College and Research Libraries 158 I College & Research Libraries • March 1975 schools: the Association of American Law Schools ( AALawS) and the Council on So- cial Work Education (CSWE). Both approaches lead Davis to conclu- sions which amount to a verdict of: very guilty. "The AALS has not played a very influential part in the development of li- brary education," and "the general criti- cisms of the AALS were amply supported by the evidence examined," says the book ( p.298). The Occasional Paper is hardly less severe: "The library school association did not to any degree obtain the effective- ness in achieving objectives that wa~ dis- played by the comparison groups" (p.33- 34). Davis accounts for this failure by iden- tifying two "fatal weaknesses" in the AALS -its lack of identity and its too often half- hearted leadership. The two factors were interdependent. Having yielded responsi- bility for accreditation and the establish- ment of standards to the American Library Association, the AALS seemed to have no clear idea of what it was for or what it was to do. The main impetus for its continued existence was reduced to not much more than a simple desire for informal commu- nication and fellowship ( p.299) . This lack of a sense of mission in tum made it all too easy for many AALS officers to give the as- sociation a low priority in their attention .and efforts. Or perhaps, Davis speculates, it was the other way around-ineffective leadership making for vagueness and leth- argy regarding goals and activities. In any case, it was the classic vicious circle. For these harsh verdicts Davis offers am- ple evidence, perhaps even too much. Con- sidering his view that AALS had so few tangible accomplishments to show for its existence, it seems somewhat odd, not to say dull, to have him give a year-by-year, program-by-program detailing of what little went on. Yet in another sense, one may wonder if Davis has collected the right sort of evidence at all. He apparently obtained testimony only from the "producers" of AALS programs, who probably suffered the normal sense of guilt about the gap be- tween their aspirations and achievements. But did the "consumers"-the ordinary members-feel any similar disappointment? Perhaps informal interchange of ideas and a chance to get to know colleagues were quite good enough for them? Davis might well have found out, but he did not try. Some doubts also attach themselves to the comparisons which Davis makes with the other professional school associations: AALawS and CSWE. One fact may be enough to make the point: At the 1968 meetiogs of the three groups, AALawS reg- istered 1,853 persons, CSWE more than 2,000, and AALS about 100. With this de- gree of disparity in size and resources, are the three associations really comparable? A final caveat must be made in respect of the "currency" of these studies. Al- though Davis circumspectly makes it clear that his gloomy conclusions apply only to the period up to 1968, it would be easy to infer from his studies that AALS' s past has been prologue to a hopeless present. In point of fact, however, AALS's directions and character seem to have changed rather considerably since 1968. Membership, ac- tivities, and resources are all much greater than ever; it is thriving as never before. In short, AALS's future might well invalidate its past. Would it not be ironic if Davis' his- torical study, so admirably thorough, can- did, and forthright, turned out to be of only historical interest?-Samuel Rothstein, Pro- fessor, School of Librarianship, University of British Columbia, Vancouver . Harleston, Rebekah M., and StofBe, Carla J. Administration of Government Docu- ments CoUections. Littleton, Colo.: Li- braries Unlimited, 197 4. 178p. $9.50. There has long been the need for a stan- dard manual for the processing of U.S. doc- uments. This is an excellent publication which should fill this need for almost every library; those libraries which have not pre- viously developed their own manual can easily use this. Every function and routine in a documents collection is clearly defined, carefully and concisely explained, and ac- companied by appropriate sample cards or forms. Chapters cover the history and develop- ment of government publishing and the de- pository system, the SuDocs classification, bibliographical control, types and forms of records, acquisitions, processing, special- ized procedures (corrections in the Month- ly Catalog, changes in classification, etc.), additional processes (selective cataloging, weeding, binding, etc.), and cataloging and classification by other than the SuDocs sys- tem. The material throughout is very read- able; the clear, seemingly simple descrip- tions are indeed impressive. The most com- plicated procedures are so well described that each appears easy and sensible. Any experienced documents librarian will compare this with Ellen Jackson's A Manual for the Administration of the Fed- eral Documents Collection in Libraries (ALA, 1955). One major criticism of Jack- son's work was that it presented many al- ternatives for processing documents and was not firm on which processes were good and which tended to lead to disaster. Har- leston and Stoffie have contributed experi- ence and judgment, and this manual repre- sents instructions on how-to-do-it right. This reviewer would take exception to only two or three points throughout the entire manual. For example, the authors recom- mend shelving a complete collection of hearings by Congress, session, chamber, committee, and title. They further say only if the collection is incomplete should one shelve by SuDocs number. A major devia- tion such as this from the use of the SuDocs system should be explained. The authors give no explanation nor reasoning for this recommendation. A documents library which depends on its users to work from the Monthly Catalog to the shelf should be extremely careful in making an exception of this magnitude. The authors have been particularly suc- cessful · in including the most up-to-date in- formation. In addition to comprehensive in- clusion of current material, there are many references to works-in-progress and to im- minent changes in the field of U.S. docu- ments. Appendix B is an interesting Bow chart of suggested procedures prepared by Mary Sue Farrell. This chart could be used as a basis for studying an existing operation in view of possible economies or increased efficiency. While there is nothing innovative or startling, this is an excellent, useful addi- tion to the document librarian's professional bookshelf.-]oyce Ball, University of Ne- vada, Reno. Recent Publications I 159 Parish, David W. State Government Refer- ence Publications: An Annotated Bib- liography. Littleton, Colo.: Libraries U n- limited, 1974. 237p. $11.50. The primary purpose of State Govern- ment Reference Publications: An Annotat- ed Bibliography is to "help make the re- sources of state government publications more easily accessible to librarians and pa- trons in all types of libraries." Altogether, 808 entries are given, of which about 445 are serials, and the re- maining are monographs. The 808 entries reflect legislative, economic, scientific, and social activities of state government. The author's aim was to include both important state documents and those representative of the works issued by each state. Impor- tant reports (such as the Alaska Pipeline Report) and documents that might serve as models for other government agencies are included as well. An example of the lat- ter is Use of Land in Ohio, "the first state- wide comparative land-use study." It is not surprising that our two largest populated states have more entries. What is surpris- ing, however, is that Alaska, which ranks fiftieth in population, ranks sixth in the number of entries. Non official state publications (such as state legislative handbooks) are included when they are considered essential. Exclud- ed from the bibliography are college and university catalogs, ephemeral materials, and slip laws. Since the coverage spreads over such a large field of human knowl- edge, and since more than 20,000 state publications are issued each year, a cri- teria statement would have been useful. Arrangement of the entries is first by state and then by main entry. However, nonofficial publications are inserted at the end of each state's listing. It would have been helpful if a note were provided, indi- cating whether or not the publications were still in print. Three appendixes are featured. The first contains a bibliography of writings about state documents. Appendix II, entitled "A Subject Core of State Publications," lists subjects followed by the typical state agen- cy name and a list of types of publications likely to be issued from that agency and is patterned after LeRoy Merritt's The United