 101, is being taught by multiple different teachers, most likely at different times of the day/week. Typically they are designated Math 101a, Math 101b, Math 101c, etc. This lets people that want to take Math101 take it even if Physics 101 happens to be taught at the same time as Math101a - you just take Math 101b.
The OTHER teachers - teaching the exact same class Math 101a and Math 101b, tell students to buy the $185 textbook. But he teaches Math 101c and tells his students to buy the $75 book.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
During the early 1990's, math textbooks started requiring a graphing calculator. Not just any graphing calculator, but a specific model of the Texas Instruments graphing calculator. If you had a different model or brand, you were on your own as the instructors didn't have time to figure out the four or five other graphing calculators in the classroom. Math textbook and graphing calculator cost $200, which was twice the cost of going full time to the community college at the time.
I went from owning an HP calculator that did Reverse Polish Notation to several models of the TI graphing calculator. I still have them today. Never got around to owning an HP calculator that could take cartridges, say, Missile Command, to extend its functionality. That particular calculator cost $500 or so. More appropriate for the engineering crowd at the university.
Fortunately, I was very much old school towards learning mathematics. When I showed up for an exam without my graphing calculator, I was able to sketch the graph by hand. Other students who forgot their graphing calculator weren't so lucky, as they couldn't graph their way out of a paper bag. I've known several students who dropped out of school because they couldn't afford the latest and greatest calculator for the newest math textbook. The financial aid office came up with a program to help students with buying calculators.
The professor is teaching one section of a class where different sections are taught by different faculty. As all the students - regardless of which section they are enrolled in - are enrolled in the same course, they should all be studying the same material. While it is not impossible to ensure that this happens when different sections use different texts, it is a lot easier to ensure that this happens when everyone does use the same text.
I say the professor should have brought up his concerns with the text book earlier; although working in academia I suspect he may have himself been assigned to teach that section without enough time to do so.
In other words, there is blame to go around.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
....and in the comments section it mentions that the department started using this book in 1989, 15 years before the author became department chair.
Also, it mentions that the course-approved book rents for much less than the rebel-chosen book.
So obviously there's more to the story than the simple venal corruption that's implied.
- it seems a conflict of interest when a department is *requiring* the use of a book from which the department head(s) directly profit; then again, if my department is using book X, and we can "get" as a professor the author of said book, I'd do it for sure.
- it also seems pretty reasonable that a department would agree to teach from a consistent set of books, especially for lower-level courses, so as to provide a consistent contextual base for all students in later classes; do they do so in other departments?
I don't have any answers to resolve this, frankly.
-Styopa
The professor has a solid ethics case against the school fot a clear conflict of interest case. The reprimand could get the school in serious legal trouble.
The truth shall set you free!
A professor assigning a textbook that he or she wrote happens fairly often as people tend to write texts for courses that they teach often, and tend to write texts when they are not happy with what options are already out there, and they generally think that they cover things in the best way possible, since they wrote it. Often a text evolves from course notes and is shopped around to various publishers, one of which is happy to accept it and polish it up and charge extortionate prices for it. If it gets adopted on its own merits at other institutions, great for the publisher and author.
But there is an obvious conflict of interest when a faculty member requires a text that he or she wrote for a course at the home institution, as the author/instructor gets some of the money (not much, though, even for a $180 text, I'm afraid.) At a normal university with standards and ethics, there generally is a mechanism for making textbook adoption decisions revenue-neutral for the instructor. I know of places where the part of the proceeds from the sale at the home institution of the author is sent directly from the publisher to something like the department colloquium fund, or sometimes if the publisher can't cope with the complexity, the author just donates the apportioned proceeds from sales at the home institution to a student support fund or tutoring lab or something like that.
Apparently, in this department, there is no such mechanism for the revenue (or the authors are not worried about the conflict of interest) and the authors apparently do get money from the text being required at their own institution. It is easy to see how another faculty member, now tenured, can feel that it is unfair for the text to be required, if the text isn't that great (most aren't) and if the money is going to his or her department members despite the fact that it is not the best value book. When the people profiting in question are part of the department administration (chair, assistant chair) that makes resistance more difficult, as department staff can retaliate in various obvious and subtle ways and there can be pressure to comply with unethical practices.
At a normal university, there would be conflict-of-interest policies that apply and would probably prevent a department from forming a policy to require a course purchase which benefits a faculty member financially. At Cal State Fullerton, either there aren't any strong policies, or they are being ignored, apparently. The instructor who is not following this unethical policy does have tenure (his wife is also tenured in the same department) so though he can't be readily dismissed or denied tenure, but still because the people who are financially impacted by this make decisions which can affect him and his wife, this is big headache.
There has been support from faculty in other departments which is a good sign but the fact that it got this far is one sign of an unhappy dysfunctional math department. There are hundreds of commodity linear algebra and differential equations textbooks out there, with lots of different approaches. Most of them are terrible, but there are enough good ones that this kerfluffle seems pretty ridiculous.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
While 75 dollars is a significant savings over 180, why stop there? I just did a search on "linear algebra" on Google Shopping, and I can see three books from Dover Publications in there, with a combined cost of $33.18. While I'm sure they're terrible at explaining linear algebra to someone who doesn't already know linear algebra, I'm equally sure that the 75 and 180 dollar versions are terrible as well. I'd rather have three concise terrible math books books plus 40-150 dollars than one really heavy terrible math book.
(But don't get me started on ethics and the textbook industry...)
There's ethic in the textbook industry?! Since when?!
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Yeah, it seems insanely low. Given the monopoly power of the schools — they control, which books can be used — they could ask for your first-born child as well.
The Big Ed's shenanigans are far worse than those of the regularly-condemned Big Oil and Big Pharma, for example, and they are long overdue for some Congressional scrutiny.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Create a "Credit Union" version of the University - open sourced books, leverage videos, implement real world methodologies into projects, and foster ethical and professional behavior across all disciplines. Drive to create a true non-profit organization centered on delivering actual education and value back to the middle class students who need that accredited degree to get their foot int he door professionally.
Our President and business leaders talks a good game about promoting STEM and education in this country, but won't do anything to overhaul the terrible system that is our college system. Make it affordable, practical, and worthwhile.
Of course, the same could be said about our health care system, too.
I see many comments saying something along the lines of department chairs / professors "lining their pockets" by requiring books that they wrote.
While it very well may be an ego thing, it is definitely NOT a money thing. My wife has written many collegiate level textbooks and they are used at many different schools. She netted a whopping $600 in royalties for 2014. The authors are not getting rich on sales of textbooks. Their salaries dwarf what they earn for publications.
Next conspiracy theory ...
But undergraduate mathematics is essentailly set-in-stone. There isn't much new being added to undergrad math since all of the new stuff is a function of graduate work on the advancement of math. Stuff at this level isn't changing so the only changes to the textbooks that actually make sense are those that make learning the curriculum easier, but even that is subject to both interpretation and to the particular way that a given student learns. That's also why there's a teacher there, because otherwise subjects like mathematics at this level could be learned through self-study, and sometimes that human guidance helps clarify things when the book doesn't provide the answers in a way that students understand.
Macroeconomics, while partially math-based, is also a lot of the discussion of evolving schools of thought. It's not settled, and the to and fro of collective opinion on what functions best or what model represents reality best is always being debated, and crosses into politics at times, and new Economic theories that impact undergrad studies appear at least a little more often than new undergrad math concepts.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Here in Canada, there is a law that limits loans based on the what percentage of my income the payments would end up being. I can't help but think a lot of this madness would end if the maximum student loan was based on what is affordable based on the expected income of someone graduating with the degree in question.
But don't get me started on ethics and the textbook industry...
Actually, since you are a former university(?) math professor; I'd love to get you started on ethics and the textbook industry, and hear your take on it.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
" Given the monopoly power of the schools...they could ask for your first-born child as well."
That's what tuition is for. Textbooks are just a side racket.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
$180? Are they fucking insane?
The people reprimanding him are the people who chose the $180 textbook, and they also happen to be the authors of that overpriced textbook.
So no, it definitely not that they're insane... Unethical, corrupt and greedy, but not insane.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Maybe if the education system here took their heads out of their asses, it would not matter which text book was used for a particular subject.
It seems to matter very much to the people who chose the book for the course because they also literally wrote the book. So they probably think it's the best and they get a portion of every sale.
The problem is that the text book and testing industry have such an incestuous relationship
Quite incestuous indeed, since they wrote the book and then picked the book that they wrote.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Such a brazen conflict of interest should threaten accreditation and be much more significant problem than merely using a different textbook.
As a (former) student, I never had a college level math class that didn't require the text book. Even more notably, it almost always had to be the new one, because they rearrange and change the problems assigned as homework.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
Hah. If that were true then all mathematicians would be millionaires!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
As a former university and tech school mathematics instructor, I'm happy to throw in my take on it.
Most textbooks are absolutely dull, and are full of extremely contrived examples designed to "show how useful the subject is". Many subjects are extremely useful, but perhaps to only certain fields, so it's sometimes difficult to explain the utility to a first undergraduate course in the subject. This makes many students bored because they're smart enough to realize they're essentially being lied to -- the examples are obviously contrived and lame. Furthermore, it pushes this idea that unless there's a "practical way to make money" on the subject, it's worthless, which is absolutely not true. We should encourage philosophical thought for its own sake, and recognize that such thought sometimes leads to great discoveries long term, even if we don't know how its useful right this minute.
So that being said, the textbook industry knows Education is a buzz word in politics. They know getting Good Jobs (TM) is another buzzword. So they rewrite the textbooks every year now. The actual content doesn't change (or at least not for the best; I think they often just remove content!), they just swap chapters around, and most importantly, tailor the contrived examples to the buzzword industry of the year. They can then go around convincing politicians, school districts, and universities that their books "prepare students to enter the workforce" and you absolutely need the latest edition or your students won't have the advantage others' do. It's kind of a bullying -- they make the professors feel bad, and if they manage to stand up, then they go to the school board or university administration to get their book in.
To convince people of the book, they spam free copies of the book to everyone. They hand out swag at conferences, reminding them of how awesome they are for publishing. They get name recognition.
Professors then start to feel bad that maybe my students are not receiving the same advantage as everyone else, let me use what they all use. Going through graduate school, I had my share of completely awful textbooks for courses. Couldn't learn a damn thing from them. We asked the professor about it (several different ones for different classes) and the response was almost always "this is the standard textbook nationwide on this topic".
Having a standard breeds mediocrity in some sense. To me, University is meant to open your mind to new ideas. I think they should be a little different between semesters and professors. Shake it up. Cover a few new topics, especially if the students seem interested. Throw out a few topics because maybe there's little interest. Why not tailor it to what the students want, rather than university and accreditation boards? I know, losing accreditation would be bad, but that's exactly my point -- the system has damaged what it means to have a university education. You just go through an assembly line, rather than being encouraged to explore your interested. Classes like linear algebra are amazingly useful, but (1) not every applied field in the world needs it, so I can see some instances where you don't want to cover all the nuances; (2) linear algebra is a very large subject and so even if a student should learn it, the question becomes: what part of linear algebra? What should be the focus of the class? We need professors willing to change it up based on student needs and interests. We're teaching kids how to learn, not rote memory -- if we do a good job, then even if we don't cover everything, students will know how to find and learn what they need in the future!
Finally, many textbooks themselves were not written because of someone's passion to educate, but rather to fulfill a bullet point for a PhD or tenure. Check the introduction/forward of any textbook; most of them will say "This grew out of work I did for my PhD....". It is almost verbatim someone's PhD thesis, but somehow undergraduates are expected to follow a PhD thesis on a subject (remembe
I'm a current one. I enjoy bullshitting with our textbook reps, because I enjoy bullshitting, and they keep thinking that entertaining me is going to positively influence our textbook purchasing. What really happened at the last committee meeting was " It is immoral and unacceptable to discriminate against minority students through textbook pricing. I will not support the new edition until there are adequate copies available on the used textbook market.." Throwing the discrimination card worked beautifully.
Here's what one former university professor had to say about his experience with the textbook industry.
The man from the book depository was there, and he said, "Excuse me; I can explain that. I didn't send it to you because that book hadn't been completed yet. There's a rule that you have to have every entry in by a certain time, and the publisher was a few days late with it. So it was sent to us with just the covers, and it's blank in between. The company sent a note excusing themselves and hoping they could have their set of three books considered, even though the third one would be late."
It turned out that the blank book had a rating by some of the other members! They couldn't believe it was blank, because [the book] had a rating. In fact, the rating for the missing book was a little bit higher than for the two others. The fact that there was nothing in the book had nothing to do with the rating.
Here an Associate Professor has tenure. If you are tenure track you are hired as an Assistant Professor, and become an Associate when you are granted tenure. So it means you've been around for some time and passed your big milestone. Becoming a full professor does not happen for a long time after that, generally at least 10 years, sometimes longer. As a practical matter departments usually only have so many lines for full professors.
So an associate isn't some junior level position or anything. It means a tenured professor with their own research lab, at least where I work.
Not according to one of the math professors commenting in TFA:
I'll preface this by saying that I was not tenured faculty. But I was adjunct faculty with a thriving career outside of the university and seven years as a part-time faculty member.
This happened to me at local State U (I'm in a flyover state) and ended my years as a professor. I was a top-rated instructor in the department by both student evaluations and faculty observations, advising graduate students, experienced, and had been there a long time teaching courses that I developed and that were well-received.
New leadership came in at the divisional level, and I was called in to a meeting with my chair one day. I was told I could no longer do what I had been doing for at least half a decade: assigning a textbook that was several editions old (there were no substantive changes in the newer editions, just replaced photos) and instructing students on the syllabus to pick the books up for literally pennies on Amazon.com, Alibris, eBay, or other online venues.
Instead, I had to assign the latest issue of the textbook and do it only through the university bookstore, at a cost of >$150.00 in one class, >$200.00 in another (compared to an average of $4.00 plus shipping most semesters for the online used versions). I had it listed as my first assignment on each syllabus—buy a used textbook online and submit proof of purchase (to be sure the students actually did get ahold of the textbooks).
I refused. I said I would provide both options—I'd order the textbook through the university bookstore and provide that as an option to students that preferred to buy new, through the bookstore, but would also allow both current and old editions to be used in my classes for students that wanted to rely on used books. I was threatened again. New only, bookstore only.
I refused. I was fired.
That semester (in 2014) was the last time I set foot on a college campus as a professor, after nearly a decade in the classroom every semester. Again, I wasn't tenured—but it left a significant hole in curriculum and advising. They were more interested in ensuring that students contributed to revenue and partnerships through bookstore purchases than they were in actually enabling students to learn in a cost-effective way.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW