College and Research Libraries By S T E P H E N A . M c C A R T H Y Administrative Organisation and Financial Support of Land'Grant College and University Libraries Dr. McCarthy is director, Cornell Uni- versity Library. IN THE summer of 1947, in preparing f o r a survey of the libraries of C o r n e l l U n i - versity, a questionnaire was distributed to f i f t y - t w o land-grant colleges and universi- ties, requesting information on the adminis- trative organization of agricultural college libraries, and statistical data on library sup- port, book collections, and staff. T h e re- plies w h i c h could be used numbered f o r t y f o r most of the questions, except those call- ing f o r financial data, in w h i c h it was ap- parent that the base of reporting varied so widely as to make the returns of little value f o r comparative study. Summarizing the replies dealing with organizational problems, it may be observed that the agricultural college is not usually an autonomous institution, that it is nor- mally situated in the same vicinity as the parent institution, and that the agricultural college library is ordinarily organized as part of the main library. Replies to subse- quent questions indicate that in most cases there is no separate agricultural experiment station library, and materials purchased on experiment station funds are normally con- sidered a part of the agricultural college library. O r d i n a r i l y the book collections of the agricultural college libraries are recorded in the main library catalog, there being only t w o instances in which this is not the case. It is also true that the holdings of agricul- tural experiment station libraries are c o m - m o n l y recorded in the main library catalog, although there are six instances in which this is not the case. T h e catalog records f o r agricultural library books included in the main library catalog cover all entries in thirty-one institutions; in f o u r institutions they include author entries o n l y ; and in t w o institutions they include author and subject entries but omit certain secondary entries. W i t h regard to serials it may be noted that all but three of the f o r t y institutions reply- ing to the question concerning serial records do maintain a central record of all serials received by all libraries of the institution. It is c o m m o n in most land-grant institu- tions f o r the main library to do the w o r k of acquistion, cataloging, and binding f o r the agricultural library. T o the question " A r e acquisition, cataloging, binding, and photographic activities f o r the agricultural library carried on by the main l i b r a r y ? " there w e r e thirty-nine answers. In twenty- three instances it was stated that all of these activities w e r e carried on by the main li- brary ; in t w o it was indicated that none of these activities was carried on by the main l i b r a r y ; and in nine institutions all of the activities except photographic service w e r e provided by the main library. In the re- maining five institutions, there was some di- vision of w o r k of acquisition, cataloging or OCTOBER, 1948 35 7 binding, between the main library and the agricultural college library. T h e exchange situation of most land- grant institutions is a favorable one, since thirty-one institutions indicated that agri- cultural college publications are available to the main library for exchange, and only t w o institutions indicated that they are not so available. T w e l v e institutions including, of course, many of those in which agricul- tural college publications are available to the main library for exchange, indicated that these publications are also furnished to the agricultural library and to the agricultural experiment station library f o r exchange pur- poses. T h e situation with regard to the publications of agricultural experiment sta- tions is almost exactly the same, except that the number of institutions in which these publications are furnished to the main li- brary is thirty-five rather than thirty-one, and the number in which they are not avail- able to the main library is two. T h e campuses of many of the land-grant institutions are rather large and it is natural to find departmental libraries in various agricultural fields. T h e question on this topic was answered by forty institutions, of which twenty-five indicated that they main- tain such departmental libraries, and fifteen indicated that they do not. T h e adminis- tration of these departmental libraries pre- sents a somewhat less clear picture, although it is apparent that central administration is to be found in the majority of them. In seventeen institutions such departmental li- braries are a part of the main library sys- tem ; in four institutions such departmental libraries are a subdivision of the agriculture library; and in seven institutions some or all of these departmental libraries are operated independently of the library system under the control of instructional depart- ments. T h e financial support of these li- braries also presents a somewhat mixed pic- ture. There were forty-one replies to the question concerning financial support of de- partmental libraries and they indicate that, while in a fair number of instances the full support of these libraries is provided on the library budget, there are a number of in- stances in which some or all of the support is drawn f r o m the instructional depart- ments. In eleven institutions the salaries are carried as part of the main library budget, in t w o they are a part of the agri- culture library budget, and in eight they are a part of the budget of instructional departments. A s regards book f u n d s : in fifteen institutions they are included in the main library budget, in t w o they are a part of the agriculture library budget and in thirteen they are a part of the department budget. It is obvious, of course, that in a number of instances book funds may be sup- plied both by the department and the li- brary. In a f e w instances this is true of salaries as well. T h e question concerning the availability of photographic equipment was answered by thirty-seven libraries of which twenty-four are prepared to furnish photographic repro- ductions of their materials. O n l y seventeen of the thirty-seven w h o answered this ques- tion indicated the location of the facility, but of the seventeen, eleven depended on a general campus photographic service rather than on a separate library photographic service. O f the twenty-four institutions which indicated the types of photographic reproduction they could provide, fourteen are prepared to supply both microfilm and photostat, eight can supply only photostat, and two can supply only microfilm. In studying the question of library sup- port an attempt was first made to apply to Cornell the minimum standards of the A . L . A . f o r institutions of higher education. A f t e r some tentative figures had been worked out, the A . L . A . minimum standards 328 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH. LIBRARIES were discarded as being an inadequate meas- ure of the library needs of the university. A measure of adequacy of support which frequently has been used in the past is that of $25 per student. Since the A . L . A . rec- ommended in 1946 that library budgets be increased 50 per cent, in order to maintain the same standards as in 1940, it w o u l d seem to be correct to say that this figure should n o w be $ 3 7 . 5 0 per student. If this figure w e r e applied to C o r n e l l , w i t h its present enrolment, it w o u l d result in a li- brary budget of approximately the amount that was expended in 1 9 4 7 - 4 8 , yet there is general agreement that library funds are inadequate, and that many necessary and de- sirable services are not being provided. Actually the budget recommended by the surveyors in their report approximates $ 5 0 . 0 0 per student rather than $ 3 7 . 5 0 . A third measure of adequacy of library budget support is the ratio of library ex- penditures to total university expenditures f o r educational and general purposes. T h e percentage c o m m o n l y considered necessary f o r adequate library support has been f r o m 4 to 5 per cent, or, in any case, not less than 4 per cent. T h e annual library budget recommended by the surveyors f o r C o r n e l l w o u l d be approximately 3.5 per cent of the current year's university expenditures f o r educational and general purposes. In w o r k i n g out the various tables in- cluded in the survey report and as a result of the unsuccessful attempt to produce a significant comparative table on the finan- cial support of the agricultural libraries, a table was compiled f r o m various published sources, principally the statistical tables pub- lished in the July 1947 College and Re- search Libraries and the printed financial reports of various land-grant institutions, which w o u l d show both expenditures per student and the ratio of library expenditures to total educational expenditures f o r land- grant college libraries as a w h o l e , instead of f o r the agricultural libraries only. T h e results of this compilation are presented in T a b l e I . A m o n g these institutions, the per student library expenditure ranges f r o m a l o w of $ 2 . 6 7 to a high of $ 5 1 . 1 2 . T h e average is $ 2 2 . 2 8 and the median is $ 2 0 . 7 5 . T h e nineteen institutions included in the table may not be representative of the entire group of land-grant institutions and it is possible that a selection of another g r o u p of nineteen land-grant institutions could show either a better or a poorer picture, but the data reported are, nevertheless, indicative of the kind of support w h i c h is being provided in many of the land-grant institutions. T h e per student expenditure in 1 9 4 5 - 4 6 was still, on the average, b e l o w the minimum considered essential in the 1930's, and of course, still farther b e l o w the revised mini- m u m of $ 3 7 . 5 0 . I f , as is apparent at C o r - nell, an expenditure of approximately $ 5 0 . 0 0 per student is necessary, the average per student expenditure of $ 2 2 . 2 8 is seen to be seriously inadequate. T u r n i n g f r o m per student expenditure to the ratio between library expenditures and total educational expenditures of the same nineteen institutions, it is apparent that there is again a w i d e spread between the high point and the l o w . T h e institution at the top of the scale had a ratio of 9.3 per cent, w h i l e the institution at the lowest point of the scale had a ratio of 1.14 per cent. T h e average ratio was 2.77 per cent and the median was 2.31 per cent. For comparative purposes the figures f o r these same nineteen institutions in 1928, as reported in the land-grant college survey of 1930, and f o r 1937, have been examined. T h e data, in terms of averages, medians and ranges, f o r the three years are given in T a b l e I I , " L i b r a r y Expenditures Per Stu- d e n t , " and T a b l e I I I , " R a t i o of Library OCTOBER, 1948 35 7 Table I Library Expenditures Per Student and Ratio of Library Expenditures to T o t a l Institutional Expenditures f o r Certain Institutions, 1 9 4 5 - 4 6 Ratio of Library Expenditure to Per Student Total University Library Library University Expenditure Institution Enrolment Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure (Per Cent) Arizona 4 , 1 0 0 $ 49,298.00 $ 1 2 . 0 2 $ 1, 8 3 4 , 3 7 0 . 0 0 2.68 California 2 1 , 4 2 5 802,813.00 37.46 3 8 , 5 5 8 , 0 7 7 . 0 0 2.08 Connecticut 8,000 2 1 , 4 2 3 . 8 7 2.67 1 , 8 7 7 , 3 6 1 . 0 0 1. 1 4 Cornell 7,928 1 7 9 , 2 0 3 . 0 0 22.60 13,250,398-00 i-35 Georgia 2,593 1 3 2 , 6 6 2 . 0 0 5 1 . 1 2 1, 4 2 0 , 4 0 1 . 0 0 9-33 Illinois 15,989 618,020.11 38.65 1 4 , 6 1 6 , 2 2 2 . 0 0 4.22 I o w a State 7,978 165,464.00 2 0 . 7 4 6 , 1 8 1 , 3 4 5 . 0 0 2.67 Louisiana State 7,35i 2 1 0 , 3 1 3 . 2 8 28.61 5 , 6 8 7 , 4 1 4 . 0 0 3.69 M a i n e i,792 28,524.86 1 5 . 9 1 1, 6 2 0 , 4 4 2 . 4 7 1. 7 6 M . I . T . 4,500 93,444.86 20.76 4 , 1 7 6 , 4 9 8 . 0 0 2.23 Minnesota 18,59+ 4 0 5 , 6 0 5 . 0 0 2 1 . 8 1 1 2 , 9 1 0 , 9 3 9 . 0 0 3 . 1 4 Nebraska 6 , 6 7 5 1 1 7 , 6 4 1 . 1 9 1 7 . 6 2 5,079,634-00 2 . 3 1 N e w Hampshire 3,200 4 4 , 3 8 3 . 0 0 13.86 1, 9 0 2 , 9 6 1 . 0 0 2-33 Rutgers 3,679 1 0 6 , 9 7 8 . 8 9 29.07 5,648,061.00 1.89 Ohio State 16,000 254,498.86 1 5 . 9 0 11,038.814.00 2.30 Oregon State 5,924 1 0 1 , 3 4 9 . 0 0 1 7 . 1 0 3 , 1 5 6 , 0 3 4 . 0 0 3.21 Penn State 6,800 1 4 6 , 3 8 7 . 0 0 2 1 . 5 2 8 , 8 1 6 , 3 8 7 . 0 0 1.66 Wisconsin 13,476 2 0 3 , 4 6 5 . 0 1 15.09 11, 7 1 0 , 4 6 8 . 0 0 1.73 W y o m i n g 1,873 38,922.00 20.78 1 , 2 8 9 , 5 1 9 . 0 0 3.01 Expenditures to T o t a l Educational E x - in 1 9 4 5 - 4 6 . ( T a b l e I I ) T h e ratio of li- penditures." In the eighteen year period f r o m 1926 through 1945-46, the average expenditures per student have increased f r o m $16.00 in brary expenditure to total educational ex- penditures increased f r o m 2.52 per cent in 1928 to 2.996 per cent in 1937 and then slipped back to 2.77 per cent in 1945-46. 1928 to $19.38 in 1937 and on to $22.28 ( T a b l e I I I ) For these nineteen institu- Table II Library Expenditures Per Student in Nineteen Selected L a n d - G r a n t College Libraries in 1928, 1 9 3 7 , and 1 9 4 5 / 4 6 1 9 2 8 A v e r a g e Expenditure Per Student M e d i a n Expenditure Per Student Range of Per Student Expenditure $ 1 6 . 0 0 1 5 . 0 0 7 . o o - $ 2 7 . o o 1937 £19-38 1 7 . 6 5 i o . 8 5 - $ 4 2 . 3 5 1 9 4 5 / 4 6 $22.28 20.76 2 . 6 7 - $ 5 i . i 2 Table I I I Ratio of Library Expenditures to T o t a l Educational Expenditures in Nineteen Selected L a n d - G r a n t College Libraries in 1 9 2 8 , 1 9 3 7 , and 1 9 4 5 / 4 6 A v e r a g e Ratio M e d i a n Ratio Range 1 9 2 8 2 . 5 2 2.6 . 8 - 5 . 2 1 9 3 7 2 . 9 9 6 2 . 9 4 1 . 5 4 - 4 . 9 2 1 9 4 5 / 4 6 2 . 7 7 2 . 3 1 I - I 4 - 9 - 3 3 330 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH. LIBRARIES tions there has been an increase of $6.28 per student expenditure for library pur- poses in the eighteen year period, and the average ratio of library to total university expenditures has increased from 2.52 to 2.77 per cent. If however, the decreased purchasing power of the dollar is considered, it seems doubtful that there has been any significant improvement. W h e n these averages are compared with the commonly used standards of $25.00, now increased to $37.50, per student and 4 to 5 per cent of the total institutional expenditures, one can have his choice of conclusions: either the library situation in most land-grant colleges is very bad; or, the standards are higher than they should be. It may be argued that setting the mini- mum at 4 per cent creates an objective at which institutions should continue to aim even though, if past experience is a guide, they can never expect to achieve it. O n the other hand, it may be argued that land- grant colleges, which do not offer a full university program, may not require the 4 per cent ratio. It is not inconceivable that a lower expenditure per student and a lower ratio than the one that has been com- monly used may serve to provide adequate library services and facilities in institutions confined to technical programs of instruc- tion and research. In any case, it seems clear that the two standards: per student expenditure, and ratio of library expenditures to total ex- penditures, should be worked out so that there is a significant relationship between them. A s things now stand, if we say the per student expenditure should be $37.50 we are in effect saying that for an institu- tion such as Cornell a library budget of approximately $400,000.00 will meet the minimum standards. T h i s would mean a ratio of approximately 2.75 per cent. H o w - ever, if we say, as we have been saying, that the ratio should be 4 per cent, the recom- mended library budget would be approxi- mately $600,000.00 or $57.00 per student. Library Service to Technical Agriculturists (Continued from page 326) underlying sciences whether from his own library shelves, or those of the U . S. D e - partment of Agriculture Library, the Li- brary of Congress, the University of Cali- fornia, or any other library. T h e technical agriculturist serves the world's oldest and most basic industry—an industry as old as the Garden of Eden. His responsibility is great. In supplying the tools with which the technical agriculturist works, the agri- cultural librarian also has a great responsi- bility. H e provides the best and most up- to-date material that his funds or his bor- rowing power can obtain; he searches the literature of the past to aid in solving the problems of the present and the future; and he does both with efficiency and dispatch, keen intelligence, and sympathetic interest. OCTOBER, 1948 35 7