Author: Derek Murphy

The question of whether we still need libraries continues to be raised in various forums, from the New York Times (da Loba, 2012) to Forbes (Denning, 2015) and NPR (Weeks, 2015), to personal and community blogs. Those who question the library’s value tend to point to the—seemingly—ubiquitous access to information in the digital age. Why do we need libraries when we can find almost any information instantaneously online? Responses to this question are often couched in terms of bridging the digital divide and providing access to computers and the internet for those who do not have (and perhaps cannot afford) it at home, or providing access to higher-end technology and multimedia production tools, as in the case of makerspaces. While these arguments are legitimate, they (and the questions that prompt them) ignore the basic fact that in our knowledge economy, information is treated as a commodity—an entity which has economic value and can be owned, bought, and sold. As such, vast quantities of information are not freely available, regardless of access to technology. This issue of information as a commodity has important consequences for society and for libraries, and it is crucial for librarians to engage with the issue as professionals and as citizens in a democratic society. In this blog post, I would like to consider some of the implications of the commodification of information in the hopes of spurring further conversation on the topic.

Our market orientation, the idea that we are treating more things as commodities and more organizations as businesses, is evidenced in the information professions by our increasing use of business terminology—referring to patrons as “information consumers” and discussing marketing and branding of our institutions and services. Although living in an information/knowledge economy highlights the issue, the idea of commodifying information is not a new one. Traue (1997) traces the shift in orientation from information as a public good to a consumer product. He begins with the invention of the printing press, which helped to separate information—a packaged product—from knowledge—an internalized understanding. Once information was separate it could be owned, and copyright laws were developed to help protect that ownership and promote creation of new products. Later, Shannon and Weaver introduced their theory of communication that introduced the possibility of quantifying information into discrete units, which allows then for buying and selling. Traue also touches on certain government policies, including those of President Reagan, which moved the production of certain government information into private hands, thereby increasing the cost of access.

Advances in technology have added another layer of complexity. On the one hand, technology has made the tools for producing and disseminating information more widely available, meaning more people can participate in the process of creating and sharing information. Further, the Internet, Web, wireless technologies, and mobile devices have increased the ability to access information from almost anywhere at any time. While it would be reasonable to assume that these changes have led to an abundance of information that is easily and freely accessible, the reality is more complicated. In fact, while information itself is more abundant than ever before, access is often limited. In many cases, publishers and other copyright holders appear to be exploiting the uncertainties arising from new technologies to exercise even greater control over the information they produce. For example, many of the major publishing houses and vendors such as EBSCO currently engage in a model whereby libraries cannot buy materials like books or journal subscriptions, but pay licensing fees in order to access information for a limited time, after which they must pay for continued access or lose the content (Bessner, 2002). Similarly, several of the largest book publishers refuse to license ebook titles to libraries, or impose artificial limitations, such as automatically removing a title after a certain number of circulations (Maier, 2014). Another approach is the “pay per” model, in which individuals are charged for access to single resources. For example, a Google search for the topic “commodification of information” will result in several scholarly articles. In many cases, only the abstract of the article is freely available online. If the reader wishes to access the entire article, they are prompted to pay as much as $40 for a single article. In many cases, these same readers could request the article for free through interlibrary loan at their local library, but that option is not displayed on the result screen, and many people do not realize this option exists. These pricing models can lead to decreased access for both libraries and users.

In addition to impacting whether and how users access information, the commodification of information can also influence what gets created and published, since publishers only want to invest in material that will sell. Similarly, grant makers and foundations might not fund research in unpopular areas. In terms of scholarly communication, Lawson, Sanders, and Smith (2015) suggest that, as a result of this marketing orientation, certain research questions and topics will become marginalized as researchers choose not to pursue areas for which they cannot secure funding or which are not likely to get published. In an interview for Inside Higher Ed, Hans Radder suggests that this economic focus could lead to bad science, as scientific researchers are influenced by the pharmaceutical companies and other industries that fund their research. Further, he notes that “commodified research tends to focus on short-term economic gain, while a significant social function of academic research has always been to provide a more general “knowledge infrastructure” that can be drawn upon when confronted with novel future challenges” (Jaschik, 2010). Commercial publications likewise are driven by market forces. Indeed, some critics suggest that the lack of diverse literary characters, especially in children’s books, is due in large part to the perception that there isn’t a large enough market to promote such books (We Need Diverse Books, n.d.). As a result, whole communities of people cannot see themselves reflected in the books they read.

Access to quality information is a necessity. People need information to inform decision making from who to vote for in elections, to what to eat in order to be healthy, to which products are the best use of their money. In fact, it has been argued that access to information, though not codified in the United States Constitution or Bill of Rights, is actually a human right that underpins all other human rights (Bishop, 2011; Weeramantry, 1995). Thus, creating barriers to the access of information becomes a social justice issue, as “access to information, as well as the requisite education and skills necessary to participate effectively under current economic conditions is heavily influenced by social class” (Adair, 2010). This inequality has to do with more than just access to technology such as computers, smartphones and internet in order to access information, but also has to do with access to education and ability to pay for information sources and services. Further, this inequality impacts not just individuals but communities, institutions, and even whole nations who may not have the technological infrastructure to access or the financial capital to pay for information. For instance, Lawson, Sanders, and Smith (2015) raise concerns about the production and dissemination of scholarly information, including the rising subscription costs of academic journals, which limit access to those who cannot afford such prices and effectively “provide a privileged and stratified access to this scholarly information and knowledge” (p. 2). Further, they note that in many cases the research being reported in these articles and journals was funded by government and taxpayer money, begging the question of why the general public is not able to freely access information when they provided the money to enable its creation.

Given that the basic mission of libraries is to provide free and equitable access to information, the commodification of information raises both challenges and opportunities for librarians. To begin with, librarians have a role to play in helping to raise awareness of and promote use of open access publications (Lawson, Sanders, & Smith, 2015). While traditional publishing models charge the end user—whether it be individuals, libraries, or other entities—to access the information they produce, open access resources make their publications available to users for free. While open access journals have gained some popularity, especially in the sciences, some scholars and critics still question their quality and refuse to publish with them. Librarians can help scholars and researchers to understand the value of open access, highlighting that fact that articles in open access journals tend to reach a wider audience and get cited more frequently, and helping them to understand that many open access journals are peer-reviewed just like traditionally published journals, so the quality of research should be comparable. Librarians can also help these scholars and researchers learn about which copyrights they retain when publishing, and whether they can deposit copies of traditionally published articles in open access repositories.

Librarians also have a role to play in helping patrons develop critical information literacy skills. As noted above, many different interests influence publishing, which can lead to the spread of “bad science,” propaganda, and other misinformation. Unfortunately, once it is digested, poor information can be difficult to correct and can lead to misunderstandings and poor decision-making. As professionals skilled in assessing the authority and credibility and at researching sources, librarians can help users develop an informed skepticism, questioning material and digging deeper into sources in order to evaluate them before forming opinions or making decisions based on that information. Through formal education programs, tutorials and self-paced guides to resources, or one-on-one instruction on an as-needed basis, librarians can work with patrons to develop the competencies needed to evaluate and use information effectively.

Finally, librarians should raise awareness about the impacts of information commodification, and the role of the library with regard to this issue. In fact, I would suggest that the debate around whether we need libraries could be reframed around the issue of commodification of information—in a knowledge society, information has economic value. As such, it is not, nor is it ever likely to be, entirely free. Therefore, libraries are necessary to continue serving their original purpose of helping to provide free and equitable access to information in all formats. It is important for people to understand that vast quantities of information are not freely accessible, even with sophisticated technology and high-speed online access, and to consider how limitations on access affect participation in a democratic society. Public libraries in the United States, though funded by taxpayer money and operating within a local government structure, have a mission that requires them to act independently of these external influences, effectively creating what Habermas termed a “public sphere” where citizens can access information and debate topics (Webster, 1995). In an economic system where information has value and can be owned, bought, sold, access to the information necessary for everyday life decision making and participation in a democracy is limited to those who can afford it, libraries can help to bridge the gap and make information more widely accessible. By not engaging with this issue, librarians are potentially undercutting that role and the value that they bring to their communities.

---

Adair, S. (2010). The commodification of information and social inequality. Critical Sociology, 36(2): 243-263.

Bessner, H. (2002). Commodification of culture harms creators. American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/offices/oitp/publications/infocommons0204/besser

Bishop, C.A. (2011). Access to Information as a Human Right (Law and Society). El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

da Loba, A. (2012). Do we still need libraries? New York Times: Opinions. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/27/do-we-still-need-libraries

Denning, S. (2015, April 28). Do we still need libraries? Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/04/28/do-we-need-libraries/

Jaschik, S. (2010, October 25). Commodification of academic research. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/10/25/radder

Lawson, S., Sanders, K., & Smith, L. (2015). Commodification of the information profession: A critique of higher education under neo-liberalism. JLSC 3(1): ep1182. http://jlsc-pub.org/jlsc/vol3/iss1/1/

Maier, R. C. (2014). Big Five Publishers and Library Lending. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/transforminglibraries/sites/ala.org.transforminglibraries/files/content/BigFiveEbookTerms091314.pdf

Traue, J.E. (1997). The commodification of information. New Zealand Studies. Retrieved from http://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/jnzs/article/viewFile/390/313

Webster, F. (1995). Theories of the Information Society. Chapter 6 “Information Management and Manipulation: Jurgen Habermas and the Concept of the Public Sphere. New York, NY: Routledge.

We Need Diverse Books. (n.d.). Press kit. Retrieved from http://weneeddiversebooks.org/press-kit/

Weeks, L. (2015, May 5). Do we really need libraries? NPR History Department. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/05/05/403529103/do-we-really-need-libraries

Weeramantry, C.G. (1995). Access to information: A new human right. The right to know. Asian Yearbook of International Law, 4 (1995): 102.

---

This post was written by SLIS Assistant Professor Laura Saunders.

In the 2012 science fiction film Robot & Frank, a near-future public library is entirely staffed by just one librarian… and one robot. The robot, named Mr. Darcy, mans the circulation desk, shelves books, and answers reference questions. The librarian handles occasional administrative work. The main character, a patron old enough to remember the way libraries used to be, laments that the human touch has left the building.

This concern has been around for decades. Will machines replace librarians, leaving many unemployed? Will libraries become totally automated? Will robotics alienate librarians from their patrons? Unbound has surveyed the current state of the art in library robotics and found little cause for alarm. In public libraries, academic libraries, and museums, it seems that robots are bringing people closer together, not driving them apart.

In public libraries, robots are now being used as a teaching tool. The Chicago Public Library recently partnered with Google Chicago to provide five hundred Finch Robots for checkout and in-house use. The Finch was designed by Carnegie Mellon’s CREATE lab for usage in computer science education. The robots feature a robust set of input mechanisms, such as accelerometers and light, temperature, and obstacle sensors. They can output complex behaviors, including motion, light, sound, and drawing. These capabilities allow programming beginners to see immediate, tangible results from their work, making the learning process more intrinsically motivating and making abstract concepts more concrete. The robots support a variety of programming languages, from simple visual ones for grades K-2 to professional-level languages like Python and Javascript. The Finches are available to any adult patron, and can be checked out in packs of five to facilitate classroom use. The library’s Northtown branch runs the Code Phreaks programming club for grades 5-12 where members learn how to program the Finch and develop their own uses for them.

Connecticut’s Westport Library has undertaken a similar robotics project, but on a different scale. Instead of five hundred simpler robots, they’ve acquired two enormously complex ones. The humanoid child-sized robots, named “Nancy” and “Vincent,” are part of French robotics company Aldebaran’s NAO line. The NAOs are equipped with video cameras, directional microphones, tactile sensors, Wi-Fi connectivity, sonar rangefinders, and a complex range of motion. With these input methods available, the robots can be programmed to exhibit complex behaviors. Examples include turning their heads to look at people who are speaking to them, identifying and manipulating objects, and pulling information from the internet to add to a conversation. Nancy and Vincent are charismatic machines, and they attract patrons into the library to see what they’re capable of. Like CPL’s Finch programs, the Westport Library holds training sessions where they teach patrons how to program the NAOs. They hold a series of classes of increasing complexity, Levels One through Three. Those who have completed at least the Level One class are invited to a weekly Open Lab, where attendees can work on their own original NAO coding projects, with assistance from a professional developer. They also hold weekly “Robot Viewing” sessions where they show off some of the behaviors that have been developed thus far – including a “Thriller” dance.

In academic libraries, robotics technology is being used to ease space constraints and make materials more readily accessible. The University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) has recently installed an enormous automated storage and retrieval system (called the Library Retrieval System, or, LRS) underneath its library. UTS’s system takes the form of six enormous robotic cranes that tend to thousands of closely packed bins of books. When a patron requests a stored book from the online catalog, the LRS automatically springs into action. One of the cranes retrieves the appropriate bin and brings it to an employee, who retrieves the requested book. The book is then delivered to the library’s hold shelf, where the patron can pick it up. The entire process generally takes about fifteen minutes. The LRS allows for extremely dense storage of books, obviating the need for an expensive and unwieldy off-campus storage facility and freeing up space in the library for new student-centered services like collaborative study spaces, maker spaces, and multimedia editing stations.

The LRS naturally raises questions about discoverability – if everything is packed into metal boxes underground, then how will students stumble upon works they didn’t know they were looking for? The library has taken steps to mitigate this problem. The collection’s most commonly used materials are still shelved out in the open for students to browse. Additionally, the UTS libraries have added new features to their online catalog to enhance discoverability. Their “collection ribbon” is an intuitive visual way to narrow search results, and their “shelf view” feature displays books as they would appear on the shelf, surrounded by the books they would have been shelved with. They intend to add recommendation-related features in the future. By quietly and efficiently freeing up space, the LRS seems primed to create new opportunities for human-to-human interaction in the library.

Museums are currently exploring robotics in their capacity to improve accessibility. The de Young Fine Arts Museum in San Francisco recently acquired a pair of telepresence robots. These machines open up the gallery floor to patrons with disabilities that would otherwise prevent them from visiting in person. The robots, called BeamPros, are almost like mobile Skype avatars. A patron can reserve a Beam tour in advance, log into the robot from their computer at home, and then pilot it around the museum. The BeamPro is a 5’2 tall frame on wheels, holding up a screen, a microphone, speakers, and a camera. A live video feed of the patron’s face is displayed on the screen, and the camera picks up high-resolution video of the space for the pilot. A second camera points down toward the ground, allowing the pilot to avoid obstacles.

The BeamPro is fully mobile and under the full control of the pilot. Unlike a prerecorded video tour or interactive website, the BeamPro grants its user agency and physical presence. A person piloting a BeamPro can move about the space as they wish, and linger on a particular work of art as long as they like. They can interact with other museum patrons and with employees. Henry Evans, an advocate for and user of this technology, has this to say: “In five years, I would like to see museums all around the world at least experimenting with this technology, and in 10 years for it to be ubiquitous. It will be the next great ‘democratization of culture.’” Currently, Suitable Technologies, the developers of the BeamPro, are partnering with five museums around the country to pilot this remarkable use for their product. CBS News covered one of these partnerships in this video news report.

Despite the often-dire predictions of science fiction, in today’s landscape robots seem to be a largely beneficial presence in libraries and museums. Whether they’re used for education, organization, or accessibility, these machines are facilitating human connections, not eroding them. If we continue on the path we’re on, then Robot & Frank‘s Mr. Darcy will not be diminishing the library’s human touch any time soon.

---

 

Have you had any experience with robotics in a library, museum, or archive setting? Let us know about it in the comments!

 

(Post by Derek Murphy)

You are teaching a college history course and you want to make copies of an essay for your students, but you don’t have the rights to it. You’re a rap musician and you want to sample an old jazz song, but you can’t find any definitive proof of who owns the rights to it, so you can’t ask permission. You’re a filmmaker working on a horror movie about a cult, and you want to use copyrighted historical footage of the Jonestown cult in your film. In each of these cases, Fair Use could save you from major legal consequences.

Fair use is a doctrine of copyright law that allows one to use portions of a copyrighted work that one does not own the rights to without legal consequences. Without Fair Use, derivative works including parody, satire, educational excerpts, and more would be subject to legal consequences.

This past week was Fair Use Week, an annual celebration to spread awareness of Fair Use and to advocate for its continued strength. As our contribution to the cause, we here at Unbound would like to walk you through a hypothetical example of how Fair Use can be beneficial, from two different perspectives: education and the arts.

Let’s say a filmmaker is working on a documentary about media representations of the city of Sarasota, Florida. Across the street, a college professor is teaching a class about Sarasota’s history. Both of them acquire a copy of “White Sandy Beaches,” a short video commissioned by the Sarasota County government in 1953 to promote tourism. The filmmaker would like to use a clip from the video in her film, in order to comment on its factually inaccurate depiction of the city’s beaches. The history professor would like to show her class this video, as it includes unique footage of an important speech by a former mayor of Sarasota.

The history professor has used footage like this before in class, and knows that she doesn’t have to worry about rights issues when displaying it in the classroom. However, this semester she would like to include the full video as part of the students’ out-of-class studies, and have it streaming online for them. She visits the university library and speaks with the librarian in charge of digitization.

The librarian decides to consult the ARL Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries (PDF link). The first section, “Supporting Teaching and Learning with Access to Library Materials via Digital Technologies”, lays out both the requirements and the ideal procedures for making course material available online. Normally, it would be illegal to stream a copyrighted work online, but there are several factors that make it possible to do so legally in this case through Fair Use. This video was originally intended as television advertising for a city, to draw in tourists. Taking that video and placing it into an educational context transforms its usage such that the librarian would not be impinging on its original purpose. It is being viewed on an online instructional technology platform instead of television, and it is being used to teach students history rather than to advertise. These differences in context and usage make this work a good fit for fair use. If the librarian were digitizing a work that was originally created for academic educational purposes, then this usage would be a bit sketchier, as it would not significantly change the context or purpose of the work. If that were the case, it would be best to use only an excerpt.

Though this video is a good fit for educational fair use, there are still best practices to use when making it available. It’s important that only enrolled students, and faculty/staff working in an educational capacity have access to the digitized video (this can be legally problematic when teaching MOOCs, as any member of the public can enroll and access the work). The video needs to be available only over the course of the semester the class is being taught in. Students accessing the video should be presented with a full scholarly attribution, and a paragraph explaining the students’ rights and responsibility when accessing the material under Fair Use. With these measures in place, there will be no legal trouble with streaming the video.

The documentary filmmaker has a much greater challenge in store for her, as she is not creating this work in a non-profit capacity or as part of an educational institution. If she is taken to court by the rights holder of “White Sandy Beaches,” then she will not have an air-tight defense in the same way our academic librarian would. In the domain of the arts, Fair Use can be fairly subjective, and rulings can be based in large part on the whim of a case’s judge. Fair Use is codified into law as a series of guidelines, not hard rules. The four factors that are considered in a Fair Use case are as follows:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The filmmaker’s best bet would be to first find the copyright holder of the video and ask for permission to use it. If she can officially license an excerpt of the video for her film, the she will not have to worry about Fair Use in the first place. In many cases this is untenable for financial reasons. In our case, the filmmaker simply cannot identify the current rights holder. She attempted to seek out the film’s copyright record using the US Copyright Office’s web search but was unable to find it. Due to their relative obscurity and short lifespan of use, ephemeral promotional videos like this one can often pose a challenge when tracking down the owner. It’s quite possible that the creators never filed an officially documented copyright claim on this film in the first place. Even so, they still own the copyright and can bring a legal challenge in the case of infringement.

In a world without Fair Use, this would be the end of the line for the filmmaker. Without any way to get permission from the rights holder, any usage of material from “White Sandy Beaches” would leave her open to a lawsuit for copyright infringement. She would have to make do without the excerpt, and her future audience would not have the chance to appreciate these rare images of the past from a city that is rarely filmed.

Luckily, her usage of this video does arguably fall under the realm of Fair Use, and there is a path she can take to safely show clips from it in her film. The Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use (PDF link) specifically discusses situations like this. If a filmmaker is “employing copyrighted material as the object of social, political, or cultural critique,” then such usage generally constitutes Fair Use. In the same way that an essay about a play would need to be able to quote that play, a film discussing another film must be able to quote that film. Because the filmmaker in our example is critiquing media representations of Sarasota, it is legally permissible for her to show clips of those media representations as part of that critique.

The one critical point to consider in this usage is this: the filmmaker’s use of “White Sandy Beaches” must not damage the original work’s market value by taking its place. In order to minimize the chance of that happening, the filmmaker would be best off using only portions of “White Sandy Beaches” and not the entire film. She would need to ensure that the footage is used for a different effect than the source material was originally intended for. As her documentary will be about media representation and not about selling Sarasota to tourists, the filmmaker does not have to worry about taking over the original film’s market share. The two films will occupy very different places on the market. A Fair Use defense never guarantees a win in court due to Fair Use’s openness to interpretation, but this is certainly a strong enough case that the filmmaker could feel confident with moving forward.

Through the careful application of Fair Use best practices, both librarians and artists are able to educate and entertain in ways that would otherwise be illegal. Because Fair Use is determined on a case-by-case basis, best practices are constantly evolving as court decisions create new precedents. New innovations in technology and communications have created possibilities for media appropriation that were unimaginable in 1976 when Fair Use was first codified: fanfiction, fan art, YouTube supercuts, music mash-ups, and so many other internet-based artworks are driving the law to keep up. MOOCs, which can accommodate many thousands of students from across the world, are pushing the boundaries of what Fair Use will allow. With luck and with strong advocacy, we’ll keep the protections we have, and see Fair Use expand to cover these new cases, keeping innovation in education and the arts possible.

 

The New York Public Library explains how Fair Use helps them accomplish education and preservation goals.

 

(Post by Derek Murphy)

Student loan debt has fast become a major economic factor in the 21^st century US. The percentage of students taking on debt and the average amount of debt have both increased dramatically in the past twenty years. The specter of student loan debt looms large in students’ minds, and can have a major influence on their career choices. Library and Information Science as a field is not immune to this.

In 2012, 74% of Master’s degree recipients had taken on student loan debt. The median debt of graduate borrowers was $57,600. For comparison, librarians’ median yearly income that same year was $55, 370. When the cost of an MLIS degree is higher than a librarian’s yearly income, it can present a problem for prospective MLIS students. A student considering pursuing an MLIS degree may opt against it to avoid a punishing debt load, preferring to remain in a paraprofessional position or dedicate themselves to another field entirely. Students who do decide to attain the degree may, upon graduation, find themselves unemployed, underemployed, or simply not earning enough to cover their monthly loan payments.

Students have always faced challenges related to the price of master’s degrees, but the fast increase in cost of both undergraduate and graduate education has amplified these problems to a never-before-seen level. The long-term effects on our profession may be significant. If the cost of education continues to rise, we risk creating barriers to entry for MLIS students of a lower socioeconomic status, leading to a field that self-selects for only those candidates who can afford to pay. This would have a deleterious effect on diversity in the field. We also risk alienating talented students who might opt to seek a different degree that will remunerate them enough to pay back their debts. Additionally, if potential MLIS students opt to remain in paraprofessional positions en masse, then we risk the MLIS degree falling from prominence.

These are extremely difficult problems to solve, but there are, thankfully, a few valves for releasing the pressure on MLIS graduates. We’ll focus on one in particular: student loan forgiveness plans. The federal government has reacted to the fast growth in student loan burdens by instituting programs to help graduates have their monthly payments lowered and their debts forgiven. These programs tend to be aimed at helping graduates who are entering public service positions. Luckily for us, librarians are included under that umbrella.

These programs have an unfortunate tendency toward unnecessary complexity and obscurity, so in this post I’ll explain the one that has the greatest potential to help MLIS graduates: Public Service Loan Forgiveness (also known as PSLF). To put it simply, PSLF allows you to greatly reduce your monthly loan payments, but still repay the loan in the same time span as a normal repayment plan (ten years).

Who is Eligible?

Any person working at least 30 hours per week in public service can use PSLF. This includes those working a single full-time job as well as those working multiple part-time jobs, as long as the total number of hours worked is at least 30. A public service position, for the purpose of PSLF, is defined as “any employment with a federal, state, or local government agency, entity, or organization or a not-for-profit organization that has been designated as tax-exempt by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).” Any librarians or archivists working full-time at a public library, public university, private non-profit university (almost all private universities are non-profit), public school library, non-profit private school library, non-profit archive, or non-profit organization are eligible. Almost any librarian, archivist, or other information professional job works with PSLF, as long as it’s not at a for-profit company.

It’s very important to remember that not all loans work with PSLF; only Federal Direct Loans are eligible. FFEL and Perkins loans are not eligible, but they can be consolidated into Federal Consolidation Loans, which can then be used with PSLF.

How does it work?

PSLF allows you to forgive the entire remaining balance of your loan after making 120 monthly payments (the equivalent of 10 years), while meeting the eligibility requirements detailed above (basically, working full-time in the public sector). You may see this and ask, “wait, after ten years of payments shouldn’t my loans be paid off normally anyway?” This is true, the standard loan repayment plan does set your payments so that your loan is fully repaid after ten years. The reason that PSLF works is that you can combine it with a repayment plan that shrinks your monthly payments. This way, you can make much smaller payments per month, but still have the loan paid off in the same amount of time. Because the remaining balance will be forgiven, you will have potentially put far less money into repaying the loan than you would if you’d paid it in full.

There are three repayment plans you can use while pursuing PSLF:

Income Based Repayment Plan: Your payments per month are capped at 15% of your discretionary income if you borrowed before 7/1/2014, or 10% of your discretionary income if you borrowed after 7/1/2014.

Pay As You Earn Plan: Your payments per month are capped at 10% of your discretionary income.

Income Contingent Repayment Plan: Your payments per month are capped at either:

-20% of your discretionary income, or

– what you would pay on a repayment plan with a fixed payment over the course of 12 years, adjusted according to your income.

Each of these plans has different requirements you must fit to be eligible. When combined with PSLF, then it is, of course, best to use whichever of the three reduces your payments the most. Most librarians will be eligible for either Income Based Repayment or Pay as You Earn, depending on when you took out your loans. Check the links to each plan I included above for more information on whether you’re eligible for them.

An example case:

Finaid.org has a very helpful Income-Based Repayment Calculator, which we’ll use to crunch some numbers. We’ll use the numbers from the statistics at the beginning of this article. If you have loans from before 7/1/2014, and you switch your repayment plan to Income Based Repayment, then your loan payments will be capped at 15% of your monthly income. Our example borrower is a single librarian living in MA, earning $55,370 per year and carrying $57,600 in Direct Unsubsidized loan debt with a 6% interest rate. We’ll use the 2014 median income growth rate, 1.58%, to project his potential growth in income over the next ten years as he’s making payments. According to the Repayment Calculator, if our hero uses 15% Income Based Repayment combined with Public Service Loan Forgiveness, then after 10 years his loans will be forgiven and he will have paid $60,404.43 in total. Under a standard repayment plan, he would have paid $76,737.29 in total. By using IBR and PSLF, he will have saved $16,332.86.

The previous example used median numbers, but your own particular situation will have its own unique characteristics. If you’re making less than average for a librarian, or you have a particularly high debt load, then you stand to save much more money from the use of PSLF. You’re also likely to save more money if you’re able to use Pay as You Earn or the new 10% IBR plan. It’s important to crunch the numbers yourself before committing to a plan.

How do I sign up?

Making use of PSLF is a little strange in that there is no up-front application to be considered for it. You must apply after making the 120 qualifying payments, not before. However, there are methods you can take to organize and verify your qualifying payments while working towards PSLF. The Federal Student Aid Office has recently published an Employment Certification form, which you can fill out and send in, in order to confirm that your employment makes you eligible for PSLF. The form also allows you to officially log the qualifying payments you’ve made thus far. For more details about how you can make use of this form, see The Federal Student Aid Office’s letter for borrowers considering PSLF.

Once you have made all 120 qualifying payments, you’ll need to submit the official PSLF application to have your loan balance immediately forgiven. This application actually does not exist yet. Because the PSLF program was created in 2007 and it takes a minimum of 10 years to complete, the first round of PSLF forgiveness will occur in 2017. The official PSLF application is currently under development, and the Federal Student Loan Office plans to make it available by 2017.

How do I know the program will still exist in ten years?

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that PSLF will still be around by the time your minimum ten years of payments are completed. The Federal Student Loan Office had this to say on the subject: “The U. S. Department of Education (ED) cannot make any guarantees regarding the future availability of PSLF. The PSLF Program was created by Congress, and, while not likely, Congress could change or end the PSLF program.” The life or death of PSLF is dependent on politics, and as such it’s not entirely predictable what will happen to it. Any one looking to make use of PSLF must grapple with this uncertainty. 2017 is the first year that PSLF will begin forgiving applicants’ loan money. That first wave of forgiveness may invite extra scrutiny of PSLF from congress, and it may see some changes. At this point, however, it’s all a matter of speculation.

Further resources for librarians considering PSLF:

• The American Library Association has a page on Federal Student Loan Forgiveness for librarians which sums up both PSLF and Perkins Loan Forgiveness, the latter of which is a potentially attractive option for title 1 school librarians.
• The Federal Student Aid Office maintains some very comprehensive and helpful pages about PSLF: An FAQ and a fact sheet.
• The Federal Student Aid Office also hosts a page on Income-Driven Plans, the payment plans that you can combine with PSLF. This page contains comprehensive information on Income Based Repayment, Pay As You Earn, and Income Contingent Repayment.
• The PSLF Employment Certification Form and the official instructions for completing it. These documents are used to confirm that your current employment works with PSLF, and to officially log your payments while working there.
• FinAid has a helpful FAQ about PSLF and Income Based Repayment as well as a very useful Income Based Repayment Calculator which can factor in PSLF to help you run the numbers to determine whether the programs are right for you.
• For the final word on PSLF, you can refer to the actual text of the law at the Cornell Legal Information Institute’s online database, filed under 20 U.S.C. § 1087e(m). Be warned, it’s written in legalese.
• It’s also a good idea to find out who your student loan servicer is and contact them for advice on what plans to consider. Their website should have a number you can call for help.

---

Student loan repayment plans are a complicated matter, and it’s essential that you do a good deal of research before you commit to one. It’s best that you do some math to determine for yourself whether a repayment plan makes financial sense for you.

While I’ve taken great care to be accurate in my reporting, if you have found an inaccuracy, or something I’ve left out, then please don’t hesitate to let me know in the blog comments below! Government programs like this one are often changed and updated, and sometimes outdated or ambiguous facts can survive past their expiration date. Do let me know if one of those facts ended up reaching this blog.

 

(Post by Derek Murphy)

UPDATE, 1/5/2015: According to the Internet Public Library’s Manager of Reference Services, Jennifer Lau-Bond, the Internet Public Library’s shutdown has been put on hold, and it will remain open at least through June 2015. This will allow them to reach their 20th anniversary after all.

---

 

Last Month, Joseph Janes, the main founder of the Internet Public Library, announced that it would be closing its virtual doors at the end of this year. The Internet Public Library was founded in 1995, and will be just three months short of reaching its twentieth birthday when it shuts down.

The Internet Public Library (now known as the ipl2 after a 2010 merger with the Librarians’ Internet Index) was one of the first projects aimed at providing library services over the internet. The ipl2 maintains a collection of trusted internet resources which are available to and searchable by the public. It also runs a reference service manned by LIS graduate students which answers users’ questions. The ipl2 site maintains robust kids’ and teens’ sections as well as exhibits of digitized multimedia objects.

Following the announcement of its closure, LIS professionals with fond memories of the ipl2 said their goodbyes on Twitter:

Internet Public Library shuttering. Kudos to all involved, I learned a lot volunteering while in library school. http://t.co/WNRO41jNTt

— Kristopher Meen (@KristopherMeen) November 13, 2014

Sad! I trained in online reference with them in library school. | A fond farewell to the Internet Public Library http://t.co/RuM02ebWuP

— Laurel Narizny (@ekelistic) November 17, 2014

I decided to make use of the ipl2’s reference services to check whether they were still actively answering questions. I was in the process of researching ways that librarians can minimize their student loan burdens, and I’d had a difficult time clarifying a point that was ambiguous in the literature I’d found. When it comes to student loan forgiveness programs, the information out there is extremely complex and frequently incomplete or contradictory. Even the supposed authorities on the matter sometimes don’t know the answers to the more obscure questions regarding the laws.

I asked the ipl2’s reference service a specific, very difficult question about a fringe rule relating to Public Service Loan Forgiveness. They emailed me their response the same day. Their answer was lengthy and exhaustive. They employed best practices in answering reference questions. They restated my question to ensure they’d understood correctly. They rightly pointed out that, as librarians, they were not in a position to offer financial advice. However, they did provide annotated links to various official publications with relevant information, including difficult-to-locate sources I’d missed. They also included contact information for relevant authorities on student loan plans. They closed by letting me know that if I still needed more information I could contact them again. Their answer was extremely helpful, and the resources provided contained the information I needed. I was very impressed with the quality and alacrity of the ipl2’s reference services, especially this close to shutdown.

However, despite the high quality of the ipl2’s services, the ways that librarians interact with the internet has undergone a sea change, and new approaches are needed. I spoke with Eileen Abels, Dean of Simmons College’s School of Library and Information Science, about her thoughts on the ipl2’s shutdown. Abels formerly oversaw the ipl2 while serving as associate dean of the iSchool at Drexel. She had this to say:

When the IPL first came on the scene in 1995, it was a visionary resource.  Joe Janes asked his students at Michigan to imagine what the Internet could do for librarians and what librarians could do for the Internet. How the world has changed since then, with tools and resources that we could not have imagined in 1995!  The IPL served a purpose and met a need at that time.  New resources are being introduced at a rapid pace. It is remarkable that the IPL was sustained for as long was it was.

When the IPL was first introduced, libraries did not have internet-based services.  That was what was so forward-thinking at that time.  Now, most libraries offer e-mail, chat, and/or text services.  Most libraries have websites that patrons can navigate for themselves.  Now, libraries have to offer services via the Web and they have to be easily accessible to their patrons who now have many options for information seeking.

Librarians need to look for ways to integrate themselves into information seeking.  We need to offer services that highlight our expertise – evaluating information, finding the right information in the right format at the right time, and packaging the information for easy use. At this point, it is time for LIS educators to develop a new and novel resource.  The IPL will be our inspiration.