Fixing the book system

Some commonsense efforts would go a long way towards reducing the waste in Tufts' book system. Recent efforts by Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senators to improve the book buyback system should be the first step of a larger effort to reform the way the University handles books. A perennial complaint on senior surveys, few things feel worse than getting $2 back on a $30 book that you ended up not reading.

In the meantime, students are spending more and more on textbooks. A University of California survey conducted in 1997 showed the average student spent $642 per year on textbooks. A 2003 survey said students now spend $898 on textbooks per year.

While publishers do much to drive the costs up, Tufts' system does little to help the problem. There is a complete lack of efficiency in how books are bought and sold through the bookstore. Students usually do not know what books to buy until the beginning of the semester. At that point, students wanting to save money by purchasing books online will not have their books until a few weeks into the semester. Anyone who cannot wait that long has to use the bookstore.

The bookstore often has very few used books, and its prices (new and used) are usually significantly higher than online options. The frustrating experience is completed at the end of the semester, when students get pennies on the dollar for most of their books.

While many point the finger at the Barnes & Noble managed bookstore, the bulk of the problem lies with Tufts. Professors frequently fail to get their book requests in on time, which leaves the bookstore completely blind as to what will be needed during the upcoming semester.

Because much of the solution likes with faculty members themselves, it is disappointing that professors have not made more of an effort to reduce bookstore inefficiency. Despite an information campaign by senators, there was still poor response to efforts to get booklists out before the beginning of the semester.

More education would be helpful, as some professors seem insensitive to the high cost of books. Sometimes books are assigned in which only a few chapters are relevant. Other times, professors ask for more expensive versions of textbooks that include little-used extras like study guides or CDs. More extensive use of legal online options for distributing assigned texts could also be pursued.

Professors can also help keep costs down by not requiring the newest versions of textbooks when possible. Publishers often update books frequently in order to make the older versions less desirable and push student to purchase new texts. Professors who are cognizant of this can assign a range of versions to allow previous versions (sometimes only a year or two old) to be used.

Saving a few hundred dollars a year might seem trivial next to Tufts' $40,000 tuition. But for students on financial aid the cost is burdensome, and what is most frustrating is how needless some of the expense is. With more coordination on the part of students, the bookstore, and the faculty, a significant source of waste could be eliminated and an annoying problem alleviated.