Fodder for the LIS people in the audience

[delphipsmith]

[Warning: Marginally bitter rant ahead]

Yet another entry in the "libraries are dead" debate. I note parenthetically that certain people's statements at EduCause have taken on zombie status and WILL NOT DIE, viz. and to wit, making it even unto the hallowed halls of the New York Times and being referenced as supporting evidence by this jerkwad *ahem* sorry, James Tracy of Cushing Academy. Hell, let's just put all "those old pulpy devices" out of their mizry and burn 'em right now. Pffffft. Wonder what CA's enrollment will be four years from now.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against digital. But there is flat-out no way the digital repository(ies) out there are sufficient to replace print, Google Scholar and the Gutenberg Project notwithstanding. I pity those CA students. They'll be leaving prep school with a completely distorted view of research, literature, and Western civilization in general.

Oh wait -- it's a prep school (tuition $32K per year, $44K for boarders -- plus that $1500 "technology fee" which probably goes to fund their new all-digital "library"). They probably leave with that anyway.

Comments

[ennyousai.livejournal.com]

I agree that there's a distorted view of the importance of digital. I think it's useful, and definitely an important component, but when you look at *all* of the material out there in print, it's just...no. Going "all digital" is just not feasible.

[delphipsmith]

Exactly! I get so vexed with people who thing digital is The Answer To Everything. It's not. It's a tool -- a great and powerful tool, but (should be) only one of many that we use to get people reading, studying, learning, thinking, library-ing.