Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday October 24 2016, @09:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the open-is-better dept.

Quartz reports

Seven Rhode Island universities, including Brown and Rhode Island College, will move to open-license textbooks [1] in a bid to save students $5 million over the next five years, the governor announced [September 27].

The initiative is meant to put a dent in the exorbitant cost of college and, more specifically, college textbooks. Mark Perry, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan Flint, and a writer at the American Enterprise Institute, estimated last year [Cloudflare protected] that college textbook prices rose 945% between 1978 and 2014, compared to an overall inflation rate of 262% and a 604% rise in the cost of medical care.

That is not the result of a general trend of higher costs in publishing, he notes: the consumer price index for recreational books has been falling relative to overall inflation since 1998.

[...] Open textbooks are defined as "faculty-written, peer-reviewed textbooks that are published under an open license--meaning that they are available free online, they are free to download, and print copies are available at $10-40, or approximately the cost of printing", according to a report by the Student Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) (pdf). They are part of the move toward Open Educational Resources, which has roots in the open-source software movement, it says.

Open licenses allow for content to be shared, unlike traditional textbooks which limit the use of their materials. [Richard Culatta, the chief innovation officer for Rhode Island] remembers teaching and replacing a section of a textbook with more relevant information for his class, only to be informed that he was infringing on international copyright law.

[1] A very bloated (webfonts) all-script-driven page.

Note: If you are thinking of using "begs the question" in the same way the state official did, that is a bad idea.

Our previous discussions of student materials and adoption of openness.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @11:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @11:58PM (#418323)
    And since the textbooks are open licensed, those online course notes you mention wind up revising the open source textbooks and the next edition of the books improves beyond mediocre. As a result the books get better and better and eventually communities of professors grow up around them, bringing their expertise in teaching the subject matter.
    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:44AM (#418331)

    Would you advise someone to begin their study of any level of mathematics or one of the basic sciences from Wikipedia? That's a committee gone riot.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @12:57AM (#418335)

      I certainly wouldn't advise someone to put their faith in greedy corporations who write textbooks. What are you even thinking?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:00AM (#418337)

        Right, greedy is always the other guy. You have never been greedy.

        I don't give a fuck about that, I just want a decent textbook. If it costs too much, let's say $150, then I'll log onto Amazon or B&N and look for an older edition that might cost $20 or less.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:01AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:01AM (#418350)

      I advise people to learn molecular and cellular biology from Wikipedia. There is a lot of terminology that gets in the way of learning higher level concepts and wiki links throughout an article make things much easier.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:21AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:21AM (#418354)
      Would you advise anyone to use the Linux or FreeBSD kernels as the basis for their operating system?
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Snotnose on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:54AM

      by Snotnose (1623) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:54AM (#418392)

      Would you advise someone to begin their study of any level of mathematics or one of the basic sciences from Wikipedia?

      Basic sciences hasn't changed for over 100 years. If you're going for a 4 year degree it's a 100% certainty nothing has changed, an MS prolly 80%, and pHD who knows as I never got that far.

      There is no reason an Algebra 101 textbook should cost over $100, nor a calculus book over $300. It's bullshit, everybody knows it, but the publishers keep contributing to the right campaigns to keep it so.

      / vote HRC, to keep the status quo
      // Vote Trump, to keep who the fuck knows what
      /// I'm voting Johnson
      //// A pothead who doesn't know what Aleppo is, but he ain't Clinton/Trump

      --
      Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:44PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:44PM (#418531) Journal

        In the STEM fields you need the very latest textbooks to keep up with all the changes, for example, to how the Cosine function works.

        In the humanities, you need the very latest textbooks to keep up with, for example, all the latest changes to Shakespeare.

        Those textbook companies can't keep up with these changes for free.

        /sarc

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 25 2016, @05:43PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @05:43PM (#418636) Journal

        I'm glad you're voting based on your feelings and directly opposed to your actual policy position, in this case.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:25AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:25AM (#418398)

      Would you advise someone to begin their study of any level of mathematics or one of the basic sciences from Wikipedia? That's a committee gone riot.

      Why not? Much of mathematics, even the most recent stuff, is relatively uncontroversial because it's so black and white. Either you proved a theorem true or you did not. The theorems of Euclidean geometry are just as true today as when Euclid and his contemporaries proved them in 300 BC. The derivation of the quadratic formula by completing the square produced by the Babylonians in 2000 BC is still valid today. Calculus has been more or less fixed since the days of Newton and Leibniz, and the stuff they proved about the calculus in the 17th century is as true today as it was then. Even the newer stuff like group theory and algebraic geometry a theorem can be true under the axiomatic system on which it is formulated, it may be false, or it may be undecidable. Only rarely are things in mathematics subject to the kind of controversy you see in other fields where stuff is more mutable, and you usually see that only in graduate-level mathematics, and even there it is rare, and so Wikipedia edit wars of the kind you see in more volatile fields such as politics or with current events are rare in mathematics articles.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:30PM (#418562)

        Wikipedia is a horrible place to go for math or science topics because the articles are written to show off, or to be overly pedantic. They are certainly not written to give any kind of useful introduction to the topic that a student needs. Very rarely have any examples to show their usefulness.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:17PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:17PM (#418659) Journal

      In this case Wikipedia is not a good model. Each text is supposed to be written by a professor, but given the open license he'll be able to include material from prior versions as he sees fit. That *could* work out quite well, though it could also end poorly for any current version. Still, the best versions should remain available and copyable, so the quality should improve over time.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.