A bill reauthorizing the Higher Education Act was passed by the House of Representatives Thursday. In the bill was an amendment addressing the financial burden of rising textbook costs. Though the provisions of the bill have been greeted as good news by students, members of the publishing industry are more skeptical.
The reauthorization, which, among other things, simplified the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form, changed the requirements for Pell grants and regulated private loan conditions, called for increased transparency on the part of textbook publishers and also directed universities to publish lists of required texts in course catalogs. The sponsors of the bill argue that including required texts in a course guide would allow students to get a more accurate idea of the cost of the classes they are considering taking.
Proponents of the amended bill argue that increased transparency will lessen the financial burden on students by lowering the mark-up publishers can place on books. Groups, including the Association of American Publishers and the National Association of College Stores, claim the new requirements would place an undue burden on publishers and may in fact increase the cost of course materials for students.
Stacy Skelly, the AAP's assistant director for higher education, said the association is "fully supportive of transparency," adding that "it's part of how publishers can be successful." But she cautioned that publishers "do have to be careful of legislation that may increase textbook prices."
Students asked about how textbook prices affect their course selections generally responded that they chose their classes regardless of the cost. But students did say that textbooks cost more than they should.
Jessica Colmenares '11 is one of many students who doesn't consider textbook prices when choosing classes.
"I'm pre-med so I take the classes that I need to," Colmenares said. "That's why price doesn't really matter. But I do think they're overpriced."
Colmenares, like many students in science-related concentrations, feels the price of textbooks acutely. Another pre-med student, Jordan Apfeld '11, accepts the heavy costs of science texts because they are required.
"I only consider (price differences) for my humanities classes," Apfeld said. "Like, if there's only 50 pages of reading but you have to buy a whole book for 20 bucks."
Science concentrators are also more heavily affected by the price of bundled materials than other students. Bundled materials, as defined in the amendment, are "college textbooks or other supplemental learning materials that may be packaged together to be sold as course materials for one price." The amendment requires publishers to "unbundle" course materials and make the materials available separately.
Citing classes in the chemistry department, especially CHEM 0330: "Equilibrium, Rate and Strucutre" and CHEM 0350: "Organic Chemistry" as particularly dependent on bundles, some students expressed interest in buying the course materials separately. Michael Chang '11 said he had "never used the CD-ROM" included with the textbook for his science classes and said he would not buy it if it were offered separately from the required textbook.
Kelsey Peterson '10 noted another problem with bundled course material: textbook buy-backs.
"You can't sell back just one part of the bundle," she said. "You have to sell it all back and workbooks that you've written in don't work for this."
Skelly defended integrated materials, saying that "pedagogically (it) wouldn't make sense to separate them." She described computer science and graphic design courses as benefiting from these arrangements because students "can't have examples on paper with the software not there and can't have the software without the written exercises." She said she is concerned that these materials would fall under the category of unbundling, one of the major grievances the AAP has held against the legislation.
Richard Hershman, director of government relations for the National Association of College Stores, wrote in an e-mail to The Herald that the House Higher Education Act legislation "includes a number of positive provisions addressing the course material affordability issue, including increasing industry transparency (and) increasing disclosure on book costs to students." He added that he was pleased with the bill's provisions that increase the financial aid allowance for some students by $150 to a total of $600 for books and supplies.
But Hershman reiterated Skelly's concerns about the effectiveness of the measures. He outlined the NACS's requested changes to the language of the amendment, emphasizing the problematic timing of the bill for universities. The amendment as it stands requires colleges to report necessary textbooks in course announcement guides, but University Registrar Michael Pesta said he doubted complete textbook lists would be available when the guides go to print. The language proposed by the NACS requires colleges to instead report ISBNs of textbooks two weeks prior to classes, allowing students the most up-to-date information on pricing.
The issue of timing and other transparency requirements for publishers and universities will be worked out when the House and Senate begin conference negotiations over the bill. The Senate passed its own version of the Higher Education Act reauthorization in June but did not include the amendments on textbook transparency measures. Now the House and the Senate will have to come to final terms over the bills.
