GOOD

How Can We Curb the Soaring Cost of Textbooks?

Between 1998 and 2014 the price of new textbooks increased by 142 percent.

According to College Board estimates, in the current school year the average higher education student will shell out about $1,300 for books and supplies, regardless of school type. That cost is shocking. But even more alarming is the rapid rise in textbook prices over recent years. As illustrated in the above video, between 1998 and 2014 the cost of new textbooks increased by 142 percent, versus 44 percent for all other goods and just 1.6 percent for your average beach read. And the picture looks even worse if you go further back in time. According to government data, new textbook prices have been rising at a fairly steady 6 percent per year for ages, racking up a total increase of more than 800 percent since 1978 (around the era when prices began to seriously spike). Outpacing inflation, rising production costs, or any other factor, and contributing to what was in 2013 a $14 billion industry, it’s tempting to read this as a story of corporate greed preying upon our need for an education. But the real cause today for the meteoric rise in new book prices is a little more complex than greed alone.


The most common narrative for rising textbook costs credits them to a dysfunctional market. Whereas consumers usually have the direct ability to choose which books they buy, balancing content and affordability, publishers have traditionally marketed directly to professors setting the syllabi for their classes. Once selected, certain books—usually new or recent editions—become necessary to students’ success in the course. Recent legislation has worked to make staff and students more aware of the comparative costs of different books. But professors have told government researchers that even with more awareness of pricing issues, they still prioritize a textbook’s content over price. This hierarchy leaves a captive market to deal with prices dictated by producers who are part of corporate behemoths out for (so the narrative runs) reckless, self-serving profits.

Yet digging deeper, it appears that rising prices might not correlate to absurd profits. According to studies of student buying habits, overall spending on textbooks has remained fairly steady—or even fallen slightly—in recent years. And despite the absurdity of costs, publishers don’t see a whole lot of that income as profit. In fact, a number of publishers have been in financial trouble in recent years. Most notoriously, Cengage Learning had to file for bankruptcy in 2013.

Image by the University of Illinois Library via Flickr

This paradox of rising prices, stagnant spending, and questionable profits comes down to massive shifts in the way students have accessed textbooks over the past couple of decades. First, with the rise of large retail chains and, later, with the advent of the internet, it became much easier for students to find cheap used books or ones available for rent. And initiatives to create open textbooks and a push toward digital resources with lower price points have further deflated sales of new textbooks. The recognition that they can only make a profit in the first year after a new print edition is released—and the frailty of even those sales—has led publishers to jack up prices and crank out a needless quantity of new editions to secure a steady flow of income. This reactionary cycle has created a system that is far from sustainable.

There is likely a point of inflection beyond which people will just not shell out for a new book. And, to an extent, the price of new textbooks sets the price of used books and rentals as well (at least according to analyses by the U.S. Government Accountability Office). Ultimately this spiral of rising costs in a changing, broken market has to be addressed. Fortunately, a number of organizations are on the case—chief amongst them educational publishers who are desperately trying to replace books with digital services like dynamic subscriptions to texts.

Digital resources require less overhead to produce and can’t be resold (much to the joy of publishers). Ideally, they’re highly adaptable systems—updated as necessary and subscribed to or purchased on a regular basis—that could in theory enhance the ability to teach and learn. And many companies are now trying to market at least some of their new services directly to students, which may help to offset the problems of a professor-driven market. How this will reflect in course syllabi remains to be seen. But ideally, professors will find a way to accommodate open-source options, digital offerings, and other diverse materials in their classes in a way that both covers coursework and honors students’ need to make prudent financial decisions as education consumers—and our collective need to break the death spiral of educational publishing.

Articles
via Chela Horsdal / Twitter

Amazon's "The Man in the High Castle" debuted the first episode of its final season last week.

The show is loosely based on an alternative history novel by Philip K. Dick that postulates what would happen if Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan controlled the United States after being victorious in World War II.

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Mike Mozart / Flickr

Chick-fil-A is the third-largest fast food chain in America, behind McDonald's and Starbucks, raking in over $10 billion a year.

But for years, the company has faced boycotts for supporting anti-LGBT charities, including the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.

The Salvation Army faced criticism after a leader in the organization implied that gay people "deserve to die" and the company also came under fire after refusing to offer same-sex couples health insurance. But the organization swears it's evolving on such issues.

via Thomas Hawk / Flickr

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes explicitly announced it was anti gay marriage in a recent "Statement of Faith."

God instituted marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation of the family and the basic structure of human society. For this reason, we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman.

The Paul Anderson Youth Home teaches boys that homosexuality is wrong and that same-sex marriage is "rage against Jesus Christ and His values."

RELATED: The 1975's singer bravely kissed a man at a Dubai concert to protest anti-LGBT oppression

In 2012, Chick-fil-A's CEO, Dan Cathy, made anti same-sex marriage comments on a radio broadcast:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

But the chicken giant has now decided to change it's says its charitable donation strategy because it's bad for business...Not because being homophobic is wrong.

The company recently lost several bids to provide concessions in U.S. airports. A pop-up shop in England was told it would not be renewed after eight days following LGBTQ protests.

Chick-fil-A also has plans to expand to Boston, Massachusetts where its mayor, Thomas Menino, pledged to ban the restaurant from the city.

via Wikimedia Commons

"There's no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are," Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos told Bisnow. "There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message."

RELATED: Alan Turing will appear on the 50-pound note nearly 70 years after being persecuted for his sexuality

Instead, the Chick-fil-A Foundation plans to give $9 million to organizations that support education and fight homelessness. Which is commendable regardless of the company's troubled past.

"If Chick-Fil-A is serious about their pledge to stop holding hands with divisive anti-LGBTQ activists, then further transparency is needed regarding their deep ties to organizations like Focus on the Family, which exist purely to harm LGBTQ people and families," Drew Anderson, GLAAD's director of campaigns and rapid response, said in a statement.

Chick-fil-A's decision to back down from contributing to anti-LGBT charities shows the power that people have to fight back against companies by hitting them where it really hurts — the pocket book.

The question remains: If you previously avoided Chick-fil-A because it supported anti-LGBT organizations, is it now OK to eat there? Especially when Popeye's chicken sandwich is so good people will kill for it?

Lifestyle

Oh, irony. You are having quite a day.

The Italian region of Veneto, which includes the city of Venice, is currently experiencing historic flooding. Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro has stated that the flooding is a direct result of climate change, with the tide measuring the highest level in 50 years. The city (which is actually a collection of 100 islands in a lagoon—hence its famous canal streets), is no stranger to regular flooding, but is currently on the brink of declaring a state of emergency as waters refuse to recede.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
via Gage Skidmore / Flickr and nrkbeta / flickr

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) dropped a bombshell on Tuesday, announcing it had over 900 emails that White House aide Stephen Miller sent to former Breitbart writer and editor Katie McHugh.

According to the SPLC, in the emails, Miller aggressively "promoted white nationalist literature, pushed racist immigration stories and obsessed over the loss of Confederate symbols after Dylann Roof's murderous rampage."

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Twitter / Bye,Bye Harley Davidson

The NRA likes to diminish the role that guns play in fatal shootings by saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Which is the same logic as, "Hammers don't build roofs, people build roofs." No duh. But it'd be nearly impossible to build a roof without a hammer.

So, shouldn't the people who manufacture guns share some responsibility when they are used for the purpose they're made: killing people? Especially when the manufacturers market the weapon for that exact purpose?

Keep Reading Show less
Business