Library Service To College Students

FRITZ VEIT

WITHINTHE SPAN of approximately one hundred

years, library service to college students has undergone marked
changes. These changes will become apparent when some of the
major elements affecting library service are individually examined.
Major factors which have had an impact, and which we will analyze
briefly, are: composition of student body, character of the collection,
teaching methods and educational philosophies, cooperative efforts to
extend local resources, hours of service, aid to users, instruction in the
use of the library, and establishment of certain library units such as
reserve rooms, browsing rooms and undergraduate libraries.
This study emphasizes service to the college-level (undergraduate)
student; other contributors to this issue deal with various aspects of
service to the graduate student.

STUDENTS AND TEACHING METHODS

Around the turn of the century, college students formed quite a

homogeneous group. Even as college enrollments grew spectacularly
during the first decade of the twentieth century, the student bodies
themselves remained rather homogeneous.'
Teaching methods were homogeneous, too. Textbook learning
with recitation sessions as its corollary was the rule. However, under
the influence of German university teaching methods, use of the
lecture was introduced by many American colleges and universities.
Also following German practices, the rigid curriculum which had
characterized American higher education was abandoned in favor of
the elective system. In Germany the freedom granted to students to
select their courses and to pursue their studies nearly without super-
vision generally showed good results. However, this method was less
successful when transplanted to the American scene, since many
American students restricted their choices to the less difficult and
~ ~ ~~

Fritz Veit is Director of Libraries Emeritus, Chicago State University.

JULY, 1976
I@[
 FRITZ VEIT

often unrelated courses. Methods were consequently advocated which

would assure strong curricula whose components were interdepen-
dent. Within this framework, independent study was furthered by
various devices such as tutorials and honors courses. These, however,
were designed principally for superior students.
The increase in the number of college students during the past one
hundred years has been almost continuous, except for times of crisis
and war. The end of World War I1 brought a particularly large influx
of students, many being aided by the GI Bill. T o absorb this increase
many higher education institutions were enlarged in size and scope,
new institutions were established, and teachers’ colleges were trans-
formed into general colleges or universities. In some universities the
growth was extensive on both the graduate and undergraduate levels.
As curricula and student bodies increased, libraries of many univer-
sities grew correspondingly. T o give the undergraduates easier access
to materials of particular interest to them, separate undergraduate
libraries were created in a number of universities.
Junior colleges, which for many years had to fight for their exis-
tence, became the fastest growing segment of higher education. A
Carnegie Commission report predicts that by 1980 between 35 per-
cent and 40 percent of all undergraduates can be accommodated by
the community colleges.*Unhampered by tradition, many community
colleges have experimented with newer theories of education and
librarianship. T h e publicly supported, two-year post-secondary insti-
tutions have adopted a broad perspective by including in their curri-
cula not only college-parallel education but also vocational/technical
education, career education, general education, guidance, and com-
munity services. Such diversified offerings have brought to the com-
munity college conventional college students as well as many other
learners who feel they can profit from study beyond the high school
level. T o accommodate such diverse student groups, community
colleges generally offer individualized instruction which requires a
wide range of materials-by type (book and nonbook), by subject, and
by level of diffi~ulty.~
Similar flexible arrangements have also become necessary for stu-
dents who enter college via “open-education” channel^.^ Many of the
open-education programs permit the student to acquire knowledge in
an informal fashion at a location he chooses and at a pace which suits
his ability and temperament. Only a large variety of freely accessible
learning materials can satisfy the diverse requirements of these stu-
dents.

[3621 LIBRARY TRENDS

 Service to College Students
Practices and procedures which have proven effective in the com-
munity college have been incorporated at the senior college and even
at university levels. The result has been that in an increasing number
of senior institutions, admission policies have become less restrictive,
and their libraries have accepted responsibility for many types of
media.

COLLECTION

I n 1876 the editors of the chapter concerning college libraries in

the landmark library report issued by the Bureau of Education
commented on the typical book collection:
Few colleges have possessed funds to build up libraries on a
scientific plan. Their collections consist largely of the voluntary
gifts of many individuals, and hence are usually of a miscellaneous
character. Comparatively few of the patrons of our colleges in the
past have appreciated the essential importance of ample and well
selected libraries. Recently, however, more liberal views have pre-
vailed in this respect. This, with fewer restrictions as to expendi-
ture, will enable college officers to select with greater discrimina-
tion and more definite purp0se.j
In a study published about fifteen years later, Lodilla Ambrose
describes the small college library:
It consists of from six to twenty thousand volumes. It is composed
in part of the libraries of deceased clergymen which have been
contributed to the institution in bulk. To these are added the
encyclopaedias and books of reference of the edition before the last
and a miscellaneous assortment of all the most obvious books in the
ordinary branches of science, literature, and art. . . . The ideas of
those who use it are generally bounded, not by the horizon of the
subject which they are considering but by the literature which is
accessible.6
Drawing on the 1888-89report of the Commissioner of Education,
Ambrose found the following situation regarding the size of the
collections: of 456 colleges and college-type institutions which sub-
mitted data, 44 had fewer than 1,000 volumes, 57 had at least 1,000
but fewer than 2,000; in all, 253 (or 55 percent of the total group) had
fewer than 5,000 volumes. Only four had more than 100,000vol-
umes.’

JULY, 1976
 FRITZ VEIT

A significant, if small, group of librarians felt that students should

have at their disposal the kind of books which would support their
studies or which could contribute to their general cultural improve-
ment. Since books had become more plentiful and less expensive,
most libraries could enlarge their collections considerably; many
doubled or even tripled their holdings between 1876 and 1900.8The
trend toward increasing the holdings has continued. George Works
observed that between 1900 and 1925, there was a marked expansion
of the resources of the college and university libraries, a rate of
increase that was more rapid than that of the student body. In other
words, libraries had more books per student in 1925 than in 1900.9
T o ashst college libraries in their task of selecting suitable books,
booklists were compiled both for four-year and two-year colleges.
Louis R. Wilson believed that these tools would materially improve
the quality of the collections. He felt that henceforth the book shower,
which yielded indiscriminate accessions, could no longer be used as an
appropriate means of acquiring books to meet the quantitative hold-
ings requirements.I0 A List of Books for College Libraries, by Charles
Shaw,” and A List of Books for Junior College Libraries, by Foster
Mohrhardt,I2 are the best known early efforts, although they were
preceded by others such as Eugene Hilton’sIsand Edna Hester’sI4lists.
The Shaw and Mohrhardt lists are especially important because they
were not only tools designed to help the librarian select proper
materials, but were also the yardsticks applied by the Carnegie Cor-
poration in evaluating the libraries considered for grants designed to
upgrade their collections and make them more vital to the under-
graduates’ interests. Librarians welcomed these book selection aids.
Responding to the favorable reception by practicing librarians, lists
are still being published. Since modern teaching methods, as well as
the more recent standards, require extensive holdings, the lists have
grown larger and librarians have a wider field to choose from for
their growing collections. In addition to booklists covering the tradi-
tional college subjects, there are now also lists for the technical/voca-
tional fields. Some of the recent lists include both book and nonbook
media.I5
It has been the prevailing view for many decades that the library
should be more than a collection of curriculum-related materials: “it
should provide, and make easily accessible for both students and
faculty, standard cultural and recreative reading wholly apart from
the fixed College library authorities, expressing their
views in articles, textbooks, standards” and guidelines,18stress that the

[ 3641 LIBRARY TRENDS

 Seruice to College Students
college library should be the place where a student can satisfy both his
curricular and his extra-curricular reading requirements. Authorities
have also continuously stressed that the college library should not be
concerned with size per se, but should contain only material which the
student is likely to find helpful. Librarians are advised to keep their
collections alive and give as much attention to the matter of discard-
ing materials no longer useful as they give to the acquisition of new
materials. This view is clearly stated in the 1972 guildelineslg and the
1975 college library standards.20

INTERLIBRARY LOAN AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

As the library was increasingly used for collateral reading and
independent study, it became evident that no one library, even a large
one, could acquire all titles a student or researcher might wish to
consult. T o enlarge the pool of available materials, interlibrary lend-
ing was suggested. Samuel s. Green, the librarian of the Worcester
Public Library, advocated such a course as early as 1876 in a letter to
the editor of the Library Green was certain that such a
service would be helpful to many types of readers-i.e., to the
researcher as well as to the student and to the general reader. This
idea gained proponents among college and university librarians. For
instance, the University of California, under the leadership of Joseph
Rowell, adopted a plan for interlibrary loans and invited other
libraries to participate.22
Interlibrary loan increasingly interested the profession and became
a much-discussed issue. The culmination of these early efforts was the
Interlibrary Loan Code of 1919.25This code allowed the borrowing of
books for both the scholar and the general user. Usually the condition
was stipulated that the books were to be used on the borrowing
library's premises. The 1919 code had a restrictive influence even
though its framers had hoped that the code would extend the scope
of former practices. As a result of dissatisfaction with the 1919 code,
work was undertaken on a new code, and a new document was
adopted in 1940. However, this code, which was meant to eliminate
obstacles to interlibrary lending, proved even more limiting. The
1940 code provided interlibrary loans only to researchers whose
objective was to advance the frontiers of knowledge. Since this code,
too, failed to accomplish the desired objectives, it underwent a revi-
sion which resulted in the General Interlibrary Loan Code of 1952.
This code no longer excluded any specific group of readers. In
practice, however, libraries restricted borrowing and lending for

JULY, 1976
 FRITZ VEIT

undergraduates much more than for graduate students. I n a 1963-64

study it was found that of eight libraries included in a sample, only
three routinely lent to ~ n d e r g r a d u a t e s . Many
~~ libraries did not
strictly observe the provisions of the 1952 code, just as some libraries
had in the past disregarded the restrictive provisions of the 1919 and
1940 codes.
Since the 1952 code was not fully in harmony with the increasing
emphasis on interdependence and mutual help, a new code was
prepared-the 1968 National Interlibrary Loan Code. This code
introduced a distinction between lending on the national level and
lending on the local level. The 1968 code provides for nationwide
lending to faculty and staff engaged in research, and to graduate
students working on the theses and dissertations. The interests of un-
dergraduates are recognized in the Model Interlibrary Loan Code for
Regional, State, Local, or other Special Groups of Libraries. The
provisions of the Model Code are intended at one and the same time
to lighten the burden of the large academic and research libraries and
to increase the accessibility of materials to the nonresearcher from
local and regional resources. T h e local code views all kinds of library
materials-book and nonbook-as suitable items for interlibrary loan
transactions. Items may be requested for purposes of study, instruc-
tion, information or
T h e creation of networks and consortia has further augmented the
opportunities of students-graduate and undergraduate-to obtain
library materials their own institutions d o not possess. In fact, the
principal objective of some consortia is to give access to materials
which libraries would not make available to outsiders under the
Interlibrary Loan Code. While interlibrary loan presupposes a library
as an intermediary, local or regional agreements now often provide
that a user who is attached to a participating institution may borrow
directly from any other member institution.

HOURS OF SERVICE

Most libraries were open only a few hours a day well into the fourth
quarter of the nineteenth century. However, longer hours of service
were gradually instituted. For instance, the Columbia College Li-
brary, which had been open only ten hours per week until 1878,
increased its hours to 8:OO a.m.-10:OO p.m. after a main library was
built and after Dewey had made changes designed to bring about
more intensive use of the library.26

[@I LIBRARY TRENDS

 Service to College Students
Apprehension that artificial lighting would cause fires prevented
many libraries from being open during evenings and during other
periods when there was not sufficient natural light for reading.27In
spite of occasional setbacks, however, the general tendency was to
extend the hours during which the library was accessible. George
Works, who analyzed the fifty-year span from 1875 to 1925, found
that all libraries (except one) included in his sample showed a contin-
uing extension of the hours during which the library was open. T h e
library at Oberlin College, which had the largest percentage increase,
was open twenty-four hours per week in 1875 and eighty-seven hours
in 1925.28The trend to keep the library open as many hours as the
budget permits has continued to the present. Restrictions imposed by
war and other periods of emergency have been viewed as temporary
expediency. It is the prevailing opinion today that the college student
should have access to the library whenever he needs to consult its
resources. T h e 1975 college library standards clearly reflects this
sentiment by stating that even “around-the-clock access to the library’s
collections and/or facilities may in some cases be ~ a r r a n t e d . ” ~ ~

RESERVES

T h e provision of reserve books started at Harvard, when graduate

students enrolled in seminars and undergraduates enrolled in pro-
seminars were assigned collateral readings. T o make books equitably
available, Henry Adams introduced a method that came to be known
as T h e Harvard Reserved Book Program. By 1878-79, thirty-four
instructors had books placed on reserve, and by 1887 there were sixty
who availed themselves of this service.3oDewey introduced the reserve
system at Columbia, calling the books selected for this purpose
“restricted reference books.” He explained that this measure became
necessary because immediately after assignments were made, a
number of the students went to the shelves and checked out the items
to which the class had been referred, and in this way many students
were left without any collateral reading materials. Dewey decided to
put these books behind the loan desk from which they were issued on
caii.3’
The practices at Harvard and Columbia remained exceptional for a
considerable time, since at most other institutions the textbook
method was still in vogue. The custom of supplementing the textbook
and the lecture by assigned readings became more common in the
twentieth century.s2A separate reading room, the reserve reading

JULY, 1976
 FRITZ VEIT

room, was often created. If the institution was small, a section behind
or near the circulation desk was given over to reserve readings.
By the 1930s, placing material on reserve had become an almost
universal procedure. There were great variations among the institu-
tions in length of loan periods, justification for placing material on
reserve, and amount of duplication of reserved items. Policies also
differed as to whether reserves should be open (accessible to the
student without any barriers) or closed (held behind a desk or an
enclosure and available only by request).s3
While there has been practically universal agreement that it would
be most desirable not to have any materials on reserve and to permit
all books to be freely withdrawn, it has also been generally recognized
that reserves are indispensable to ensure equitable availability of
curriculum-related If an institution of higher learning has
both a main library and an undergraduate library, reserve materials
for undergraduate courses are usually administered by the under-
graduate library.35

REFERENCE

Collection building was the principal concern of librarians, faculty

members and administrators during the last quarter of the nineteenth
century, and well into the third decade of this century. There was not
enough interest in, nor enough staff for, service activitie~.~~
While it is
true that throughout the history of libraries, there have been librari-
ans who have been known for their general helpfulness to the user, by
the beginning of the twentieth century, organized assistance to the
college library user had not been extensively developed, nor was it
generally considered necessary to make any staff time specifically
available for aid to the reader. Several outstanding exceptions to this
prevailing attitude can, however, be noted.
Aid to the reader was strongly advocated by a number of leading
public librarians such as Samuel S . Green, who urged personal
contact between reader and librarian as early as 1876. It was Green’s
conviction that the librarian must make himself acce~sible.~~While he
spoke from the vantage point of a public librarian, his views were
deemed applicable to the college scene by such outstanding college
librarians and educational leaders as Otis Robinson of the University
of Rochester, Reuben Guild of Brown University, and particularly
Justin Winsor of Harvard. Most of the early college librarians did not
have comprehensive assistance in mind. Their goals were to provide

LIBRARY T R E N D S
 Service t o College Students
help in the use of the catalog, to further the students’ comprehension
of reading materials, and to give them general familiarity with the
collection. Justin Winsor, however, offered services which are aspects
of reference work; for example, he prepared a system of “notes and
queries” and lists of references in anticipation of users’ requests.
Winsor also advocated instruction in the use of books. Many of these
measures were primarily designed to help library users in groups
rather than to provide help in individualized form, although such
help could also be obtained. Melvil Dewey, who was thoroughly
familiar with public library work, applied to the college situation the
forms of individualized assistance so well received by users of the
public library. In an address delivered in 1885, he said, “We are
trying to work out the modern library idea in a university library.”S8
As Rothstein emphasized, Dewey made reference service central
rather than p e r i ~ h e r a lDewey
. ~ ~ gave “aid to readers” the same status
as was generally accorded to acquisition and cataloging. He assigned
two full-time staff members to assist library users. Originally, the kind
of assistance provided by Dewey was simply called “aid to readers,”
but from the 1890s on the term “reference” became the more com-
mon designation.
Dewey’s example was followed by some other institutions, but the
majority of college and university libraries were slow to accord
reference the same standing as technical service functions. Even large
universities were hesitant about assigning staff specifically to refer-
ence functions. On the college level where collections were generally
small and staffs limited, full-time employees could seldom be spared,
even if their libraries accepted the proposition that providing assis-
tance to the individual user is a legitimate library function. One factor
which militated against the appointment of full-time reference li-
brarians was the conviction held by many that a well-developed,
carefully planned analytical catalog would provide the answer to
practically any question an individual might have.
A survey undertaken by Dorothy Fenton40 showed that by 1938,
only 38 of 380 libraries in colleges of liberal arts had full-time
reference librarians. In assessing this situation, it should be kept in
mind that many of these libraries were very small and that some had
only one full-time professional staff member to handle the total
library operation.
As teaching approaches changed from exclusive use of textbooks to
the utilization of collateral materials, and as wide reading in general
was stressed, students needed more urgently than before assistance in

JULY, 1976 [3691

 FRITZ VEIT

the exploitation of the library’s resources. Acquisition of materials

and their cataloging and classification remained important library
functions, but emphasis on reference has gained steadily through the
years. Mainly to have more time for public service activities, some
libraries turned to commercial cataloging, thereby freeing staff for
assistance to the user. Service to the user was also enhanced by the
democratization of education which became especially pronounced
after World War 11. The admissions policies of many institutions,
especially of community colleges, were made increasingly flexible.
Students who were provided with all kinds of learning materials often
required and received assistance in selecting the media which would
be most helpful in their learning efforts.
Over the years there has not been unanimity among librarians as to
the depth and extent to which assistance should be rendered to the
~tudent.~ Some
’ have advocated mere guidance to the sources-the
conservative position. Others have advocated that the librarian not
only find the information but also vouch for its accuracy-the liberal
position. Still others have taken a stand between these two extremes.
Quite apart from the fact that the reference staffs of the college and
university libraries would not be large enough to render service in the
liberal mode, most librarians and instructors believe that such help
could be undesirable in the many instances in which the process of
finding the information is an essential part of the student’s learning
experience. If the method of discovery is an integral element of an
assignment, the librarian would generally not provide the needed
information, but would rather lead the student toward finding it for
himself. The librarian would keep in mind that the same inquiry may
require different handling, depending on the status (undergraduate,
graduate, faculty) or level of academic competence of the inquirer.
In both theory and practice there is no longer any doubt that
reference service is one of the most important activities a library can
perform. This service is now placed on such a comprehensive and
inclusive basis that the term information service might better describe
the wide range of activities college libraries are expected to assume
today on behalf of faculty and students. Assistance to the individual
user, as well as group instruction in the use of the library, has been
given due consideration in the 1972 guidelines and in the 1975
college library standards. The responsibility of institutions of higher
education to provide a full range of information services is unequiv-
ocally established in the document entitled “A Commitment to In-
formation Services: Developmental guideline^."^^

b701 LIBRARY TRENDS

 Service to College Students
LIBRARY ORIENTATION AND INSTRUCTION

It seems unusual that in 1876, Professor Robinson held the view

that the librarian might perhaps be better qualified and be more
successful than the teacher in developing in students an understand-
ing of books and reading. Robinson urged that librarians openly offer
systematic instruction in the use of the library, a task until then
performed only in a “loose and irregular Included in the kind
of lectures advocated by Robinson was information on how to get
books, how to keep them, how to use them, how to read (when to skip
and when to go through a work thoroughly), and how to judge the
reputation of an author and his place among other writers.
Gradually, some libraries, especially those serving institutions
which encouraged collateral reading, began to offer instruction in the
use of the library. However, even in the 1920s there were few who
presented comprehensive programs of library instruction. Lack of
staff, time, funds and space were reasons given by institutions who
failed to give instruction or who offered merely one or two lectures
during orientation week.44
In 1913, the Bureau of Education distributed questionnaires which
dealt with various aspects of library economy (including “any in-
struction in the mangement of libraries,”)to 596 institutions of higher
learning and to 284 normal Normal schools will be omitted
from our consideration since at these institutions library instruction
was part of the professional training. Replies were received from 446
of the 596 institutions. Of these, only seven required courses with
credit toward graduation. Elective courses with credit were offered by
another nineteen colleges.
In 1936, in a review of surveys undertaken in the preceding
twenty-year period, Evelyn Little found that library instruction varied
widely among various institution^.^^ Up to 50 percent of the partici-
pants included in some of the surveys did not have any library
instruction at all, not even brief library orientation. T h e methods of
instructing students in library use were of varying scope, depth and
intensity: one or two orientation lectures explaining the layout of the
facilities, instruction consisting of five to six lectures (usually without
credit), library instruction integrated with a subject course such as
English, and independent courses consisting of fourteen to sixteen
lectures (usually elective and for credit). Among the approximately
200 colleges William Randall surveyed, one or two library lectures
during orientation was the most usual ~ffering.~’ Randall observed

JULY, 1976 h711

 FRITZ VEIT

that students were deficient in the use of bibliographic aids other than
the catalog and he was convinced that they would benefit greatly from
taking courses in bibliography and bibliographical methods. This
attitude is also evident in item 27 of the Carnegie standards issued in
1932: “Formal instruction in the use of the library and in the use of
bibliographical aids should be given by the librarian or other compe-
tent instructor, and required of all ~ t u d e n t s . ”Subsequent
~~ practices
of libraries have nevertheless continued to vary, still ranging from
those giving library orientation in one or two lectures to those
offerin8 full-semester courses.
The controversy over whether library instruction should be inte-
grated with a subject course or whether it should be independent also
persists. In recent years some institutions have utilized films, film-
strips, slides and other nonbook media as devices of instruction. In
some institutions these materials can be consulted at any time and at
various locations on campus. They are frequently intended to replace
actual walk-through tours. The 1959 “Standards for College Li-
braries’’and the 1960 “Standards for Junior College Libraries” assert
that instruction in the use of the library greatly facilitates student
learning.4gThe former document states: “The effectiveness of in-
struction in the use of the library given by the staff will be reflected in
how well the students avail themselves of the library resource^";^^
wording in the 1960 standards is similar. The 1972 guidelines note
that the learning resources program should provide services which
include assistance to faculty and students with the use of learning
resource^.^' The 1975 college library standards are more specific and
stipulate that proper services shall include “the provision of continu-
ing instruction to patrons in the effective exploitation of libraries; the
guidance of patrons to the library materials they need.”5zLibrary
instruction today must sensitize the student to the shift in the biblio-
graphical scene, a shift which has made available increasingly varied
bibliographies by modern, computer-based retrieval methods. T h e
obligation to provide bibliographic instruction is now clearly estab-
lished in the document entitled “Toward Guidelines for Bibliographic
Instruction in Academic L i b r a r i e ~ . ” ~ ~

INDEPENDENT STUDY

Usually reserves constitute only a small portion of the total library

collection. Since many students d o not consult any materials but those
placed on reserve, various measures have been employed to draw

[3721 LIBRARY TRENDS

 Service to College Students
students to the rich, full resources of the whole collection. For
instance, books of general appeal were taken out of the stacks and
shelved in attractive, inviting browsing rooms. It was doubted by
some, however, whether it would be justifiable to spend so much
money and energy on work which is extracurricular. These critics felt
that the efforts should be directed to a deeper involvement of stu-
dents in curriculum-related reading.54 Gradually most browsing
rooms were discontinued, although some of their features were
incorporated into the library’s whole operation. In newer buildings,
efforts have been directed toward making the whole library a pleas-
ant, comfortable place in which both curricular and noncurricular
learning can be pursued.
Other elements which increased general library use were tutorial
programs, honors courses, and senior theses. As mentioned earlier,
such programs favoring independent study and use of many materi-
als were designed for the superior learner. More recent instructional
developments have extended individualization of teaching and
learning to the entire student body. This is especially true for com-
munity colleges-the “open-door” colleges-which usually have a
heterogeneous student body for whom the library must provide
various kinds of learning materials of varying levels of difficulty. As
already noted, similar provisions must also be made for the students
who enter college by enrolling in open-education programs.

T H E UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARY AND OTHER UNDERGRADUATE PLANS

When a library serves several levels of students there is a tendency

to favor those who are advanced. Graduate students are thus fre-
quently given more consideration than undergraduates. Even if there
should be completely equal treatment of all students, the beginner
might find it awkward and confusing to make his way through a very
large collection, for most of which he has no use.
Awareness of the special needs of the undergraduate is not new.
Records of Harvard dating back to 1765 stipulate that a part of the
library shall be “kept distinct from the rest as a smaller Library for the
more common use of the College.”55A definite proposal for the
establishment of an undergraduate library at Harvard was submitted
by Andrews Norton as early as 1815;56however, the Lamont Library
was not completed until 1945. Harvard undergraduates worked for
this goal for many years. They complained about Widener, the main
library, as being a cold, business-like place “which only the skilled

JULY, 1976
 FRITZ VEIT

graduate can rightly use.”57The situation at Harvard was not unique;

similar situations had developed at other universities. As graduate
enrollments grew and as the libraries became larger, various mea-
sures were taken by some universities to provide services tailored to
the needs of undergraduates.js
An important device was the establishment of undergraduate col-
lections; these were usually (but not necessarily) housed in the main
library. The University of Chicago and Columbia University, for
example, had such collections. Many other institutions had less com-
prehensive plans designed to help the undergraduate library user.
Most of these “undergraduate plans” provided for one or two floors,
or if the institution was smaller, for one or two rooms. The under-
graduate collections were of various kinds and varying degrees of
inclusiveness: amplified reserve collections, browsing collections with
fiction and non-course-related items, and collections of only course-
connected materials.
The collections housed in the main library, while providing some
help to the bewildered undergraduate, were insufficient. Separate
undergraduate libraries were subsequently established. They are
distinguished by an inviting, informal setting and are easily accessible,
providing most of the books to which the undergraduate should be
exposed, items required for his course work, and general cultural
material. The undergraduate library has often adopted a broad
concept of library service, assuming the responsibility for supplying
films, filmstrips, records, tapes and other types of media which are
usually not found in the university’s main library. Service to the
student is the main concern and extraordinary efforts are often made
to satisfy the many diverse expectations and needs of the students by
providing a very wide range of services and facilities. Norah Jones,
recounting the experiences at UCLA, cites measures used to interest
the undergraduates in their library, such as: (1) inviting faculty
members to discuss their specialties; (2) making the library the crisis
information center which handles inquiries on current political mat-
ters; and (3) introducing library games for disadvantaged minority
students based on data relating to their ethnic b a c k g r ~ u n d . ~ ~

T h e several elements affecting library service which were consid-

ered in the preceding discussion demonstrate very similar tendencies
i.e., evolving from a book-centered toward a user-centered library. A
library policy which was mainly aimed at enlagement and preserva-

LIBRARY TRENDS
 Seruice to College Students
tion of the collection, regardless of its suitability for the student, was
gradually replaced by a policy taking fully into account the needs of
the user. T h e resources have not only been enlarged, but also
enriched in quality, and amplified by newer media. Reader services
have been expanded and individualized, all aimed toward establish-
ing and improving contact between the student and his library.
Organizational changes, such as the establishment of undergradu-
ate libraries, have been undertaken to create attractive and function-
ally effective units in which the student finds most of the materials he
may wish to consult. N o efforts are being spared to make the library a
true instrument of teaching and learning. The modern college library
permits the application of new concepts of teaching, and it can be said
that the library “now serves also as a conplementary academic capa-
bility which affords to students the opportunity to augment their
classroom experience with an independent avenue for learning
beyond the course offerings of the institution.”60

References
1. For more detailed background information see Govan, James F.
“Collegiate Education: Past and Present,” Library Trends 18: 13-28, July 1969.
2. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. The Open-Door Colleges:
Policies for Community Colleges. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1970, pp. 51-52.
3. Medsker, Leland L., and Tillery, Dale. Breaking the Access Barriers: A
Profile of Two-Year Colleges. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1971, pp. 53-73.
4. Veit, Fritz. The Community College Library. Westport, Conn., Green-
wood Press, 1975, pp. 212-15.
5. U. S. Bureau of Education. Public Libraries in the United States of
America. Special Report. Part I. Washington, D.C. U.S.G.P.O., 1876, p. 62.
6. Ambrose, Lodilla. “A Study of College Libraries,” Library Journal
18:114, April 1893.
7. Zbid., pp. 113-14.
8. Harwell, Richard. “College Libraries.” In Allen Kent and Harold
Lancour, eds. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. Vol. 5 . New
York, Marcel Dekker, 1971, p. 273.
9. Works, George A. College and University Library Problems. Chicago,
ALA, 1927, p. 12.
10. Wilson, Louis R. “The Emergence of the College Library,” A.L.A.
Bulletin 25:442, Sept. 1931.
11. Shaw, Charles B. A List of Books for College Libraries. Chicago, ALA,
1931; and A List of Books for College Libraries, 1931-1938. Chicago, ALA,
1940.
12. Mohrhardt, Foster E.,comp. A List of Books forjunior College Libraries.
Chicago, ALA, 1937.
13. Hilton, Eugene. Junior College Book List (University of California

JULY, 1976
 FRITZ VEIT

Publications in Education, vol. 1, no. 1). Berkeley, University of California

. Press, 1930.
14. Hester, Edna A. Books for Junior Colleges. Chicago, ALA, 1931.
15. For examples see Veit, op. cit., pp. 84-86.
16. Wyer, James I., Jr. The College and University Library. Chicago, ALA,
1911, p. 1.
17. Carnegie Corporation of New York. Advisory Group on College
Libraries. College Library Standards. New York, Carnegie Corporation, 1932,
p. 11. (Also in William M. Randall, The College Library. Chicago, ALA and
University of Chicago Press, 1932, p. 142.)
18. American Library Association. Association of College and Research
Libraries, et al. “Guidelines for Two-Year College Learning Resources Pro-
grams,” College and Research Libraries News 11:314, Dec. 1972.
19. Ibid., pp. 314-15.
20. Association of College and Research Libraries. “Standards for College
Libraries,” College and Research Libraries News 36:290, Oct. 1975.
21. Green, Samuel S. “The Lending of Books to One Another by Li-
braries,” Library Journal 1: 15-16, Sept. 1876.
22. “Inter-library Loans,” Library Journal 23: 104, March 1898.
23. For a discussion relating to this and subsequent interlibrary loan
codes see King, Geraldine, and Johnson, Herbert F. “Interlibrary Loan
(ILL).” In Allen Kent and Harold Lancour, eds. Encyclopedia of Library and
Information Science. Vol. 12. New York, Marcel Dekker, 1974, pp. 196-211.
24. Thomson, Sara K. Interlibrary Loan Involving Academic Libraries
(ACRL Monograph No. 32). Chicago, ALA, 1970, p. 12.
25. Both the National Interlibrary Loan Code, 1968, Annotated, and the
Model Interlibrary Loan Code for Regional, State, Local, or Other Special
Groups of Libraries, Annotated, are reprinted in Sara K. Thomson. Interli-
brary Loan Procedure Manual. Chicago, ALA, 1970, pp. 1-17.
26. Brough, Kenneth J. Scholar’s Workshop: Evolving Concepts of Library
Service. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1953, p. 112; and Columbia
College. Library and School of Library Economy. “Circular of Information,
1884.”
27. Brough, op. cit., pp. 114-15.
28. Works, op. cit., pp. 48-50.
29. Association of College and Research Libraries, “Standards . . .,” op.
cit., p. 293.
30. Brough, op. cit., pp. 49-50.
31. Dewey, M e l d “Restricted Reference Books,” Library Notes 2:216-18,
Dec. 1887.
32. Brown, Charles H., and Bousfield, H. G. Circulation Work in College
and University Libraries. Chicago, ALA, 1933, pp. 80-83.
33. Koch, Theodore W. “A Symposium on the Reserve Book System.” In
A.F. Kuhlman, ed. College and University Library Service. Chicago, ALA, 1938,
pp. 74-78.
34. Lyle, Guy R. The Administration of the College Library. 4th ed. New
York, H.W. Wilson, 1974, pp. 81-83.
35. Braden, Irene A. The Undergraduate Library (ACRL Monograph No.
31). Chicago, ALA, 1970, p. 3.

[3761 LIBRARY TRENDS

 Service to College Students
36. T h e development of reference services has been traced and
thoroughly documented in Samuel Rothstein. The Development of Reference
Services Through Academic Traditions, Public Library Practice and Special
Librarianship (ACRL Monograph No. 14). Chicago, Association of College
and Reference Libraries, 1955,especially pp. 24-48, 75-79, and 100-1 10.
37. Green, Samuel S. “Personal Relations Between Librarians and
Readers,” Library Journal 1:74-81, Oct. 1876.
38. Brooklyn Library. The Twenty-Seventh Annual Report . . , Presented
March 26, 1885. Brooklyn, 1885, p. 10.
39. Rothstein, op. cit., pp. 27-28.
40. Fenton, Dorothy M. “The Reference Librarian,” Journal of Higher
Education 9:153-56, March 1938.
41. Rothstein, op. cit., pp. 42-43, 74-83.
42. American Library Association. Reference and Adult Services Division.
Standards Committee. “A Commitment to Information Services: Develop-
mental Guidelines,” RQ 14:24-26, Fall 1974. With addenda in Dennis Rib-
bens. “Editorial Comments,” RQ 14:101, Winter 1974.
43. Robinson, Otis H. “College Library Administration.” In U.S. Bureau
of Education, op. cit., p. 521.
44. Little, Evelyn S. “Instruction in the Use of Books and Libraries in
Colleges and Universities.” Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Library, 1936,
p. 18 (processed); and Brown and Bousfield, op. cit, p. 111.
45. Evans, Henry R. Library Instruction in Universities, Colleges and Normal
Schools (US. Bureau of Education Bulletin 1914, no. 34. Whole no. 608).
Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.O., 1914, pp.4-5.
46. Little, op. cit., pp. 21-23.

4’7. Randall, op. cit., pp. 117-18.

48. Carnegie Corporation. . ., as reproduced in Randall, op. cit, p. 142.

(Expanded as compared to Carnegie Standards, item 2 1, p. 11.)
49. Association of College and Research Libraries. Committee on Stand-
ards. “Standards for College Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 20:279,
July 1959; and . “Standards for Junior College Libraries,”
College &Research Libraries 21:205, May 1960.
50. Association of College and Research Libraries, “Standards for College
Libraries (1959),” op. cit., p. 279.
5 1. American Library Association, “Guidelines. . .,” o f . cit., p. 308.
52. Association of College and Research Libraries, “Standards for College
Libraries (1975),” o f . cit., p. 292.
53. Association of College and Research Libraries. Bibliographic Instruc-
tion Task Force. “Toward Guidelines for Bibliographic Instruction in Aca-
demic Libraries,” College and Research Libraries News 36: 137-39+, May 1975.
54. See, for example, Branscomb, Harvie. Teaching With Books: A Study of
College Libraries. Chicago, Association of American Colleges and ALA, 1940,
pp. 116-18.
55. Metcalf, Keyes D. “The Undergraduate and the Harvard Library,
1765-1877,” Haruard Library Bulletin 1:29, Winter 1947.
56. Ibid., p. 35.
57. Lovett, Robert W. “The Undergraduate and the Harvard Library,
1877-1937,” Harvard Library Bulletin 1:234, Spring 1947.

JULY, 1976
 FRITZ VEIT
58. Braden, op. cit., pp. 2-3.
59. Jones, Norah E. “The UCLA Experience: An Undergraduate Li-
brary-for Undergraduates!” Wilson Library Bulletin 45:584-90, Feb. 197 1.
60. Association of College and Research Libraries, “Standards for College
Libraries (1975),” op. cit., p. 278. See also American Library Association,
“Guidelines. . .,” op. cit., IA2, p. 308.

LIBRARY TRENDS