Laying down the law on textbooks

While federal regulation is rarely the best choice, most of the textbook provisions seem reasonable. Princeton is beginning to make changes, but many more remain. With any luck, common sense today can head off further, and potentially more harmful, interventions in the future.

As an article in today’s ‘Prince’ explains, publishers are now required to tell college faculty the price at which they will offer a textbook. They must also provide the dates of the three most recent editions (if there are any), a summary of the revisions made with each update, and the availability and prices of alternative versions of the book.

For their part, universities receiving federal dollars are in most cases obligated under the new law to include book lists and ISBNs for those texts on their course schedules. They are also generally required to provide a college bookstore with the upcoming term’s course schedules, book lists and ISBNs before the start of classes.

The textbook issue will always be difficult because the demand for them is relatively inelastic — publishers can generally raise prices without worrying about a decrease in demand. This is especially true if the alternatives, like used books, are few. So if demand were to become more elastic, students would end up better off.

Much of the HEOA codifies obvious steps that universities have long been able to take. So far, Princeton has stated that it will have a new online tool listing required reading, but not until next fall. The delay was due to a need for changes to the pilot version of the application that was first tested in 2009. The University chose not to launch an unfinished application this year, meaning that we will have to wait a year for the system.

The law doesn’t specify precisely when the lists must be posted, but here at Princeton, University spokesperson Emily Aronson explained in an email, the University will post the information “in time for students to order books for the semester. Current experience suggests that for many courses, reading lists are only finalized in the days and weeks before the start of classes.”

As I’ve argued before, this is a place where Princeton can exceed its legal obligation to help us. In order to fully shop for the best price and avoid paying an arm and a leg for rush shipping, most of us need at least five to seven days. Otherwise, we might not have time to read the first few assignments.

Although success is mixed on the issue of textbooks themselves, the University has made in-roads on decreasing the costs of other readings. As Aronson noted, the University has worked to make faculty members more aware of alternatives to Pequod course packets, including e-reserves. There has been progress, but Princeton must continue this effort.

The USG Textbook Exchange was another step forward, but new editions make that market short-lived. If Princeton continues to resist switching to new editions unless necessary, textbook shopping will become more affordable. Already, many professors permit old editions when newer ones provide little additional content. I’ve had professors in economics, politics and psychology classes either list older versions on the syllabus or announce acceptable versions at the start of class.

But the law goes further, entering less comfortable territory. It stipulates that when publishers “bundle” a book with other materials, it must also make those materials available separately. By including a superfluous CD-ROM or DVD with a book, publishers force students who only need the book to pay for additional materials.

Here is where I have to reserve judgment. When government intervenes, it might succeed in helping students. But banning bundles might put certain companies out of business, costing employees their jobs and harming consumers — us — by eliminating options. These and other unforeseen consequences could potentially thwart the effort to lower prices. Regulations can be necessary, but no regulator can possibly synthesize every piece of relevant information to craft a perfect law. Accordingly, intervention should never be our first choice when other options — including online lists of ISBNs, use of digital copies and use of older editions — are underutilized.

This law, especially when compared to Congress’s other recent legislation, should be mostly defensible. It may be that regulation really is necessary, but we should always try working within the market before we change it with the behemoth of federal law. The law is far from perfect, and progress so far is slow, but hopefully we’ll see lower textbook prices anyway.