[m31415]

This is an excellent article. Much of the discussion about digital vs. dead-tree books is similar to Stallman's "Right to Read" essay [1], which was published 22 years ago in 1997. As a graduate teaching assistant who has taught several introductory physics courses in an American university, I've noticed that book publishers like Pearson and MacMillan have been pushing students to buy/subscribe digital versions of their textbooks. Professors also increasingly assign homeworks online rather than make students do it on paper. This is really sad because it's really difficult to learn physics without actually doing pen-and-paper calculations. As an example, in a particular homework on vector addition, students were asked to draw the resultant vectors on some poorly-written JS based web notebook, and the students spent more time getting the thing to work instead of learning vector addition.

I can also understand why publishers push for digital subscriptions. Introductory physics textbooks have hardly changed in the past 30-40 years (I would even say they were less distracting and had better problems 30 years ago than now), and it should be obvious for the execs at Pearson and MacMillan that their business model is not going to survive unless they introduce subscription based textbooks. You really don't need anything more than an old (SI-units based) copy of Halliday & Resnick to learn introductory physics.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

[black6]

> Professors also increasingly assign homeworks online rather than make students do it on paper.

I saw this begin to get popular towards the end of my undergraduate studies. I fought against it tooth-and-nail, because all of a sudden students are required to pay a third-party in order to turn in their homework. Why in the fuck do I have to pay a publisher to submit homework to my professor?

[m31415]

> Why in the fuck do I have to pay a publisher to submit homework to my professor?

The argument is that it makes it easier for the professors/teachers to grade homework when they're submitted electronically. Of course, that's a stupid argument since part of a professor's job is teaching students, and that inevitably involves grading things. Few professors would be convinced by such an argument though.

[jagged-chisel]

> The argument is that it makes it easier for the professors/teachers to grade homework...

The entire world is always looking for easier and more efficient methods of doing work. I don't think that's an invalid argument at all. It's the professor's job, yes - and why can't they seek out "better" methods of doing their jobs? (I use quotes to suggest that 'better' is subjective.)

Is there an argument against these tools that says they're ineffective? That says they make professors less effective? Maybe, but that's not the same as "...makes it easier ... is a stupid argument..."

[ivansavz]

This is a place where free software and OER (openly-licensed educational resources) could really make a difference.

In my experience the online assessment solutions offered by most commercial publishers are horrible, while open source solutions like WeBWorK http://webwork.maa.org/wiki/Get_WeBWorK and MyOpenMath https://www.myopenmath.com/index.php are not bad and have been around for many years.

Yes they are not as "shiny" as the commercial offerings, but I'd trust them much more for actual learning/practice/quizzing than the mainstream publisher crap.

[jagged-chisel]

> Why [...] do I have to pay a publisher to submit homework [...]?

Indeed this is ridiculous. This should be part of your university tuition, whether they self-host or outsource, students shouldn't be paying beyond tuition to get their homework submitted.

[monknomo]

Halliday and Resnik is what I used in High school, and when I went to college I disliked the intro text they used so much I bought my own ancient copy of H&R to work with

[m31415]

Indeed, I would say most "modern" introductory physics textbooks (including newer editions of old texts like Halliday and Resnick or Sears and Zemansky) are terrible. Of course, the quality of printing, graphics, etc. have improved, but I don't think students ought to pay $300 for just that.

[Jenda_]

RMS has even underestimated a few things:

> Ten percent of those fees went to the researchers who wrote the papers

Do researchers get anything from journal subscription fees? AFAIK they even have to pay to get an article published.

> Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable—he lent her the computer, and told her his password. This way, if Lissa read his books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them.

This is definitely missing some biometry, like constantly doing face recognition with a builtin camera to ensure that the user is indeed the right one.