College and Research Libraries 50th Anniversary Feature- Quantitative Criteria for Adequacy of Academic Library Collections Verner W. Clapp and Robert T. Jordan The authors challenge accepted doctrine which asserts that the adequacy of an academic library cannot be measured by the number of books which it contains. Out of their feeling that the Standards for College Libraries and the Standards for Junior College Libraries are inadequate for estimating the sizes (in volumes) required for minimum adequacy by libraries of institutions of higher education of widely differing characteristics, they developed new formulas for this purpose. These formulas attempt to identify the principal factors affecting academic needs for books and to ascribe suitable weights to each factor. The authors then illustrate the application of the formulas to specific institutions, and conclude that while the results are useful, further research is needed. They end by suggesting specific topics for such research. • an the adequacy of the collec- tion of an academic library be measured by the number of books which it contains? Re- spectable authorities say "No!" ''The adequacy of the college library's collections cannot be measured in quanti- tative terms," asserts a well-known text- book in the field of college library adminis- tration. "To judge a collection superior or inferior on the basis of the volume hold- ings," it maintains, "is as absurd as ratinp a college on the basis of its enrollment.'' Regional accrediting agencies agree. ''The actual number of books which a li- brary contains is not a stable measure of the adequacy of the library. " 2 "More im- portant than the total number of books in the stacks is the extent to which the selec- tion of volumes accurately reflects the needs of the institution as defined by its educational task."3 "It will be noted that no mention is made here of required min- ima for ... library holdings .... The ade- quacy of each institution's resources must be judged in terms of its program. " 4 "Every [academic] library must ... be evaluated in its own setting rather than by comparison with general patterns or norms, because each library must surport a particular educational program.'' And similarly the Northwest Association, 1957, and the Western Association, 1963, while concerned for the ''adequacy'' of the academic library, provide no yardstick for the measurement of that quality. 6' 7 The only regional association which makes an obeisance in the direction of a quantitative measure (but in a manner which approxi- mates mockery) is the Southern Associa- tion: ''The book and periodical collection should, by quality, size, and nature, sup- port and stimulate the entire educational program . . . the following should be used as a reference: Library Statistics of Colleges and Universities, Annual Analytic Re- Mr. Clapp [was] President and Mr. Jordan [was] on the staff of the Council on Library Resources, Inc., Wash- ington, D.C. 154 C&RL Classic Reprint: Quantitative Criteria 155 port . ... In using this reference, institu- tional authorities should consider it a seri- ous danger signal if the library regularly falls in the lowest quarter of any of the cat- egories analyzed. ''8 -When, as ·in these cases, standardizing authorities omit or refuse to set standards in quantitative terms, the budgeting and appropriating authorities, who cannot avoid quantitative bases for their deci- sions, are compelled to adopt measures which, though perhaps having the virtue of simplicity, may be essentially irrele- vant.9 It is not surprising, in consequence, that the Standards for College Libraries adopted in 1959 by the Association of Col- lege and Research Libraries of the Ameri- can Library Association, while properly placing primary emphasis upon quality and the means for achieving it, should also include sufficient numerical criteria to meet to a degree the need for quantitative standards. Specifically, these Standards provide that fifty thousand "carefully chosen" volumes may serve as the minimum for the library of a college of up to six hundred students (full-time equivalent); that "steady growth" is essential but may slacken when the collection reaches ap- proximately three hundred thousand vol- umes; and that for each two hundred stu- dents above the initial six hundred there should be an additional ten thousand vol- umes. It is emJ'hasized that these are min- imal figures. 1 The Standards for Junior College Li- braries, likewise promulgated by the As- sociation of College and Research Li- braries, are similarly insistent upon quality, but similarly offer some quantita- tive assistance. They require that an insti- tution of up to one thousand students (full-time equivalent) should have a mini- mum of twenty thousand volumes exclu- sive of duplicates and textbooks and sug- gest that this figure should be increased by five thousand for each additional five hun- dred students beyond one thousand. Again, it is emphasized that these are min- imal figures. 11 In neither case, however, are the sug- gested quantitative criteria convincing in the sense that they rest on demonstrations of actual numbers of books required for specific educational purposes. Instead, the suggested figures admittedly reflect the accidentals of college library statistics (without indication of how this reflection is effected) or agreement among librarians consulted. The requirements for addi- tional books are based in one case upon an apparent ''correlation between the growth of the student body and the growth of the collection,'' and in the other simply upon ''consultation with many junior college librarians .'' Finally, the Standards for College Libraries are by def- inition inapplicable to institutions stress- ing advanced research or granting degrees beyond the Master's, while the Standards for Junior College Libraries, although rec- ognizing that institutions with a multiplic- ity of programs may need minimal collec- tions of two or three times the basic figure of twenty thousand volumes, do not state at what point this requirement takes ef- fect. The present authors recently needed formulas for producing estimates of the size required for minimum adequacy by the library collections of a number of aca- demic institutions of widely differing characteristics. It was important that these estimates should carry conviction to the planning, budgeting, and appropriating bodies concerned. Available standards were found unsuitable for producing the desired result. Accordingly, an attempt was made to develop formulas in which separate account would be taken of the principal factors that affect the require- ments for books in connection with aca- demic programs, and in which each factor would be weighted in a manner capable of being related to and justified by practice. The results of this attempt, though ad- mittedly but a beginning and needing much improvement, were found useful for the gurpose for which they were de- signed, and are consequently presented here as of possible wider interest. They in- vite exploration of the conditions which affect academic needs for books, of the rel- ative weights which should be attached to the various controlling factors, and of the basic hypothesis itself-namely, that it is 156 College & Research Libraries possible to provide a meaningful quantita- tive measure of adequacy in library collec- tions. FORMULAS FOR ESTIMATING SIZE OF ACADEMIC LIBRARY COLLECTIONS REQUIRED FOR MINIMUM ADEQUACY The minimum size required for the ade- quacy of an academic library differs from institution to institution depending upon the combined effect of the variables consti- tuting the controlling factors in each case. Among the most important of these are: • The student body-size, composition (graduate or undergr?duate, full-time or part-time, resident or nonresident, etc.), scholastic aptitude, socio- economic and intellectual background. • The faculty-size, involvement in re- search, ''library-mindedness,'' etc. • The curriculum-number of depart- ments of instruction, number of courses, proportion of laboratory to lit- erature courses, number of undergrad- uate ''majors,'' number of fields of mas- ters' and doctors' degrees, number of professional schools, etc. • Methods of instruction-extent and use of textbooks, assigned reading, inde- pendent study, honors work, etc. • Availability of suitable places for study on the campus. • Geography of the campus-proximity to metropolitan areas, to other large li- braries, etc. • The intellectual climate-inducements and distractions to study, etc. It is obvious that these factors differ widely in their susceptibility to measure- ment. Only those that can be most easily and meaningfully measured were given places in the following tables which con- stitute the formulas. NOTES ON TABLE 1 The formula presumes that even liminal or minimum adequacy can be achieved with its assistance only if all material is carefully chosen with a view to the pur- pose to be served, and the weeding pro- gram is as active and realistic in relation to needs as is the program of acquisition. Averages. Because of wide disparities in March 1989 the extent of the literatures of various sub- jects, the figures suggested by the table must be considered as averages of the lit- eratures of subjects of academic interest. It is not too difficult to estimate the size of a collection for work at a given level in a sin- gle subject; it is when the library is re- quired to serve the interest of many users at many levels in many subjects, as in an institution of higher education, that esti- mates of size become difficult. Interdependence of factors. No factor repre- sented in the formula will be operative in isolation; each is dependent on others. For example, it is not suggested that 240 mon- ograph volumes are sufficient for an un- dergraduate field of concentration (line 5). Obviously, there will be contributions to each field of concentration resulting from each of the other variables (lines 1 through 4). Microcopy. The table presumes that most of the materials estimated in lines 1-4 will be in full-scale format. Even here, how- ever, some of the less-frequently-used material (such as back files of newspapers) may be in microcopy. With respect to much of the little-used research material to be added in accordance with the esti- mates contained in lines 5-7, ''adequacy'' can be achieved with almost as much effi- ciency through the use of microcopy as with full-scale material. The table assumes that fully cataloged material in microform will be measured in volumes as though it were in original form. Title-volume ratios. The title-volume ratio employed for books (columns 2 and 3) is 1:1.2 which falls between that (1:1.37) found to obtain in the National Union Cat- alog13 and that (1:1.15) which is found in the Lamont library catalog. 14 The ratio used for periodicals (columns 4 and 5) has been set at 1:15 (cf. the note on line 1, column 4). For documents (column 6) a title-volume ratio does not seem to be meaningful. In consequence, the total sizes of collections obtained by using the table are expressed only in volumes. Line 1, Column 2. The figure of 50,750 volumes suggested as capable of provid- ing threshold adequacy for an undergrad- uate collection derives authority from ex- perience in the actual construction of lists C&RL Classic Reprint: Quantitative Criteria 157 TABLE 1 FORMULA FOR ESTIMATING THE SIZE FOR LIMINAL ADEQUACY OF THE COLLECTIONS OF SENIOR COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LffiRARIES Books Periodicals Documents Total Titles (1) (2) To a basic collection, viz.: 1. Undergraduate library 35,000 Add for each of the follow/::fi as indicated: 2. Faculty member ( time equivalent) 50 3. Student (graduate or undergraduate in full time e3,uivalents) 4. Undergra uate in honors or indepen- dent study programs 10 5. Field of undergraduate concentra- tion-"major" subject field 200 6. Field of graduate concentration- Master's work or equivalent 2,000 7. Field of graduate concentration- Doctoral work or eguivalent 15,000 for this purpose. The most important of these lists have been: Titles List Date Listed Shaw15 ••••••••••••••• 1931. ...... 14,000 Lamone4 ••••••••••••• 1953 ....... 39,000 Michigan16 ••••••••••• 1964 ....... 56,550 California 17 ••••••••••• 1965 ....... 55,000 The Shaw list was a pioneering effort which set the pattern and the standard of excellence. The Lamont list was the first to be related to an ~.ctual undergraduate li- brary, but it had many faults. The Michi- gan list learned from these. The California list (under construction at the library of the University of California at San Diego) has not only benefited from previous ex- perience but has been executed under aus- picious circumstances. The Library Coun- cil of the University of California recommended that the three new cam- puses currently being planned each have seventy-five thousand-volume libraries at opening day, since the experience of the growing campuses, Irvine in particular, suggests that it is difficult to give adequate service with a smaller collection. The Cali- fornia list, in consequence, provides for about sixty thousand volumes of mono- graphs and fifteen thousand volumes of serials. Line 1, Column 4. The figure of 250 peri- odical titles is supported by the Michigan list which includes 245 such titles and the Volumes Titles Volumes Volumes Volumes (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 42,000 250 3,750 5,000 50,750 60 1 15 25 100 10 1 1 12 12 12 240 3 45 50 335 2,400 10 150 500 3,050 18,000 100 1,500 5,000 24,500 California list which provides for fifteen thousand serial volumes representing nine hundred titles, of which the three hundred most useful are in runs of twenty or more years. Furthermore, the figure of two hundred and fifty is 50 percent of the number of titles covered by the following standard periodical indexes published by the H. W. Wilson Company, without which no (general) American library can expect to render adequate service: Readers' Guide to Periodical Liter- ature (selected general and Titles Indexed nontechnical periodicals) . . . 130 International Index (social sci- ences and humanities) . . . . . 170 Applied Science and Technology Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Total.................. . . 500 Line 1, Column 6. The figure of five thou- sand documents would admit the most important publications of the U.S. Con- gress, the Bureau of the Census and other federal executive agencies, the United Na- tions and its specialized agencies, states of the United States, etc. Line 2. If the library which provides merely threshold adequacy for under- graduates is to permit the members of the teaching staff to keep up in their subjects even liminally, the collection must be en- riched for their benefit. An enrichment 158 College & Research Libraries amounting to fifty titles (e.g., three per year for sixteen years), one periodical sub- scription and twenty-five documents per faculty member would seem to be a mini- mum.18 Line 3. The undergraduate library repre- sented by line 1 takes no account whatso- ever of the size of the student body. As this increases, the number of copies (not titles) will have to be increased. At the suggested rate of twelve volumes per stu- dent, every book in the undergraduate li- brary could be duplicated by the time that the student body had risen to 4,230. In other words, there could then be, if de- sired, two identical undergraduate collec- tions, each serving 2,115 students. It is more likely, of course, that all4,230 would use the same library but that the books more in demand would be supplied in multiple copies. Line 4. The typical student in an honors or independent study program may read or use hundreds of books each year. How- ever, since the criterion sought here is merely threshold adequacy, a very low figure is used. Line 5. The undergraduate collection (line 1) will rarely have as many as several hundred titles in each field in which an undergraduate "major" is offered. By contrast, ''basic lists'' for such subjects typically include two thousand and more titles (see note on line 6, below). Accord- ingly, the reinforcement suggested here, amounting to only 17 per cent of this quantity, is very modest. Line 6. At the point at which graduate work is offered leading to the master's de- gree or its equivalent, the collection must assume some of the characteristics of a re- search collection, albeit at the lowest level. The quantity of material for addition here is suggested by the numerous ''basic lists" which typically include two thou- sand and more titles, e.g.: Anthropology19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 Area studies (Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America)20 • • • • • • 7,000 Art reference books21 ............ 2,850 China, modem-economic and so- cial development22 • • • • • • • • • • • • 2,000 Communism-books in English onlyn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500 March 1989 Electronics24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 Physics25 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1,883 United States of America-life and thoughe6 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6,500 Line 7. These 24,500 volumes represent but a fraction of the literature of any but the most recently-developed subject, and can ordinarily be expected to present a subject only in its most recent aspects, ne- glecting historical development. Yet as re- cently as 1955 one of the most literature- based of the learned professions adopted twenty thousand volumes as a passing grade for its training centers in the United States, v and even in 1964 sixteen of these centers still had fewer than thirty thou- sand volumes. It is also true that the litera- tures of several disciplines support each other, as chemistry, biochemistry, physi- ology, anatomy, neurology, psychology, and other related sciences contribute to make a medical library. NOTES ON TABLE 2 As with Table 1 it is presumed that all ma- terial will be carefully selected-and weeded-with reference to the purpose to be served. .As with Table 1, also, the formula pro- vides only for a minimum. When it is seen, e.g. in the notes on lines 2 and 4, out of what this minimum is constructed, few institutions should be willing to stay there. Averages. Similarly as for Table 1, the fig- ures suggested here must be construed as averages. Obviously, courses in court ste- nography or in conversational Spanish do not require the same library support as courses in theatre or decorative arts. Government publications. No special pro- vision has been made for these; to the ex- tent included, they would be considered as books or periodicals. Title-volume ratios. Same as for Table 1. Line 1, Column 2. Similarly as for the sen- ior colleges, there have been attempts to prepare basic selections of books for junior college libraries, of which the more impor- tant are as follows: Titles List Date Listed Mohrhardt28 • • • • • • • 1937....... 5,300 C&RL Classic Reprint: Quantitative Criteria 159 TABLE2 FORMULA FOR ESTIMATING THE SIZE FOR LIMINAL ADEQUACY OF JUNIOR OR COMMUNITY COLLEGE LffiRARIES Books Periodicals Total Titles Volumes Titles Volumes Volumes (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) To a basic collection, viz. : 1. A collection to sup{tort a two-year general educa- tion or liberal arts transfer or university parallel) foro gram 12,500 15,000 125 1,875 16,875 Add reach of the follow:::n. as indicated: 2. Faculty member ( time equivalent) 30 36 1 15 51 4 1 5 3. Student (full time equivalent) 4. Subject field of study, either transfer or terminal, in which courses are offered beyond the standard general education or liberal arts transfer Ero&!:am 100 120 3 45 165 Bertalan29 •••••••••• 1954....... 4,000 Trinkner30 ••••••••• 1963 ....... 20,000 The earlier of these are out of date, and none is now authoritative. It is conse- quently not possible to give to the initial step in the formula of Table 2 even the de- gree of empirical support which is avail- able for Table 1. The development of such support would be an important step to- ward the improvement of the standards for junior college libraries. Line 1, Column 4. The number of periodi- cals is arbitrarily set at one half the number for the four-year colleges. Line 2. This provision amounts to fewer than two books per faculty member per year (if spread over sixteen years) plus one periodical. 18 Line 3. This item provides for additional copies (not titles) required by the size of the student body. At the rate suggested the basic collection could be duplicated by the time there were 3,375 students. This figure obviously needs testing in practice. Line 4. This item provides for each addi- tional subject at the rate of six titles per an- num with replacement over a sixteen-year period. 18 In this connection, it may be noted that for the diversified program of the community college as contrasted with the narrower one of the junior college, the recent Rutgers Guide has the following to say: The community college library should proba- bly be larger than that of a comparable-sized four-year liberal arts college ... because a greater amount of materials is needed to main- tain the diversified programs offered by a com- prehensive community college. 31 EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION OF THE FORMULAS In Tables 3-5 the formulas of Tables 1-2 have been applied, by way of illustration, to the data for a number of academic li- braries. Because of the untested status of the formulas, the names of the institutions have been withheld unless there seemed to have been no risk of an unjustified pejo- rative judgment. In Table 3 it is possible to compare, for four senior college libraries, the calcula- tions resulting from the formula of Table 1 with those for additional volumes sug- gested by the Standards for College Li- braries (viz., increments of ten thousand volumes, additional to the basic collection of fifty thousand, for each two hundred students beyond an original six hundred). It may be noted that the Standards are eas- ier on the stronger institutions and harder on the weaker than is the formula of Table 1. In Table 4 are found certain libraries with enormous collections which are nev- ertheless found short of minimum ade- quacy by the formula of Table 1. Can this be possible? The source of adverse judgment is found principally in column 7 (number of doctoral fields). Thus, library no. 9, with 1.67 million volumes, offers the doctor's degree in sixty-two fields as contrasted with Illinois' sixty fields supported by 3.6 million volumes. The interpretation to be put on the table, therefore, is not that the collections rated minus are in an absolute sense "inadequate," but that they are in- adequate in relation to the programs 160 College & Research Libraries which they are attempting to support-in other words that the institutions have overextended themselves in relation to the available library resources. The libraries represented in Table 5 without exception possess collections ex- ceeding the basic minimum size required by the Standards for Junior College Li- braries, and in some cases their collections are several times this basic minimum. In spite of this all but two fail to meet the threshold of adequacy prescribed by the formula of Table 2. In Table 5 it is possible to compare the findings of the formula of Table 2 with those of the Standards for Junior College Libraries (viz., increments of five thou- sand volumes, added to the basic twenty thousand, for each five hundred students beyond the original one thousand). Two more institutions in the list are found ade- quate by the second than by the first crite- rion. NOTES ON TABLE 3 Source of data, Tables 3-5: Various, see footnotes. 32-36 All data are for 1962/3 or 1963/4, extrapolated for some items for some institutions from prior years. Stu- dent and faculty figures have been re- duced, in some cases arbitrarily, to full- time equivalents. Column 1: Senior colleges; no. 4: A state-supported senior college. Column 2: Faculty (full-time equiva- lent). Column 3: Students (full-time equiva- lent). Column 4: Honors students (postulated at 25 percent of student body for nos. 1-3 and 10 percent for no. 4). Column 5: Fields of undergraduate concentration-'' major'' subject fields. Column 6: Fields of graduate concentration-master's work or equiva- lent. Column 8: Size (volumes) of collection calculated by the formula of Table 1. Column 9: Size (volumes) of actual col- lection. Column 10: Difference between columns 8 and 9 expressed as a percentage of column 8. Plus indicates that the actual collection is lar~er than required by the March 1989 formula; minus that it is smaller. Column 11: Size (volumes) of collection calculated by the formula suggested by Standards for College Libraries. Column 12: Difference between columns 9 and 11 expressed as a percent- age of column 11. Plus indicates that the actual collection is larger than required by the formula; minus that it is smaller. NOTES ON TABLE 4 Source of data: See Table 3. Column 1: State-supported or state- assisted universities. Columns 2-6: Same as for Table 3. Column 7: Fields of graduate concentration-doctoral work or equiva- lent. Columns 8-10: Same as for Table 3. NOTES ON TABLE 5 Source of data: See Table 3. Column 1: Junior or community col- leges; nos. 3-7, junior or community col- leges in California, Michigan and New York. Column 2: Faculty (full time equiva- lent). Column 3: Students (full time equiva- lent). Column 4: Subject fields of study be- yond standard general education or liberal arts transfer pattern. Column 5: Size (volumes) of minimum collection calculated by formula of Table 2. Column 6: Size (volumes) of actual col- lection. Column 7: Difference between columns 5 and 6 as a percentage of column 5. Plus indicates that the actual collection is larger than required by the formula; minus that it is smaller. Column 8: Size (volumes) of collection calculated by formula of Standards for Junior College Libraries. Column 9: Difference between columns 6 and 8 as a percentage of column 8. Plus indicates that collection is larger than re- quired by the Standards; minus that it is smaller. CONCLUSION The adequacy of an academic library col- C&RL Classic Reprint: Quantitative Criteria TABLE3 APPLICATION OF FORMULA OF TABLE 1 TO SELECTED SENIOR COLLEGES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9) (10) 1. Oberlin 215 2,370 600 25 10 147,000 900,000 +5U 2. Swarthmore 110 975 250 20 10 114,000 245,000 +115 3. Antioch 100 1,725 430 20 1 96,300 129,000 +34 4 ........... . 90 2,200 220 25 2 103,000 65,000 -37 TABLE4 APPLICATION OF FORMULA OF TABLE 1 TO SELECTED STATE-SUPPORTED OR STATE-ASSISTED UNIVERSITIES (1) 1. Illinois 2. Michigan 3. UCLA 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. (2) 3,150 1,800 1,500 900 375 240 900 300 2,200 470 300 500 (3) (4) 30,275 3,025 22,000 2,200 18,000 1,800 10,000 1,000 9,600 960 4,700 470 14,400 1,440 9,300 930 30,660 3,066 11,400 1,140 5,360 540 13,300 1,330 TABLES (5) (6) (7) (8) 200 125 60 2,683,000 130 90 66 2,465,000 80 70 39 1,634,000 70 50 33 1,257,000 90 60 2 477,000 34 16 2 246,000 70 45 29 1,202,000 60 30 1 340,000 165 100 62 2,555,000 85 55 5 567,000 50 30 3 333,000 100 55 5 600,000 APPLICATION OF FORMULA OF TABLE 2 TO SELECTED JUNIOR OR COMMUNITY COLLEGES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1. Wrtfeht Branch, Chicago City Junior Co ege 215 5,700 30 55,580 68,600 +23 2. Los Angeles, Calif., City College 600 11,100 45 99,300 104,600 +5 3. ················· ............ 80 1,380 14 28,785 26,500 -8 4. ............................. 370 12,375 50 92,300 76,100 -18 5 . ............................. 100 1,125 14 28,785 22,000 -24 6. ··················· .......... 227 4,750 50 55,702 42,000 -25 7. ............................. 245 3,810 30 49,500 34,800 -30 (11) 138,500 68,750 106,250 130,000 (9) 3,635,00 3,250,00 2,000,000 1,350,000 412,000 195,000 865,000 236,000 1,670,000 360,000 266,000 268,000 (8) 67,000 121,000 23,800 133,750 21,250 57,500 48,100 161 (12) +550 +256 +21 -50 (10) +35 +32 +22 + 7 -14 -21 -28 -31 -35 -37 -30 -55 (9) +2 -14 +11 -43 +4 -27 -28 lection may be difficult to determine, but there is no mystery about it. The difficulty arises simply from the quantity of detail and number of variables involved, far be- yond the capability of any visiting com- mittee to assess merely on the basis of easy observation or sampling. number of scholars in a field. And the ade- quacy of an entire library is made up of the adequacies of its parts. Yet every scholar has a notion of what in his own field constitutes adequacy for var- ious purposes-undergraduate instruc- tion, graduate teaching, advanced re- search, etc. This notion can in every case be expressed in concrete terms, i.e., in terms of a list of specific books. The con- tents of the list can in turn be made the subject of agreement or consensus of a The best yardsticks of adequacy are therefore those to which we have become accustomed-the book-selection list and the specialized subject bibliography, fre- quently reviewed and brought up to date by experts and in the light of use. But to apply these yardsticks, is at the present time, something else again: manual checking and searching procedures are involved-slow, tiresome and costly. Yet it may be foreseen that, with the ad- vent of electronic catalogs the checking of a book-selection list or bibliography will 162 College & Research Libraries become the mere routine of a mechanical process. Not only will evaluation of collec- tions be simplified thereby, but collection- building procedures will be assisted. The end result will be gains in the quality of collections. The formulas described in this article have been developed in an attempt to find a method for estimating the size for mini- mal adequacy of academic library collec- tions more convincingly than can be done with existing criteria. It may be validly ob- jected that little more has been accom- plished than to transfer the locus of con- viction from an unknown whole to the unknown parts, of which the whole is composed. This may be readily admitted while calling attention to the fact that to break an estimate down into components is standard practice for convincing budg- eting and appropriating bodies. In any case, the attempt to identify and weigh the factors which affect the need for books in academic situations reveals gaps in our knowledge, to the filling of which research might profitably be directed. Among the questions requiring answers are: March 1989 • What are the tests of adequacy of an aca- demic library collection? • What is learned from experience regard- ing the contents of an undergraduate collection of minimum adequacy? • How are these contents affected by vari- able factors such as geography, curricu- lum, teaching methods, intellectual cli- mate, etc.? • What constitutes adequacy for particu- lar kinds of material at various levels of use-e.g., periodicals, government doc- uments? • What constitutes adequacy for the needs of faculty, honors students, etc.? • What correlation, if any, exists between size of student body and size of collec- tion? • Is there a renewal or replacement cycle? What are its characteristics? Does it af- fect acquisition, weeding, or the esti- mates of cost of collection-building? • What constitute adequate resources for graduate work and research in various subjects and at various levels?37 • Questions similar to the foregoing may be asked with respect to the collections of junior and community colleges. [REFERENCES AND NOTES] 1. G.R. Lyle, TheAdministrationoftheCollegeLibrary. Thirded. (NewYork:H. W. WilsonCo.1961), p. 399. 2. Association of College and Research Libraries. Committee on Standards: College and University Accreditation Standards-1957 (Chicago: ACRL, 1958) p. 11. 3. North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Commission on Colleges and Uni- versities, Guide for the Evaluation of Institutions of Higher Education, 1961, p. 16. 4. Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education and Standards for Middle States Ac- creditation, 1957, p. 3. Also Op. cit., ftn. 2, p. 7. 5. Morris A. Gelfand, "Techniques of Library Evaluators in the Middle States Association." College and Research Libraries, XIX Ouly 1958), 305-20. 6. Northwest Association of Secondary and Higher Schools, Guide for Self-Evaluation and Accreditation of Higher Schools, 1957, p. 9. 7. Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities, Statement of Standards, 1963, p. 2. 8. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. College Delegate Assembly, Standards, 1962, p. 31. 9. For example, in California a formula for the annual book fund of the state colleges provided four books per student for the first one thousand students, two for the next four thousand, etc. A rec- ommendation to change this formula proposed the provision of forty books per student by a cer- tain date. But neither formula is directly related to the quality of the library. Program for the Develop- ment of California State College Libraries (n. p., August 1962). p . 2-3. 10. [American Library Association. Association of College and Research Libraries], "Standards for College Libraries." College and Research Libraries, XX Ouly 1959), 274-80. 11. [American Library Association. Association of College and Research Libraries], "Standards for Junior College Libraries." College and Research Libr~ries, XXI (May 1960), 200-206. C&RL Classic Reprint: Quantitative Criteria 163 12. V. W. Clapp and R. T. Jordan, The Libraries of the State-Assisted institutions of Higher Education in Ohio-Their Maintenance and Development-Guidelines for Policy. Prepared for Academy for Educational Development, Inc. (Washington, D.C., 1964). 13. E. E. Williams, "Magnitude of the Paper-Deterioration Problem as Measured by a National Union Catalog Sample," College and Research Libraries, XXIll (November 1962), 499, 543. 14. Catalogue of the LAmont Library, Harvard College (Harvard University Press, 1953). 15. C. B. Shaw, A List of Books for College Libraries (American Library Association, 1931). 16. University of Michigan. Undergraduate Library, ShelfList. Rev. ed. (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Univer- sity Microfilms, Inc., 1964). 17. [University of California at San Diego. Library, List of books selected for the libraries of three new campuses of the University of California.] In preparation for the press. 18. The observed tendency for stable and continuing academic libraries to double in size every sixteen years that is associated with the name of Fremont Rider suggests that sixteen years represents a period at which the collections of such libraries require a substantial degree of renewal. Accord- ingly, this period is here adopted for the cycle of renewal for the additional materials purchased for faculty, etc. 19. D. G. Mandelbaum and others, eds., Resources for the Teaching of Anthropology; Including a Basic List of Books and Periodicals for College Libraries Compiled by Rexford S. Beckham with the Assistance of Marie P. Beckham (University of California, 1963). 2,000 titles . 20. American Universities Field Staff, A Select Bibliography: Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, LAtin America. (AUFS, 1960); Supplements, 1961, 1963. 6,000 titles in basic list, 500 in each of the supplements. 21. M. W. Chamberlain, Guide to Art Reference Books (Chicago: American Library Association, 1959). 2,500 titles, 250 journals, 100 series. 22. T.-L. Yuan: Economic and Social Development of Modern China: a bibliographical guide (New Haven: Human Relations Area Files, 1956). Over 2,000 titles. 23. W. Kolarz, Books on Communism; a Bibliography. 2d ed. London: Allen & Unwin, 1964). Approxi- mately 2,500 titles, restricted to English. 24. C. K. Moore, Electronics; a Bibliographic Guide (Macmillan, 1961). Over 2,000 titles in 68 subject ar- eas. 25. American Institute of Physics. Check List of Books for an Undergraduate Physics Library (New York: AIP, 1962). 1,883 titles. 26. U.S. Library of Congress, General Reference and Bibliography Division: A Guide to the Study of the United States of America (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960). 6,500 titles. 27. Association of American Law Schools, Proceedings, 1955, p. 325. 28. F. E. Mohrhardt, A List of Books for Junior College Libraries (Chicago: American Library Association, 1937). 29. F. J. Bertalan, Books for Junior Colleges (Chicago: American Library Association, 1954). 30. C. L. Trinkner, Basic Books for Junior Colleges (Northport, Alabama: Colonial Press, 1963). 31. F. P. Merlo and W. D. Walling, Guide for Planning Community College Facilities (New Brunswick, N.J.: Division of Field Studies and Research, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers-The State University, 1964), p. 34. 32. U.S. Office of Education, Library Statistics of Colleges and Universities, 1962-63. Institutional Data (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964). Supplement (Chicago: American Library Association, [1964]). 33. American Colleges and Universities. 9th ed. (Washington: American Council on Education, [1964]). 34. American Junior Colleges, 6th ed. (Washington: American Council on Education, 1963). 35. Junior College Directory (Washington: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1964). 36. The World of Learning, 1963-64 (London: Europa Publications, 1964). 37. R. B. Downs, "Development of Research Collections in University Libraries," University of Tennes- see Library Lectures, No.4 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1954), p. 1-15. Distinguishes four stages in the progress of a collection-the general information collection, the well-rounded refer- ence collection, the fundamental research collection, and the comprehensive and specialized re- search collection.