LC Uoof 
 
ki (Lgooi 
 
 Collaboration in Textbook Writing 
 
 Mr. President and Members of the Faculty: 
 
 The subject "Collaboration in Textbook Writing" is an 
 important one. I sincerely regret that my inexperience will 
 not permit me to treat it as it deserves to be. 
 
 Collaboration is as old as the world. As long as men 
 lived only for themselves they remained savages, but from 
 the moment they began to work together civilization was 
 born, and for centuries after centuries new generations have 
 added constantly to the knowledge of the preceding ones. 
 It is due to the collaboration of the men of the past that 
 the great inventions characterizing our epoch have been made 
 possible. Without collaboration, vast enterprises requiring 
 enormous capital would be impossible. 
 
 We are all members of one body; our duty as well as our 
 earnest desire is to help in the making, or rather the main- 
 taining, of these Schools, and a general collaboration of all 
 employes is necessary. 
 
 But if general cooperation is necessary, a special one, that 
 of the textbook writers, is of still more importance. The 
 textbooks published by our Schools are the foundation of the 
 whole system ; without them we could not conduct correspond- 
 ence instruction. It is then natural that they should be as 
 perfect as it is possible to make them. I maintain that one 
 man, however versed he may be in his profession, is unable 
 to attain perfection. 
 
 This is because our idea of perfection is not a simple idea; 
 not one that can be reached by one man, but is the result of 
 the different ideas that all men, familiar with a certain subject, 
 may have upon that subject. In fact, a textbook is com- 
 pletely perfect only if its contents agree with the opinion of 
 
 Copyright, 190/,, by International Textbook Company 
 All rights reserved 
 
all experts, and is consequently beyond criticism. But 
 perfection in this, as well as in all other earthly things, is 
 impossible, and all that can be done under the circumstances 
 is to approach it as nearly as we are able. The best way to 
 do this, and the one most clearly apparent from what has 
 just been said is; the Schools must have, in the writing of 
 a Paper, the collaboration of as many men conversant with 
 the subject as can be afforded. I shall not dwell furthef'^on 
 this point, as I am well aware that not one among you will 
 dispute the necessity of such a course. No man, 'except a 
 fool, could entertain for a minute the idea that he knows 
 more on any one subject than the rest of the world combined. 
 Our most learned men, our greatest scientists are the first to 
 proclaim how little they know. You have heard of a famous 
 electrician, renowned the world over for his wonderful inven- 
 tions, who, upon being complimented one day by a lady for 
 his great knowledge of electricity, said: 'Madam, what I 
 know about electricity is nothing in comparison with what I 
 have yet to learn on the subject." 
 
 There are other reasons why collaboration among text- 
 book writers should exist, and closer connections established 
 among them. 
 
 Our Schools are continually approaching nearer to the 
 colleges and universities; our books are being distributed 
 more and more into a larger field; are being used by the 
 faculties of educational institutions; and are required to 
 stand, from year to year, the fire of criticism from educators 
 following the same lines we do, although in a widely different 
 field. For reasons already expressed, the greater the number 
 of hands that have been employed in preparing a textbook 
 the less is the criticism to which it is liable to be submitted. 
 Suppose that ten writers have had their say concerning a 
 certain subject; we may be nearly certain that they are not 
 all of the same mind ; that each has a different idea concerning 
 it, according to the point of view that each has taken. The 
 final Paper elaborated and published after all arguments of 
 these ten writers have been heard, weighed, and passed on, 
 will surely have greater value, and consequently stand 
 stronger against criticism than a Paper which would reflect 
 the opinion of one man only, for that man by his training or 
 
reading may have been influenced in such a way that his 
 knowledge does not represent the general opinion accepted by 
 others who know something about the subject. Is it not far 
 better that our Papers should be criticized by the various 
 textbook writers of our Schools before their publication than 
 that they be criticized by outsiders in such a way that it may 
 involve the whole institution itself i^ Here we are, colleagues 
 of the same institution, having the same inspirations, work- 
 ing to make the books of the International Textbook 
 Company the best obtainable. We can discuss the make-up 
 of these textbooks as members of a family would discuss 
 their family interests, and if entering into these discussions 
 with a broad spirit, with deference to the ideas expressed by 
 others, we will be able in this way, and this way only, to 
 turn out books that will command the praise of all. 
 
 No man can be a judge of his own work. This has been 
 true in all times and it is true yet. /Esop illustrated this 
 long ago in one of his fables. It is entitled "The Eagle and 
 the Owl." These birds, long-time enemies, ceased their 
 quarrels, kissed, and made up. They swore they would no 
 longer eat each other's little ones. "Yes, but do you know 
 mine," said the Owl. "No," said the Eagle, "show them to 
 me, or at least describe them, so that I can know them when 
 I see them." "Well," said the Owl, "my little ones are tiny 
 little things, beautiful, and pretty above all birds. Do not 
 forget this last point; it is the sign by which you will recognize 
 them." It happened one night, that the Eagle, being on a 
 nocturnal expedition, found in some hole of an old house 
 some very hideous little creatures. "These," said he, "can- 
 not be the children of our new ally, let us devour them." 
 So he did, and the Owl on his return found nothing but the 
 feet. In their solemn alliance the birds had taken the gods 
 as judges for the performance of all the conditions, and it was 
 to them that the Owl complained. But the answer was: 
 "Do not accuse, any one but thyself, or rather the common 
 law which wills that one finds its own beautiful and pretty 
 above all others. Thou madest for the Eagle a certain por- 
 trait of thy children. Had they the least resemblance to it?" 
 
 Like the owl, we textbook writers are liable to believe that 
 what we write is the finest and best ever written, until we 
 
find the same torn to pieces by some outside eagle. Judge a 
 Paper at home first, before oflFering it to the search Hght of 
 more or less well-intentioned people outside. 
 
 And then there is also the question of economy for the 
 Schools. Our Courses, although very numerous, are not so 
 different one from the other. As will be explained in the 
 following pages, they are indeed closely related. Several 
 Courses have a certain number of Papers on the same subject. 
 Take, for example, our Paper on the Strength of Materials. 
 As far as my knowledge goes, a Paper on this subject must be 
 part of the following Schools: Architecture, Civil Engineer- 
 ing, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Mines, 
 Steam and Marine Engineering, and probably others. While 
 some of these Schools may require a fuller treatment of this 
 subject than others, would it not be possible, by proper 
 collaboration among the different textbook writers of these 
 different Courses to prepare a Paper that would serve for all. 
 the Schools needing the least on the subject adapting it to 
 their Course simply by cutting from it certain paragraphs 
 that may not apply directly to the branch they are teaching. 
 This, it seems to me, would be far cheaper, and also far 
 better, than having each textbook writer devise a Paper of 
 his own. It would also show that we are not merely strangers 
 united as perchance under one head, but members of the 
 same family and working harmoniously toward one great 
 end, the success of the International Correspondence Schools. 
 
 Take another example. Each of the following Courses, 
 Ornamental Design, Show-Card Writing, Lettering and Sign 
 Painting, Window Dressing, have a chapter on Color and 
 Color Harmonizing. Each of these Schools needs more or less 
 on this subject. As I understand, each textbook writer has 
 treated the subject in his own way, and may in some instances 
 have differed from the other. Although not competent to 
 judge, I believe that it would be better to follow the same 
 lines in these Courses, having the Papers adapted to the 
 Courses to which they belong. 
 
 In order to save time and money, it is the duty of every 
 textbook writer to get better acquainted with the work done 
 by other textbook writers of our Schools. Often he will find 
 that a subject that belongs properly to his Course has already 
 
been treated, and is part of another Course. In such cases, 
 the Paper can be used in whole or in part and much time and 
 expense saved. 
 
 It is comparatively easy for a textbook writer to get 
 acquainted with what has been published by the Schools; 
 the Bound Volumes of all the Courses are at his service. 
 However, all that has been written by the Schools is not 
 published. There are many manuscripts that contain valu- 
 able information, and each writer should have the means of 
 knowing their contents. I believe that a list of the subjects 
 should be printed and put in the hands of each textbook 
 writer. 
 
 Although less important than the matter contained in our 
 textbooks, the question of typography and general get-up of 
 a Paper is not to be neglected. It is only through collabora- 
 tion of all interested that a rule applying to all Papers can 
 be devised. Such rules are to be desired, because we are 
 more and more frequently enrolling old students in new 
 Courses, and it is an advantage to them if they find the same 
 arrangement and same style as in the Courses they have 
 previously studied. 
 
 When we consider the different Courses from the point of 
 view of the matter taught, we see that, although very numer- 
 ous, they may be classified under two entirely independent 
 heads: Technical Courses and Languages. 
 
 All the Technical Courses have at least one common Paper: 
 Arithmetic; and Geometry, Algebra, Mechanics, Strength of 
 Materials form a part of a great number of them. 
 
 If we do not consider Arithmetic, Geometry, and Algebra, 
 our classification will become as follows: Technical, Electro- 
 therapeutics, Textiles, Chemistry, Commerce, Languages. 
 This is probably a better classification than the first one, 
 although the same subjects may properly belong to several 
 Courses, etc. All this goes to show that our Courses are 
 more or less closely connected, and consequently that in 
 writing a new Course it is not difficult to find a number of 
 textbook writers familiar with the same subject, thus making 
 collaboration easy. 
 
 Collaboration, to be effective, should be thoroughly organ- 
 ized and subjected to a set of definite rules. If this is not 
 
 5 
 
done the present system might just as well be continued. 
 When a man has been engaged to write a Paper, he does not 
 really know what to do in the way of obtaining advice from 
 any of his colleagues; he may feel that this would be an 
 imposition on others who have their own work to perform, 
 and the person consulted may also feel that he has no author- 
 ity to spend a certain portion of his time on a Course he has 
 not been instructed to prepare. The consequence is, that the 
 present system, to my mind, is entirely unsatisfactory if we 
 have decided that collaboration is a good thing and should be 
 firmly established in the Schools. 
 
 It is not an easy matter to devise a perfect system of organi- 
 zation that would be absolutely satisfactory to the Schools 
 and to all concerned. It is in the discussion of this part that 
 your different opinions will be especially valuable, and I have 
 no doubt that an improvement over the present system may 
 be devised. 
 
 First, we must discard entirely the idea of having the whole 
 faculty act in a body, and discuss the value of a Paper. The 
 faculty is. composed of men having made a special study of a 
 special subject; the knowledge they may have of other 
 subjects is not sufficient to qualify them as good critics. It 
 would be ridiculous for me, for example, to vote on the 
 subjects of coal mining or electrical engineering, of which I 
 know positively nothing. 
 
 From this we may infer that the first principle to be 
 required of a certain number of men criticizing a Paper is 
 competency. This principle, it seems to me, should be the 
 foundation of any system of collaboration which these Schools 
 should devise. As I understand, a system was in use in 
 these. Schools some years ago, but had to be abandoned on 
 account of its impracticability. The idea, however, seemed 
 a good one. It consisted in naming a committee of three, 
 four, or more textbook writers, the number varying accord- 
 ing to the importance and difficulty of the subject. The com- 
 mittee thus had charge of the Papers, relieving any one man 
 of the burden and responsibility. This system did not work 
 well. Each member of the committee had certain ideas he 
 wanted .incorporated in the Papers, which other members 
 opposed, thus producing in some cases acrimonious discus- 
 
sion and hard feelings among some of the members. Further- 
 more, no member could give the same amount of time and 
 thought to a Paper as the author and the taking of sides 
 when voting was bound to result in friction. 
 
 I think, however, that such a system had many advantages; 
 with it, a writer does not bear the entire responsibility of a 
 Course, but shares it with others: the Course thus elaborated 
 is likely to be better, one man being more apt to err than 
 several. For all these reasons, it seems to me that a system 
 of committees, arranged on a different plan, however, could 
 be devised to the satisfaction of all. 
 
 First, these committees should be formed of writers con- 
 versant with the subject. For example, in the Course of 
 Civil Engineering, there could be a committee composed of 
 the Principals of the following Schools : Mechanical Engineer- 
 ing, Steam Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mathematics, 
 and Mechanics, and of course, the Principal of the School of 
 Civil Engineering. The committee of Commerce would be 
 a competent one if formed of the following Principals : School 
 of Bookkeeping and Stenography, English Branches, and 
 Pedagogy. The committee of Foreign Languages would 
 naturally be composed of the Principals of the different 
 Schools with the Dean of the Faculty, and the same with 
 others. 
 
 When a certain book is to be written, the first thing a 
 writer does is to form a plan of the subject. It is in the 
 working of that plan that I think a committee invaluable. 
 All the members should assemble and discuss the different 
 aspects of a subject, finally deciding on the general plan of that 
 subject. Such discussion could easily be conducted without 
 friction. This being done, a writer could then work the 
 Paper along the lines that have been devised, and should be 
 allowed to consult, as he desires, any member of the com- 
 mittee, for information on the subject. This plan, I think, 
 would remove all the objections, and a writer would, as he has 
 today, have a certain latitude in treating his subject, while at 
 the' same time he would be benefited by the knowledge of 
 others. 
 
 Whatever you may think upon this subject, whatever you 
 may decide, one thing we should never forget: that in working 
 
 7 
 
029 944 059 fl i 
 
 together harmoniously for the interest of the Schools, we are 
 at the same time working for our own interests. 
 
 And now, gentlemen, I have finished, and I am sure that 
 at least I have convinced you that this important subject has 
 been treated by the wrong man. At the same time, I have 
 tried to introduce as many suggestions as possible; some of 
 them you will no doubt brand as useless, but if the ensuing 
 discussion brings about as a result a closer collaboration in 
 textbook writing, I shall feel that my arduous task has not 
 been in vain. 
 
 8151-3-5-04-100 
 
nnf,?,^/^'^^ OF CONGRESS 
 
 0029 944 059 If