A new battle is brewing in the years-long war over costly college textbooks that could deal a serious blow to a textbook subscription program promoted by publishers and criticized by student activist groups.
The U.S. Department of Education recently Reassessing financial aid regulations Starting in 2016, it will effectively allow universities to automatically charge students for books and supplies as long as they meet criteria such as being sold at below-market price.
This practice has enabled the growth of the digital subscription business model for textbooks: publishers strike deals with universities and bookstores, charging students a fee in exchange for access to mostly online versions of course materials specified in their classes. Known in the publishing industry as “inclusive access” or “equitable access” programs, proponents argue that they benefit students by saving them money and allowing them to have all the materials they need at the beginning of the semester.
Current regulations state that such arrangements allow students to opt out, so they can rent or buy their own used books at a cheaper price. But opponents of the bundling model have long argued that it’s very difficult for students to truly opt out, because of the complex procedures involved and because the option is often poorly advertised on campus. Moreover, because some subscription programs include the courseware systems that professors use to grade homework and administer tests, students who opt out can effectively miss classes.
Now the federal government is considering rule changes that would make it substantially harder for colleges to automatically charge students for books, so long as they can opt out. Instead, colleges must encourage students to charge for books. Opt-in Authorizing these types of fees allows for payment of textbook subscription programs.
Such changes wouldn’t necessarily doom “inclusive access” programs, supporters and opponents argue, but they could undermine the business model in which universities offer large numbers of student customers to publishers in exchange for volume discounts.
“The efficiency of the opt-out model will be lost,” said Richard Hirschman, vice president of government relations for the National Association of College Stores.
White House expressed support Regarding the possible rule change, the next step would be for the Department of Education to formally propose the change in the Federal Register and open a public comment period. For the rule change to take effect in mid-2025, the regulations would need to be finalized by November 1. If not, the change would take effect in mid-2026.
The quest for savings
The textbook business elicits strong opinions from nearly everyone in higher education, and the question of whether subscription services are good or bad for students is a contentious one.
Sydney Greenway, a senior at the University of Pittsburgh who advocates for lower textbook costs through the Student Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), first encountered the “inclusive access” model when she saw a textbook charge on her tuition bill that she didn’t recognize as a freshman at Wayne State University.
“I had no idea what it was, I couldn’t click on it, and I couldn’t opt out,” she said. “I had to wait until the first day of class to get an explanation.”
The professor explained to the class that the fee was part of a program to save students money by providing digital textbooks. Greenway was convinced, but when he searched, he found the same textbook for a cheaper price on another website. After he started using the assigned digital textbook, he was frustrated by his inability to print what he read and his inability to highlight and annotate the online text.
“If you just read it on your laptop, you’re not going to remember it,” she says.
Since learning more about textbook options, Greenway has made it a priority to find low-cost options that she can work with in her preferred way. Her first option is to ask her professors to assign free open educational resources that she can print as PDFs in the library. Her second option is to look for physical copies of used textbooks on online retailers such as eBay. As a last resort, she goes to her university bookstore to borrow used versions. She estimates that by shopping around, she has saved hundreds of dollars on materials each semester.
“If I don’t have to pay $500 for textbooks, which is the same as a month’s rent, I can buy groceries other than ramen,” she explains. “It’s a real financial relief.”
But supporters of textbook subscription services argue that they also save students money. They point to data showing that the cost of textbooks has recently plateaued. Students’ spending on textbooks is decreasing After several years of rising.
“The savings are real,” Hirschman said. “If the materials aren’t below competitive market price, they don’t qualify for the program,” he added.
but, New reports The Student PIRGs report casts doubt on whether textbook-bundling programs can really get credit for these financial trends. The study, which analyzed 171 textbook subscription agreements from 92 universities and higher education consortia, “found no clear evidence that these agreements result in savings for students,” said Dan Xie, government director for Student PIRGs and co-author of the report. “If savings are in fact tied to automatic billing programs, then reading these agreements makes it clear that savings exist. The lack of receipts for these savings is very troubling,” especially considering that federal regulations require the programs to charge below-market rates.
Of course, publishers, retailers, and the universities themselves have another stake in the success of subscription programs. Hirschman says that retailers save a lot of effort and time by not having to manage used textbooks, and not having to process textbook returns is a “huge cost savings for publishers and retailers.” Digital subscription programs also help prevent textbook piracy, where students illegally download textbooks rather than paying for them, he adds.
The Student PIRG report also found that in many cases, universities directly benefit from “blanket access” contracts by receiving a cut of the profits.
“To some extent this explains why some universities are opposed to opt-in policies,” said Nicole Allen, director of open education at the Alliance for Scholarly Publishing and Scholarly Resources. sparkWe promote open access resources.
“Given that students are forced to pay for it through their schools, which then give the money to bookstores and then give a cut of that money to universities, this could create a ‘potential perverse incentive’ for students regarding the affordability of textbooks,” she argues.
SPARC supports proposed rule changes that would require universities to allow students to choose textbook auto-billing rather than opting out, which would put pressure on publishers, bookstores and universities to prove to students that subscription programs are truly an affordable option, Allen said.
“If the program is truly a good deal for students, there’s no reason it shouldn’t continue. If it’s not a good deal for students, it might not be happening. If it’s not a good deal for students, it shouldn’t be happening,” she says. “Make it easy for students to say ‘yes.'”
