Thank you Professor Fireman
This is an open “thank you letter” to Professor Fireman, of the Statistics Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:
Dear Professor Fireman,
I’m currently enrolled in your Stat 100 class at UIUC. Thank you for your policy on textbooks. When I entered your lecture on the first day, I had with me a copy of the 4th edition of “Statistics” by Freedman. This book was listed as “required” by the Illini Union Bookstore, and carried a price tag of over $90 dollars.
After class started, you asked us if anybody had purchased the book. I raised my hand, and you told me to come down to the front of the lecture hall. You asked me how much I paid, and I said $95. Your response…? “You just paid $85 too much for that book.”
Thank you Professor Fireman for advising me to return that prohibitively expensive textbook and instead consider purchasing a used copy of the previous edition on ebay for only $5.
Thank you Professor Fireman for telling us that the only thing you required were the “Incomplete Lecture Notes” since they contained all the material needed for the course.
Thank you Professor Fireman for letting us know that you have copies of the textbook that can be borrowed while we’re studying in the statistics lab.
And to folks at the Illini Union Bookstore— SHAME ON YOU!!! Why didn’t you guys have used copies of the 3rd edition? And to professors who require new editions of books that haven’t changed much—SHAME ON YOU TOO!!!
Best regards for a wonderful year,
Max
Comment by Joshua on 30 August 2009 at 5:44 pm:
Sounds like Fineman is one of the good guys.
Comment by Kevin C. on 30 August 2009 at 5:50 pm:
This is why I stopped going to the Union Bookstore after my first semester. TIS is the best choice, followed by Follett’s. Half.com is even better, as you can get brand new soft cover editions (that are sold overseas as “foreign” editions) for a fraction of the price you’d have to pay for a new hard cover book.
The absolute worst is getting a professor who writes the book that he uses for a given class. There is a notorious Chem 101 professor (I believe it’s Zumdahl if I remember correctly) who teaches literally 1/2 of the freshman class and makes them all buy his book, which he “updates” every 2 years or so. I’m sure he’s made a nice profit over the last 30 years or so. Facist!
Comment by Joshua on 30 August 2009 at 6:04 pm:
Worse yet, the hardback Zumdahl edition sold on campus recently, at least in spring 06, had a section in the middle of worksheets that had to be torn out, which eliminates the used book market. I’m not sure if this is still the practice.
Comment by Kevin C. on 30 August 2009 at 8:32 pm:
That should be illegal.
Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 30 August 2009 at 9:35 pm:
Steve Zumdahl (whom I have to inform you was my former boss) retired in, I believe, 2004. After he left, all of the Chemistry instructors at the University of Illinois were allowed to use any textbook they wished for their courses. Some picked Zumdahl’s book (which, as of 2004, was the most used textbook nationally in both colleges and high schools) because they, like me, considered it to the best available in the country.
I have no idea what was up with the worksheets and what the current situation is with the textbooks. You’re reporting news that is years out of date.
As an author, I have to comment on your general attitudes, though. Many instructors at the University of Illinois are underpaid compared to what they would be making in either industry, government, or a private institution. They make up the difference, feed their families, and keep a roof over their head by supplimenting their income by writing textbooks. There is some abuse, of course, and corruption, like there is with anything else involving the University. They are, for the most part, though, not out to screw their students.
The question is, then, what’s a fair return for one’s wisdom and time and how should such an author be rewarded if not by charging an amount in line with their experience. Zumdahl above was considered the greatest chemistry instructor in the US while he was working. What is a decent reward for him?
Tom
Comment by Kevin C. on 31 August 2009 at 6:52 am:
Feed their families? OK Latrell. I highly doubt that he ever had trouble feeding his family while off on exotic vacations to Indonesia. Supplementing income w/ textbooks is fine; college profs. don’t make that much $ compared to private practice. But that guy took advantage of the system. Tear out worksheets? Get real. If that’s true, which I can totally believe, it’s even more outrageous considering the textbook was the #1 used book in America. Force a vast group of freshmen to buy a $215.00 book new? Seems like a pretty good way to make obscene amounts of money every year.
Write a new hardcover edition every 6-8 years, and if you really want to add new material, make kids buy a $20 supplement each year. The cost of textbooks is outrageous ($200+ for his), and the notion that it’s OK because guys like him need a roof over their heads and Ramen noodles for their malnourished children (we all know that living in Champaign is so outlandishly expensive) is ridiculous. Furthermore, you know you’re not going to get rich becoming a professor, and I’d like to think he had some sort of passion for teaching, which I fail to see while I’m trying to look past his screwing over students on a yearly basis.
Comment by Joshua on 31 August 2009 at 9:03 am:
Dr. Z could have been a little less predatory, but that would have risked interfering in building his collection of corvettes.
Comment by Joshua on 31 August 2009 at 9:04 am:
Does it seem wrong to anyone else that a department head required all chem instructors to use his book? A conflict perhaps? If it’s the best college text available, then I would assume instructors would pick it on the merits. Tom’s email sure makes it sound like this was required during the dark reign of Führer Zumdahl
Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 31 August 2009 at 11:45 am:
Dr. Zumdahl had two books he had written, one for his own class and one for the Freshmen in 101. The Freshman instructor was not required to use his while he was there. I was not trying to imply that there was coercion, Josh, merely demonstrating that even after he left, instructors still used it.
BTW, I know of at least one instructor in the UofI Chem Dept, (whose name I will keep confidential), who Xeroxed the tear-outs from new books and distributed them to his students.
I find all this fuss over something that makes up less than 2% of your total University expense to be fairly ridiculous. Most of you spend a hell of a lot more on beer and pot than you do on textbooks.
How about complaining about the thousands of dollars in tuition and fees that you’re not getting your money’s worth from?
Tom
Comment by Joshua on 31 August 2009 at 12:04 pm:
It’s probably closer to 5% of what people are spending, and it’s more real to students b/c books more often come out of their own pocket.
It is surprising that increases in tuition arent drawing more fire.
Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 31 August 2009 at 12:23 pm:
So does beer and pot.
Tom
Comment by Joshua on 31 August 2009 at 12:39 pm:
What do you think would be a fair amount to spend on tuition
Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 31 August 2009 at 1:50 pm:
Let’s assume that the University system, as it exists now, should continue–something that I’m not convinced is a good idea, but without that assumption, we can’t discuss your question meaningfully.
If that is the case, I believe that the present level of tuition should be the highest possible amount that any student should have to pay to attend.
Tuition should be reduced by a number derived by combining the parental income with the student’s actual chance of succeeding and real intelligence. The lower the income and the higher the other factors, the lower the tuition.
The higher success rate measure will ensure the maximum efficiency of the system. The higher real intelligence would tend toward giving the resulting student a better chance of making a difference in the coming changed society. The low income measurement would increase diversity by giving highly talented, highly motivated students from poor families chances that they would not otherwise have.
In no case would the University admit anyone under the age of twenty, because neuroscientists have determined that the final social wiring that enables individuals to act responsibly are not finished until soon after that age. Before that, you’re pouring sand into the Grand Canyon and wasting your time and hard-earned knowledge.
With all of the above factors in place, the number of students actually attending the University would drop by about half. Because of this, the school could reduce staff–starting, of course, with its bloated bureaucracy. The reduced demand would drive prices down by the simple laws of supply and demand.
I expect something like this will occur with those institutions that survive the upcoming education bubble-burst.
Tom
Comment by Kevin C. on 31 August 2009 at 3:49 pm:
Tom, I hope you’re right, and I hope that only ~ 1/4 of the institutions survive. There are way too many “schools” out there. Case in point–do we really need a Northern/Eastern/Western/Southern/UIC/UIUC/UIS? I mean, how ridiculous is that? This is especially terrible if you look at the so-called-implicitly-prestigious “private” schools (kneel before them I say!!!). I don’t know how most of those shit hole institutions get away with charging $40k+ for tuition. What’s more, I don’t know why people continue to pay it. It’s one thing to pay $40k/year to go to Harvard, and quite another to go to Granite Malamute’s School of Technology and the Arts.
Comment by Kevin C. on 31 August 2009 at 3:49 pm:
By the way, I missed you Tom. You make this site worth reading.
Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 31 August 2009 at 10:26 pm:
It’s good to be back, Kevin.
Tom
Comment by Dennis on 1 September 2009 at 8:01 pm:
This whole question of the cost of textbooks is akin to the health care debate. Just where is the money going. What is the cost of production, what is the author getting and what is the publisher getting? There is no transparency to justify these expenses. I know I reviewed the cost of every book I assigned and reviewed every new edition to make sure it was worth adopting. Dennis
Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 1 September 2009 at 9:02 pm:
Well, I’m not sure what a textbook author gets, but I can tell you what a commercial writer gets (since I am one) if he signs with one of the New York Publishers.
On a $25 hardback, he gets about $1.25, with no money forthcoming for about two years in many cases. Most companies don’t even give advances any more. A big-time writer like Stephen King gets about 10 or 15% of the cover price or a one-time purchase price, more likely.
Oh yeah, and your agent gets 10% of *your* cut, if you’re lucky.
I imagine a textbook author gets a higher percentage, but I am certain that it is nowhere near the 50% mark by a long shot. The publisher gets a big cut, the person that does the illustrations for a chemistry textbook is also on the payroll, the bookstore has a mighty fine markup. Hell, even Amazon marks everything up by 50% and they have minimal overhead.
The way Steve Z got his sports cars was by volume and simply being the best that there was out there. Word of mouth counts for a lot.
Tom
Comment by Tim on 3 September 2009 at 5:28 pm:
“As an author, I have to comment on your general attitudes, though. Many instructors at the University of Illinois are underpaid compared to what they would be making in either industry, government, or a private institution. They make up the difference, feed their families, and keep a roof over their head by supplimenting their income by writing textbooks. There is some abuse, of course, and corruption, like there is with anything else involving the University. They are, for the most part, though, not out to screw their students.”
Wrong. People don’t become professors if they want to be rich. Further, textbooks are the most profitable thing a Professor can ever write. I’ve been told it’s the only way to become rich in academia.
It is a conflict of interest to require one’s own textbook for a course, and should not be allowed.
Dean Bruce P. Smith is teaching LAW 301 this year, and he made it very clear that although his textbook is required for the course, he is NOT taking royalties from the textbook, instead donating them to a scholarship fund for the law school.
“The question is, then, what’s a fair return for one’s wisdom and time and how should such an author be rewarded if not by charging an amount in line with their experience. Zumdahl above was considered the greatest chemistry instructor in the US while he was working. What is a decent reward for him?”
“Fairness” is a principle that I don’t much care about, but I’ll answer your question. A “fair” return is what the free market will pay you when it’s working properly–that is, without deception or fraud. Exploiting a conflict of interest to steal from your students is not “fair.” As far as I’m concerned, it should be criminal.
If you want to be an instructor and you want your students to use your textbook, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t be profiting from it or you shouldn’t be allowed to use that textbook. This is not an academic freedom issue; this is theft.
“I find all this fuss over something that makes up less than 2% of your total University expense to be fairly ridiculous. Most of you spend a hell of a lot more on beer and pot than you do on textbooks.”
Aside from being downright insulting, this is false. The textbook for just one of my courses this semester was over $150. If you think I can drink $150 worth of $2 beers on this campus, you’ve got something coming. Am I here to drink beer or get an education? How about a little common sense?
“How about complaining about the thousands of dollars in tuition and fees that you’re not getting your money’s worth from?”
I’m equally angry about that, it’s just harder to put a single name on who’s responsible for that.
“It is surprising that increases in tuition arent drawing more fire.”
The academic community has responded angrily to increases in tuition that aren’t justified by inflation and other factors. I’ll leave that to the experts, for now.
But you’re right–tuition increases should be angrily opposed.
“Tuition should be reduced by a number derived by combining the parental income with the student’s actual chance of succeeding and real intelligence. The lower the income and the higher the other factors, the lower the tuition.”
What the fuck does my parents’ income have to do with my college education?
The rate of return on textbooks is not the problem here. It is a myth that “profit” represents any huge portion of the cost of any good or service in a competitive market.
Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 3 September 2009 at 9:38 pm:
I’ll address the beer and pot issue (and your parents’ fucking income) in a later post but I have to agree with your last sentence–words in parentheses mine.
IT IS A MYTH THAT “PROFIT” (for the author) REPRESENTS ANY HUGE PORTION OF ANY GOOD (textbook) OR SERVICE (teaching) in a competative market.
Tom
Comment by Kevin C. on 3 September 2009 at 10:12 pm:
Tim is dead on here, at least to the textbook issue. It is an inherent and unavoidable conflict of interest to require your own textbook for a course and then profit from it. I love the idea of donating all royalties from the books purchased and used in the classes professor teach to a scholarship fund. More evidence that Bruce Smith is a stand-up guy. I have full faith that he will take the law school to another level, but that is another story.
Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 4 September 2009 at 12:58 pm:
Kevin, you’ve raised a good point, but I have to state that in some cases, the good of the students should trump such a rule.
Consider this:
1) Steve Zumdahl was arguably the best Freshman chemistry instructor in the United States.
2) His textbooks were inarguably the most-used textbooks in high schools and colleges in the United States because they were also considered to be the best available.
Therefore, if you prevent him from using those textbooks in his class, you are depriving the students at the University of Illinois the unique opportunity of having both the best instructor and the best textbook in the country.
Is this really what you want to do in order to save the students a few bucks?
Tim, I did not imply that you, personally, were either drunk or stoned all the time. Please note that I said “most of you…” I still stand by that statement, as well as the 2% figure. [I taught for fifteen years and am quite familiar with the percentage of students who drink and smoke dope. Close to 80% of my Freshman lab were hung over on Monday morning at eight a.m.] If you like, we can re-do (in the open) the Fermi calculation I used to come up with the 2% figure.
Tom
Comment by Tim on 10 September 2009 at 10:46 pm:
Wow, people agree with me for once :D
Yes, Dean Smith is an amazing guy. I wouldn’t say his research interests me that much, but he is definitely in my list of top-5 Professors of my college career.
I’m sure there are plenty of idiots who drink too much and smoke dope. I’m not one of them. I just wish more of them would flunk out so our school could actually maintain its reputation. It boggles the mind to observe how many very hard-working high school students came here, met the wrong crowd, and became screwups AFTER they actually accomplished something by getting admitted here. Perhaps I’m different because I know that I want to go to law school…and thus screwing up undergrad can’t happen.
The solution to the deprivation statement is simply to not take any royalties from the book you’re using if you wrote it, or to choose another textbook. I find it very hard to believe that his textbook is so good that no other textbook could compare, but I’ve long since sold my freshman chemistry textbook (as I’m a senior in economics, I didn’t think I’d be needing it again) so I can’t say whose textbook I even used.
Comment by Roland on 17 September 2009 at 1:34 am:
I’m a former Illini, who’s now a prof at Tulane, down in the Big Easy.
For folks discussing the textbook royalty issue, definitely check out the take over at the Freakonomics blog:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/ask-your-teachers-for-a-rebate/
Essentially, it’s a professor’s responsibility to make sure that they are using the best textbook possible for a given class. However, if they happen to be the author of that textbook, there are HUGE ethical issues that can (and should!) come into play.
To require faculty to use a certain text is an ethical no-no, no matter how you slice it. And given the power asymmetry that exists between faculty and students, to require that students purchase your textbook (or participate in your experiments, or “volunteer” for your charities, etc.) is something anyone with scruples and a basic sense of ethics should consider more deeply. In my opinion, much of what I saw in those large sections taught by the authors of the required texts (Chemistry classes and Econ classes come to mind) was an absolute racket.
When I taught courses back at UIUC, I generally would require a given text, but allow students to buy older editions (five bucks, delivered from half.com!), and the send out updated case studies or examples from the latest text via .pdf (under fair use).
Comment by Joshua on 18 September 2009 at 10:54 pm:
Roland, sounds like you were one of the good ones. I couldn’t agree with you more regarding the ethical issues at play