From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:19:49 +0000 Those are good questions, but I don’t know the answers. There’s no question that the student savings would have been quite a bit higher if these professors had all adopted OERs. Just to be clear: I’m not shilling for the inclusive access model here, just responding to Joe’s question. Like all access models, inclusive access is less than perfect. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 [log in to unmask] From: "Holland, Claudia" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:56:26 +0000 Just curious, Rick, how many students received these savings and how much savings would there have been, had there been a switch to totally open resources? Not knocking the $400k savings, mind you. Thanks, Claudia Holland From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:56:15 +0000 At my institution, we have a group called the Course Material Services Team, which includes staff from the bookstore, the registrar’s office, campus printing and mail services, the library, and a couple of other areas. I serve on the team, as does our Copyright & Scholarly Communication Librarian. We’ve been working for a couple of years now on strategies to reduce textbook costs for students, and we’ve found that inclusive access is – for better or worse – a much easier sell to faculty than OERs. During the school year that just ended we had 21 courses with inclusive access arrangements – that’s not very many courses, but we calculate the total savings to students at roughly $400,000. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 [log in to unmask]