My grandparents had them. They lined the den in their modest Indiana home. In the garage, outdated sets were stacked neatly in boxes. Every year, salesmen came to the doors of homes and schools peddling their wares. But all that is over. Encyclopedia Brittanica has announced that they will no longer offer their product in print.
It’s rather a sad passage for some of us older folk. There aren’t many businesses that can claim they were viable for over two hundred years. In 1768, Encyclopedia Brittanica published its first set of volumes in Edinburgh, Scotland and has been in continuous publication until this year.
It’s not difficult to understand what finally put the venerable company under. Two words: Wikipedia and Google. Publicly, the company claims that their online competition was not a deciding factor in killing their printed volumes but that seems difficult to believe. Not only is it much easier to access needed information quickly, it’s difficult to compete with “free.” A complete set of Encyclopedia Brittanicas runs some $1,395.
Space, too, is a consideration. A full set consists of thirty-two volumes and weights upwards of 129 pounds. A good flashdrive, by contrast, could conceivably contain every entry in Wikipedia (26,603,553 pages) and fit comfortably in your pocket, with room to spare.
While some champions of the old school encyclopedias decry Wikipedia for having factual errors, a study comparing errors in a sampling of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica articles found that there were three errors in Brittanica entries and four in Wikipedia selections. And of course, factual errors are much easier to correct online than in print.
Encyclopedia Brittanica prides itself on having experts write their entries. For example, Arnold Palmer penned the article about the Master’s tournament. If you truly care about this sort of thing, you can still have access to Encyclopedia Brittanica online. But it will cost you $70 for an annual subscription.
Over the past several months, there has been much talk about how teachers make a heck of a lot of money. I read and listened to several of these reports as I waited for the water to boil for my ramen noodles.
This week, the Chronicle of Higher Education released data showing the average salaries of professors from hundreds of academic institutions across the nation—from tenured profs at private institutions that grant doctoral degrees, to adjuncts who teach at community colleges.
Not surprisingly, private universities like Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton offered the highest paying positions, averaging a nice $190k or so per year. Professors at the top levels of public universities earn about a third less than their private counterparts.
Of course, these positions are few and far between. Most professors work in lower tiered schools. The average for these colleges ranges from about $87k for a tenured professor to around $40k for a professor of “no rank” (adjuncts).
While the highest paying schools certainly provide a nice living for their professors, even they fall far below what those individuals might be earning in the non-academic world. In fact, that is probably true of an academic on any rung of the teaching ladder.
Where does your school fall in the salary range? Read the full report here. If you are considering teaching, does this information change your mind at all? While it’s true that no one goes into teaching for the money, the reality is quite eye-opening, to say the least.