 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a8238a2$1@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:35:05 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>
>> In article <4a820953$1@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:18:28 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <4a819c66@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd believe that. Libraries are funded by taxpayer dollars, so if
>>>>> you're not a taxpayer, you typically would have to pay for a card (or
>>>>> just not be allowed to use the resources).
>>>>
>>>> By the way, in Princeton's case, they didn't ask whether I was from
>>>> Jersey or anywhere. They simply said that if I was not a tuition
>>>> payer, then I needed to pay some 300 dollars per semester for library
>>>> access.
>>>
>>> That makes sense, since a portion of tuition would go to fund the
>>> library and its collection.
>>
>> Hm. Are you saying that it makes sense for one to use a library if and
>> only if one can afford its price? (Or only in the Princeton's case? In
>> which case, why is Princeton special?)
>
> Libraries cost money. Someone's gotta pay for them. Students pay
> through their tuition. If you don't pay tuition, then sure, it seems
> reasonable that they would charge. It's not like Princeton's library is
> a "public library" (ie, paid for by taxpayer money).
It actually isn't clear to me that it is not paid for by taxpayer
money. I have the impression that all universities are government
funded. I consider this from the fact that researchers are always
writing justifications for the grants they get from the government. If
they justify to the government, then I think the government is paying
them something. So whether you research in Princeton, MIT, or Florida
State University, it does seem that the government funds your
research. Researchers write papers and books about their studies.
These books and publications are the ones that you usually find in a
university library and not in a public library.
It's not clear, then, that this is not paid for by taxpayer money.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/11/09 21:51, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> something else. If the government funds Princeton in some ways, does
> that increases Princeton's responsibility to be together with the
> taxpayers when they actively seek to educate themselves?
Government funding shouldn't be the _only_ reason (think of all those
bailouts).
But if the funding is going to support the library, then a case can be
made (at least, say, for a discounted library card).
--
If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all those Acme goods, why
didn't he just buy dinner?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/11/09 23:22, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> money. I have the impression that all universities are government
> funded. I consider this from the fact that researchers are always
> writing justifications for the grants they get from the government. If
> they justify to the government, then I think the government is paying
> them something. So whether you research in Princeton, MIT, or Florida
> State University, it does seem that the government funds your
> research. Researchers write papers and books about their studies.
> These books and publications are the ones that you usually find in a
> university library and not in a public library.
Yes, but the funding goes towards research, not maintaining the
library. Think of it as a perpetual bailout. The government does it as
an investment: They produce good research with that money, and sooner or
later a lot of it will filter to benefit society in one form or another.
However, in cases like NIH grants, they do put certain conditions: All
journal papers that resulted from research funded by the NIH has to be
open access (i.e. published in a manner that the public can view it for
free).
I would like to see how much of the money Princeton gets comes from the
government. It wouldn't surprise me if it's miniscule compared to
private sources (investments, etc).
--
If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all those Acme goods, why
didn't he just buy dinner?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:22:26 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> It actually isn't clear to me that it is not paid for by taxpayer money.
It's a private university. Therefore, the funding is from private
donations and tuition.
> I have the impression that all universities are government funded.
<shrug> That's not the case. I went to a private university in Florida.
> I
> consider this from the fact that researchers are always writing
> justifications for the grants they get from the government.
Government grants for research aren't applied to a library's funding,
they're for the research. Completely different areas.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a82d0a0$1@news.povray.org>,
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/11/09 21:51, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> something else. If the government funds Princeton in some ways, does
>> that increases Princeton's responsibility to be together with the
>> taxpayers when they actively seek to educate themselves?
>
> Government funding shouldn't be the _only_ reason (think of all those
> bailouts).
I'm sorry. Reason for what? To increase Princeton's responsibility? I
agree. Indeed, there are other factors that are even stronger, but
less quantitative. Money is measurable, so I think it is okay to look
there first.
> But if the funding is going to support the library, then a case can be
> made (at least, say, for a discounted library card).
I agree. At least.
But I think that one problem here is your ``if.'' It's not clear to me
what is not support for the library.
For example, if some money goes towards, say, research in mathematical
topology, some may say that that has nothing to do with the library.
But to me that is very short sighted because the guy who gets this
money writes books that go into that library, and he needs that
library to study, so he reads many books from that library, which were
put there because they exist, and they exist because they were written
by people like him, who also got money from the government.
Not every book is written like that. You can go into the groceries
store and find lots of books that have no easy ties with government
money. I believe one can argue strongly in favor of not letting anyone
read those books without some direct payment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:23:57 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> But
> to me that is very short sighted because the guy who gets this money
> writes books that go into that library, and he needs that library to
> study, so he reads many books from that library, which were put there
> because they exist, and they exist because they were written by people
> like him, who also got money from the government.
By that logic, the money that I pay to buy a box of Fruit Loops goes to
the library, because some worker somewhere who benefits from my payment
for the cereal might someday go to school there and pay tuition, thus
"subsidizing" my access to the materials in the library? That's tenuous
at best.
Question: Does Princeton let you go into the library without paying, and
just not let you borrow materials? I know with the Salt Lake City public
library, you don't need a library card to enter the library, just to
borrow materials.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a82efe1$1@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:23:57 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>
>> But
>> to me that is very short sighted because the guy who gets this money
>> writes books that go into that library, and he needs that library to
>> study, so he reads many books from that library, which were put there
>> because they exist, and they exist because they were written by people
>> like him, who also got money from the government.
>
> By that logic, the money that I pay to buy a box of Fruit Loops goes to
> the library, because some worker somewhere who benefits from my payment
> for the cereal might someday go to school there and pay tuition, thus
> "subsidizing" my access to the materials in the library? That's tenuous
> at best.
I disagree that my paragraph up there is tenuous. I do think your
example is tenuous. I do agree that, formally, the formal proposition
that expresses the argument is a contingency; so, indeed, formal logic
alone will not give us further relevant knowledge.
> Question: Does Princeton let you go into the library without paying, and
> just not let you borrow materials? I know with the Salt Lake City public
> library, you don't need a library card to enter the library, just to
> borrow materials.
I didn't test it, but I don't think they'd see any problems in having
random people reading books in there.
Incidentally, I think that they actually see a problem in opposing
letting random people in. They would have to check everyone's cards
upon entrance. A real pain in the ass, and surely to upset students. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:49:14 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> By that logic, the money that I pay to buy a box of Fruit Loops goes to
>> the library, because some worker somewhere who benefits from my payment
>> for the cereal might someday go to school there and pay tuition, thus
>> "subsidizing" my access to the materials in the library? That's
>> tenuous at best.
>
> I disagree that my paragraph up there is tenuous. I do think your
> example is tenuous. I do agree that, formally, the formal proposition
> that expresses the argument is a contingency; so, indeed, formal logic
> alone will not give us further relevant knowledge.
There's really not a lot of difference between the two - the idea you're
proposing is that indirect payment (money going to someone from a
government grant that might go to creating something that might be kept
in the library) should "count" towards allowing anyone to use the library.
>> Question: Does Princeton let you go into the library without paying,
>> and just not let you borrow materials? I know with the Salt Lake City
>> public library, you don't need a library card to enter the library,
>> just to borrow materials.
>
> I didn't test it, but I don't think they'd see any problems in having
> random people reading books in there.
So then the only issue is that you cannot borrow materials. That reduces
the argument really since it's not a question of access.
> Incidentally, I think that they actually see a problem in opposing
> letting random people in. They would have to check everyone's cards upon
> entrance. A real pain in the ass, and surely to upset students. :-)
Agreed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/12/09 11:23, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> I'm sorry. Reason for what? To increase Princeton's responsibility? I
> agree. Indeed, there are other factors that are even stronger, but
> less quantitative. Money is measurable, so I think it is okay to look
> there first.
No - I meant that the mere fact that they get funds from the university
is not reason enough to get free access to the library. Would you also
then demand free access to their computer facilities? Chemistry labs?
I invoked the bailout as an example of banks/companies getting
government money, but with no (or little) suggestion that you or I
should have free products.
> I agree. At least.
>
> But I think that one problem here is your ``if.'' It's not clear to me
> what is not support for the library.
>
> For example, if some money goes towards, say, research in mathematical
> topology, some may say that that has nothing to do with the library.
> But to me that is very short sighted because the guy who gets this
> money writes books that go into that library, and he needs that
> library to study, so he reads many books from that library, which were
> put there because they exist, and they exist because they were written
> by people like him, who also got money from the government.
The link between government grants and the books that academics publish
is not that strong. Most academics who get grants never publish books,
to begin with. And many academics (particularly of the mathematics
variety - they get very few grants) publish even though they have no grants.
But your analogy is closer to the mark I made elsewhere: That some
government agencies require that research papers published using their
grants *must* be freely available to the public.
In at least the universities I've been at, the money distribution of
the research grants that professors get is somewhat cleanly defined:
Some percentage goes to the department, and some percentage goes to the
college - not sure about the university as a whole. May be different in
private universities.
--
If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all those Acme goods, why
didn't he just buy dinner?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/12/09 11:37, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Question: Does Princeton let you go into the library without paying, and
> just not let you borrow materials? I know with the Salt Lake City public
> library, you don't need a library card to enter the library, just to
> borrow materials.
I know one Ivy League university whose library does not even let you
enter the building unless you have some sort of card...
--
If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all those Acme goods, why
didn't he just buy dinner?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
