College and Research Libraries HENRY W. WINGATE The Undergraduate Library: Is It Obsolete? The first undergraduate libraries in the United States were established dur- ing the early 1930s. The concept of a special book collection for undergrad- uates was slow in gaining acceptance, and more than twenty-five years later, in 1959, there were only ten such collections. However, the 1960s were boom years for undergraduate libraries, and by 1972 there were forty-nine collections in· the country. Then, in the early 1970s, the trend re- versed itself, avd by 1977 the number of undergraduate collections had dropped to thirty-seven. Based la.rgely on responses to questionnaires sent to undergraduate libraries and to those university libraries formerly having undergraduate collections, this paper attempts to outline the history and the precipitous decline of the undergraduate library concept in the United States. SPECIAL BOOK COLLECTIONS ·designed primarily for the use of undergraduate stu- dents were first established by university li- braries in the United States in the early 1930s. During that period both Columbia University and the University of Chicago set up small (35,000 volumes at Columbia and 20,000 volumes at Chicago) collections within the main library buildings. These two collections remained the only under- graduate libraries in the United States for nearly twenty years. Although the first separately housed (i.e., housed in its own building separate from the main library) undergraduate library was not established until 1949, the concept of a separate library can be traced to the mid- 1930s when Keys Metcalf, then librarian of Harvard University, began advocating the construction of an undergraduate library building at Harvard. 1 For more than a dec- ade he continued to plead for such a build- ing, and by the late 1940s the Harvard ad- ministrators decided to follow his advice. In 1949 Lamont Library became the first sepa- rate undergraduate library in the United Henry W. Wingate is librarian, Darden Grad- uate School of Business Administration, Univer- sity of Virginia, Charlottesville. States. The University of Minnesota fol- lowed by opening its "freshman-sophomore" library in 1952. The number of undergraduate libraries continued to increase slowly during the 1950s, with Florida State, the University of Oklahoma, and .the University of Colorado establishing "in-house" collections prior to 1960, and the University of Michigan, UCLA, and the University of South Carolina opening separately housed under- graduate libraries during the same period. Between 1930 and 1960 the number of undergraduate libraries had grown quite slowly, from two in the 1930s to ten in 1960. The decade of the 1960s was the real growth period for undergraduate libraries. The number of both separate and in-house collections grew rapidly.:._from ten in 1960, to twenty in 1965, to forty-six in 1970. The slow growth preceding 1960 and the boom years of the 1960s culminated in a high point of forty-nine undergraduate col- lections (twenty-four separately housed and twenty-five in-house) in 1972. However, the steady trend of thirty years of growth quickly came to an end, and undergraduate libraries began closing. The total number of collections dwindled to forty-three in 1974 I 29 30 I College & Research Libraries • January 1978 and to thirty-seven in 1977. Existing under- graduate collections in the United States in 1976 are listed below. Most of the closings were in-house collections, with holdings being redistributed among the main book collections. Separate Undergraduate Libraries in 1976 University of California, Berkeley University of California, Los Angeles University of California, San Diego University of Chicago Cornell University Duke University University of Florida Harvard University University of Hawaii University of Illinois Johns Hopkins University University of Maryland University of Michigan University of North Carolina Ohio State University Princeton University Stanford University State University of New York at Buffalo University of Tennessee University of Texas at Austin University of Washington University of Wisconsin Yale University "In-House" Undergraduate Collections in 1976 University of Colorado Columbia University Indiana University University of Iowa University of Miami (Florida) ·Michigan State University University of Minnesota University of Missouri Northwestern University Notre Dame University Pennsylvania State University University of Southern California University of Southern Illinois University of Virginia THE FLAW IN THE CONCEPT Studies of undergraduate libraries gener- ally have been careful to distinguish be- tween separately housed- collections and in-house collections. This ·distinction is probably not as important as it has been made out to be. The rationale behind the setting aside of a special collection for undergraduate use is the same in both cases, and problems such as e,x:cessive book duplication, service duplication, and book selection are identical. The matter has been further confused by the wishes of a number of university libraries that such collections primarily for undergraduate use not be called undergraduate libraries. Thus, terms are used such as "College Library" at Co- lumbia, "Course Support Library" at Notre Dame, and "Cross-Campus Library" at Yale. Other terms used are "core collection" and "intensive use collection." Regardless of the name, all such collections, whether separate or in-house, are based on the same tenets and serve the same purposes. The basic tenet of the undergraduate li- brary concept is that undergraduate stu- dents have abilities, needs, and preferences in areas of library use that are quite dif- ferent from the abilities, needs, and prefer- ences of graduate students and faculty members. That the undergraduate popula- tion of a university is so homogeneous can be questioned. Thomas O'Connell, writing in 1970 on undergraduate libraries, saw the student body as being quite diverse: I do not believe that the undergraduate students today can be seen as a whole and distinguishable segment of our academic society all at the same beginning level of scholarship. . . . New students come to our universities in many stages of pre- paredness. 2 Proponents of undergraduate libraries generally point out that at least the majority of students come to large universities un- prepared to cope with large research collec- tions and can better be served by a smaller library with a carefully screened collection. However, if the level of preparedness really is a problem, there is the question as to whether it is a reasonable response to estab- lish separate libraries "easy" enough for undergraduates to use. The alternative, of course, is to teach unprepared entering stu- dents how to use a large research library. The major resource of a university, aside from its faculty, is its library. To purpose- fully segregate the single largest segment of a university community (i.e., its undergrad- . uates) from such a resource effectively re- moves the undergraduate student from an experience that a large university is uniquely equipped to provide. As early as 1953, William Dix (then librarian at Rice, later to be librarian at Princeton) saw the problem: In principle we feel that the undergraduate should be constantly confronted by books a little beyond his grasp, that we are not concerned primarily with his finding specific books but with instructing him to learn to think, to use the li- brary, and to grow intellectually .... Such an ef- fect cannot be produced if the undergraduate works entirely with a few basic books which have been placed on reserve . . . or if he works en- tirely with a small collection supposedly within his grasp. 3 It certainly can be argued that any gradu- ate of a major university should be rea- sonably adept at using a research library. Looked at in this way, it becomes a univer- - sity' s duty to make certain its undergradu- ates gain the ability to use a large research library. The creation of a separate under- graduate library does, of course , just the opposite and serves to discourage students from using the main library. THE PROBLEM OF BOOK SELECTION An assumption central to the undergradu- ate library concept is that it is possible to assemble, from the millions of titles avail- able, a 50,000- to 200,000-volume collection of "most important" books that will ade- quately serve undergraduate needs. For at least two reasons, this assumption is less valid today than it was twenty years ago. First, universities today offer undergradu- ates a greater variety of courses and more degree programs than they did two decades ago. This diversification, or proliferation, of course offerings demands a wider range of research materials for support. It is much easier to anticipate undergraduate research needs when the number of course offerings is limited to survey courses and a few elec- tives than when there is a multitude of sem- inars and individual research programs offered. This proliferation of courses has led to a decline in use of the undergraduate li- brary at Harvard: · In recent years, overall use of the Lamont Li- brary (the undergraduate library) has been on the Undergraduate Library I 31 decline. A check of Widener's (the main library) circulation showed 60% of its use is by under- graduates . This is attributed in part to the intel- lectual curiosity of the Harvard student who wants to delve deeper into a subject than the Lamont resources allow and to the stepped-up pattern of education (honors courses, freshman seminars) . The decline of both general collection and reserve circulation also seems to testify to this. 4 The second problem with the book selec- tion _assumption has to do with changes that have taken place in methods of instruction. Since 1950 there has been a steady trend away from a textbook/lecture method of in- struction toward a method with more em- phasis on assigned readings. This change, of course, serves to make it more difficult to anticipate undergraduate research needs and makes the selection of books for the undergraduate collection correspondingly more difficult. Ellen Keever, writing in' 1973, posed the question: Is there a revolution in college education unalter- ably leading to a reversal of the present regime, which will in time reduce regularly scheduled lectures, call upon the student for more and more independent study, and finally render the under- graduate library , predicated upon definable undergraduate needs, obsolete?5 While a number of undergraduate library booklists exist, all are based on the supposi- tion that the collection needed by under- graduates is easily definable and fairly small. This assumption that undergraduate reading interests and needs are quite limited in scope is probably more difficult to defend today than it was twenty years ago. THE PROBLEMS OF DUPLICATION / FINANCING The books that make up any undergradu- ate collection are, for the most part, dupli- cate copies of books held by the main research library. The extent of duplication ranges from 60 percent to 100 percent. The case could hardly be otherwise, given that the undergraduate collection must consist of the most important works in each subject field. This duplication, of course, is expen- sive. While multiple copies of some titles must be bought, the wholesale duplication that undergraduate collection building in- volves would not ordinarily be necessary. 32 I College & Research Libraries • January 1978 The reversal in the trend of undergradu- ate library establishment can certainly be traced in part to the general restrictions on library funding that have taken place during the past five years. When book funds be- come scarce, building book collections that heavily duplicate existing holdings must be viewed as questionable. While not to the extent involved in book buying, staffing an undergraduate library also involves duplication. Most undergradu- ate libraries are open the same long hours as their research library counterparts, and both usually have circulation and reference staffs on duty simultaneously. THE RECORD TO DATE Although the largest number of under- graduate collections in the United States at any one time was forty-nine in 197<2, at least fifty-six universities in the U.S. have, at one time or another, had undergraduate librar- ies. With thirty-seven such collections still in existence in 1977, the record shows that nineteen universities at some point estab- lished undergraduate iibraries, only later to disband them. These former undergraduate collections, with their dates of existence, are listed below. That so many universities have tested the undergraduate library ·concept and found it wanting is certainly reason enough to question the validity of the con- cept. Former Separate Undergraduate Libraries Cleveland State University (1967-72) Emory Universi.ty (1970-74) Miami University (Ohio) (1966-70) University of Nebraska (1970-75) University of South Carolina (1959-75) Former "In-House" Undergraduate Collections Boston University (196~71) Bowling Green University (1967-73) University of Cincinnati (1969-72) Florida State University (195~74) University of Houston (1969-72) Iowa State University (1969-75) Kent State University (1968-72) University of New Mexico (1962-65) University of Oklahoma (1951-75) University of Pennsylvania (1962-66) University of Pittsburgh (1969-74) Southern Methodist University (1965-71) State University of New York at Albany (1964-70) Syracuse University (1970-71) Texas A & M University (1968-74) Because it is so difficult for a university with a large, established, separately housed undergraduate collection to disband its col- lection, few universities have undertaken to do so. Most of the disbanded collections have been in-house libraries. However, there is evidence that a lack of enthusiasm exists at some institutions that have such large, separately housed collections. Jame~ F. Govan, librarian at the University of North Carolina (which has an 80,000-volume separate undergraduate library), has said ·of such collections: I have some serious reservations about the efficacy of undergraduate libraries. They require duplication of staff and resources and largely cut the student off from the benefits of a research li- brary.6 In a similar vein, G. A. Harrer, librarian at the University of Florida, has described the problems caused by the undergraduate library (170,000 volumes) at that institution: It has become apparent to us here that a great deal more research-type use of the collection is being made by the undergraduate population. Few of them are satisfied to use only the re- sources of the undergraduate collection for term papers, for instance. It therefore appears to us that only inconvenience is being caused by the separation of this collection from the main collec- tion. 7 Given the record of closings of under- graduate collections and the evidence of some degree of disenchantment at those universities still having undergraduate li- braries, it is difficult to be optimistic about the future of such libraries. CONCLUSION The undergraduate library concept in the United States can best be looked at as a movement that, after slow beginnings, gained momentum during the 1950s and became quite in vogue during the 1960s. Shortly after 1970, however, the bubble seems to have burst and many undergradu- ate collections w-ere disbanded. The reasons for the disenchantment with the undergraduate library concept can be traced to (1) changes in curriculum and teaching methods, (2) . tighter library budgets that preclude the extensive duplica- Undergraduate Library I 33 tion of books and services required, and, (3) perhaps most importantly, the realization that a separate facility works to deprive the undergrJiduate of a learning experience that only a large research library can offer. REFERENCES 1. The history of separately housed undergradu- ate libraries in the United States is well documented. The most complete published account is Elizabeth Mills ' " The Separate Undergraduate Library," College & Research Libraries 29:144-56 (March 1968). An unpub- lished paper by Lois Campbell, titled "Sepa- rate Undergraduate Libraries" (State Univer- sity of New York at Albany, 1972), is also quite comprehensive. Finally , a series of newsletters, UGLI Newsletter, published ir- regularly since 1969 (first at the University of California at San Diego and later at the State University of New York at Buffalo), provides a good statistical record of separate undergradu- ate libraries. 2. Thomas F. O'Connell, "Undergraduate Li- brary?" Canadian Library journal 27:278--82 Guly-Aug. 1970). 3. William S. Dix, "Undergraduate Libraries,'~ College & Research Libraries 14:271-72 Guly 1953). 4. Irene A. Braden, The Undergraduate Library (Chicago : American Library Assn., 1970), p .25. 5 . Ellen Hull Keever, " Reassessment of the Undergraduate Library: A Personal Critique," Southeastern Librarian 23:24-30 (Spring 1973). 6. James F . Govan, questionnaire of March 1975. 7. G. A. Harrer, letter dated February 6, 1976.