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]