Encyclopedia sets...every schoolroom needs a set? or not?

[Tess in the Burbs]

I have a fairly new set of Encyclopedia's but no matter how many times I think about them and make an effort to use more often we never use them, lol.

 

I am seriously wanting the shelf space back. Should I keep them or not?

 

Do you have a set? Is it really needed?

[lionfamily1999]

I have them lined up on ds's desk and we use them often. World History is a new subject for me and I find, being able to just grab the right book and look up things while we're working on it, helps me a lot.

[Elizabeth Conley]

Encyclopedias on line or in CD form are much easier to use. Most Public libraries offer them, so there's no need to buy. Given this, I wouldn't own a set. We need the space for other things.

[crl]

We don't believe in having a set of Encyclopedias sitting around since the information in them always seems to be changing. If I were to own something, I'd get it on CD. But really, in this day and age, we just look it up online.

[LoveBaby]

I bought a set of world book encyclopedias at a library book sale for $10. I would *never* have purchased a brand new set, but have found these to be valuable. My older children enjoy pulling them off the shelf to peruse and learn about new things. Case in point...my daughter was perusing the R book, I belive and came upon reproduction. After reading for a few minutes she came to me and said "Mom, I don't think I need to know this yet!" LOL Plus, they make great blanket anchors for building forts! ;-)

[MIch elle]

I picked them up from the library a few years ago and they were never touched. I gave them away. But we still have Compton's Encyclopedia that I purchased used; it's much more compact than Britannica.

 

My older ds does all his research on the internet.

[elegantlion]

I loved our encyclopedias when I was a kid. I would sit and read through them all day. Sadly my ds does not like to just sit and read, so I've never attempted to buy any. I do have some subject specific encyclopedias that I really like and we will use heavily this year.

 

IMO the internet has replaced the general use encyclopedias.

[Haiku]

With the wealth of information available on the internet, I see encyclopedias as obsolete.

 

Tara

[gingersmom]

We have a set of animal encyclopedias. My son used to spend hours at the library looking at them till I broke down and bought a used set on amazon.com

[stripe]

I can see how they could be handy, but you've already answered it: if you found them useful, you would have used them already.

[blessdmommy]

With the wealth of information available on the internet, I see encyclopedias as obsolete.

 

Tara

:iagree: and also would depend on a CD/DVD version. In my case, the library isn't far, has good hours and a fantastic resource area.

[Veritaserum]

We have Usborne and Kingfisher history/science broad survey encyclopedias, but not a traditional set of A - Z.

[sweetfeet]

With the wealth of information available on the internet, I see encyclopedias as obsolete.

 

Tara

 

 

I agree. Not to mention information changes rapidly and encyclopedias can be out of date within a few years. I also live in a small home and don't have space, so that affects my thought process.

[David]

I've been debating with myself this summer about buying a set of encyclopedias for my eighth-grade son.

 

Posters have pointed out the argument against: you can access encyclopedias on the internet, print versions are quickly out of date, and there's always the library.

 

But, I wonder, what is the value of:

-- Searching for info the old-fashioned way, using indexes and skimming through books?

-- Taking notes or outlining the information, rather than cut-and-paste?

-- Finding fun distractions on the way to what you're looking up? I, too, remember as a child browsing for hours in our World Books.

 

Thoughts?

[stripe]

But, I wonder, what is the value of:

-- Searching for info the old-fashioned way, using indexes and skimming through books?

-- Taking notes or outlining the information, rather than cut-and-paste?

-- Finding fun distractions on the way to what you're looking up? I, too, remember as a child browsing for hours in our World Books.

 

I agree; I have the same fond memories of fortuitously stumbling across something. I have, however, had this experience with computerized reference sources, but in not quite the same fashion.

 

I was at a library book sale in the winter where they had an excess of books and were selling by the bag for only a few dollars. I came across a set (or nearly complete set) of 1970s Childcraft volumes, which I had been considering buying. I flipped through several of the volumes [they are organized by topic] that just didn't look like something I'd ever want to read or be useful (I know many of you on here love your Childcrafts, so don't make me regret this!) so I selected a couple volumes, and I've really been happy with them. Maybe a giant A-Z encyclopedia is too broad, is what I'm getting at. Maybe some other reference books that are more focussed, such as, say, an encyclopedic book on birds, or whatever, instead of everything under the sun?

[lionfamily1999]

I've been debating with myself this summer about buying a set of encyclopedias for my eighth-grade son.

 

Posters have pointed out the argument against: you can access encyclopedias on the internet, print versions are quickly out of date, and there's always the library.

 

But, I wonder, what is the value of:

-- Searching for info the old-fashioned way, using indexes and skimming through books?

-- Taking notes or outlining the information, rather than cut-and-paste?

-- Finding fun distractions on the way to what you're looking up? I, too, remember as a child browsing for hours in our World Books.

 

Thoughts?

We bought ours for all the same reasons. Also, information on the internet is so easy to alter, I worry that much of it is false. We also find reading a book easier than reading a screen :)

 

There's nothing better than perusing an encyclopedia, you learn so much and the pictures are good too :)

[stripe]

I would recommend that if you research online, you use reputable sources rather than entering a term into a search engine and accepting each result as equally valid. Many libraries have good resources that they pay to obtain (you can often access them from home via the internet using your library card), some states have such electronic resources as well, and then there are other sources you can subscribe to or that are available for free from reputable companies/groups/individuals. Something like an archive from a newspaper is so much easier and more accessible than finding the microfiche, although perhaps you're imagining a 1984 like scenario of altering. But keep in mind something like, say, the markings on a robin would be an unlikely item to be altered or falsified as compared to predictions made by Big Brother so that he turns out to be prophetic or whatever. :)

[Blue Hen]

We have a set I picked up from a Friends' of the Libary sale for $25. They are beautiful.

 

DS #1 has read them from cover to cover, DS #2 turns to them when I assign him to write on some topic. I've thought about giving them away but decided I will wait a few more years. DS just might discover the wonder they hold.

 

DS #1 turned to them when I assigned him a topic to write on too. What happened though was he would start reading one topic and when that section ended he would just keep reading :) DS #2 is not like that but then things could change.

 

Carole

[Gretchen in NJ]

I have a fairly new set of Encyclopedia's but no matter how many times I think about them and make an effort to use more often we never use them, lol.

 

I am seriously wanting the shelf space back. Should I keep them or not?

 

Do you have a set? Is it really needed?

 

I have a set, but only because my mother gave them to us. I wouldn't have bought them. I do not use them, but my girls do pull them off the shelf here and there and read them on their own time.

[Colleen in SEVA]

:lol: I saw the thread title and was going to say "If you are wanting to buy a set, you should check your local library -- very cheap!" Then I saw it was you... and you already know this! :lol:

 

I am glad I have my set. YMMV.

[Guest]

I agree that you would already have used them. I am more of a "physical book" person than an "internet/digital" person. We use ours all the time. My ds (4) asks me all the time if he can "read the big picture books". My dh and I are constantly pulling them out when we are watching tv/movies. It was one of our first homeschool purchases because I know we'll use them. I'd say, ditch them - someone else may be longing for a set.

[wonderfilled]

:iagree: I would so much rather read a book than a screen, too, and I would so much rather see my children with a book in their hands instead of in front of a computer screen, even if it is educational.

 

We bought ours for all the same reasons. Also, information on the internet is so easy to alter, I worry that much of it is false. We also find reading a book easier than reading a screen :)

 

There's nothing better than perusing an encyclopedia, you learn so much and the pictures are good too :)

[sleepymommy]

I remember spending hours reading through the few books we had from an encyclopedia set. My parents only purchased the first few from the door-to-door seller.

 

I'm another one of the more booky types, rather than online types.

 

I picked up a set of Childcraft encyclopedias from our last library sale for really cheap- I think around $5!

[swellmomma]

I was given a free set we had for a long time, then I passed them on because I wanted my shelf space back, and since then have regretted it. I wish I had them to let the kids look things up freely when they are curious. I do not want them on the computer often (especially ds right now) googling things so the encyclopedias give them that chance to research things from books. Plus they would be a great way to practice outlining in a variety of subjects.

[KnightMaiden]

We LOVE the child craft. Not exactly "encyclopedias" as such..but still GREAT reference tools!

[thundersweet]

Which Childcraft are the ones to get? We have one random Childcraft on animals and my dd loves it.

 

Sandy

[thundersweet]

We have a set of animal encyclopedias. My son used to spend hours at the library looking at them till I broke down and bought a used set on amazon.com

 

Which set do you have? My dd would love

this.

 

Thanks,

Sandy

[stripe]

Which Childcraft are the ones to get? We have one random Childcraft on animals and my dd loves it.

 

I have the animal one and "How Things Work." I perused a pile at a library book sale and picked those two.

[Melissa in Australia]

do you have to limit it to only 1 set?:lol: I have at least 6.:D

[keptwoman]

We have one set. I don't think the DC have even taken them off the shelf.

[2cents]

I have a set of the Book of Knowledge-year 1955. These are not the New Book of Knowledge. I specifically searched for an older edition because I had them as a child and myself and my siblings devoured this set. They are very different from the average Encyclopedia. They have detailed sections for poetry, science, culture, literature etc. in each book and there are 20 volumes.

 

We love our Book of Knowledge set. It is nice to see the kids settle in with one and just read. Here are some links that help explain my reason for getting this particular book set:

http://www.collectorsquest.com/blog/2008/09/11/the-book-of-knowledge/

http://www.hstreasures.com/bookofknowledge.html

http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/06/the_book_of_kno.html

http://blog.johnath.com/2006/01/03/what-causes-chilblains/

Edited July 19, 2009 by 2cents

[stripe]

I heard about those, but I've read that they contain racist language (whites are superior, other groups are inferior...but should still be treated decently), are pro-colonialism, and contain some support of eugenics. Do you find that to be the case? I couldn't have such material in my home. Also, I think the scientific books contain essays about why space flight is impossible etc -- do you find it difficult to have to contend with large amounts of out-of-date information? How do your children tell the difference?

Edited July 19, 2009 by stripe

[2cents]

I hadn't really noticed any racist language but you have to remember that these are older books. As in any antique book, it is part of the deal that you would teach the children that although the book says something that doesn't mean it is valid according to today's standards or technology. Many antique books contain teachable moments like this and that is just one of the ways in which these books (and classic lit) appeal to parents. It is like opening a window on another time...looking back to where we used to be can offer a very good way to teach why we look at things differently now. My children enjoy reading the science in particular because to them, it is amazing how far we have progressed technologically. :001_smile:

Edited July 19, 2009 by 2cents

[stripe]

Because my children are younger, I suppose I tend to want books that are accurate and that can be read mostly "as is," or that my children could read/refer to on their own, without my needing to run interference. I also suppose that it could make a difference in one's approach to racism depending on the makeup of one's own family; in my family, at least, having books about that declare that we are inferior is not palatable. I have some older books on space, and the information about the moons of various planets and so on is very outdated, and it's become tiresome, so I shelled out for new books to get up-to-date information. Some things, like, say, animal tracks don't change over time, so I find older books perfectly acceptable.

[2cents]

Because my children are younger, I suppose I tend to want books that are accurate and that can be read mostly "as is," or that my children could read/refer to on their own, without my needing to run interference. I also suppose that it could make a difference in one's approach to racism depending on the makeup of one's own family; in my family, at least, having books about that declare that we are inferior is not palatable. I have some older books on space, and the information about the moons of various planets and so on is very outdated, and it's become tiresome, so I shelled out for new books to get up-to-date information. Some things, like, say, animal tracks don't change over time, so I find older books perfectly acceptable.

 

I agree that the age and ability of the child to discern what is reasonable and what is not may be a consideration. Mine are old enough to know most of what is not up-to-date. Our family doesn't approve of racism in any form either. To my knowledge this hasn't been an issue with these books. We aren't searching out examples but nothing has been obvious thus far. Have you been able to read this particular encyclopedia? I would be interested to know exactly what you are referring to. I'm not being critical, I really am curious as to what your source is. :)

 

The only reference I can see is one that is on Wiki:

..Articles reflected the often strong and occasionally controversial views of its authors: in particular patriotism - they were proud of Britain and the British Empire; religion - Christianity was held to be the only true religion; racism - the white race was superior, and there were hints of the eugenic ideas of Dr Saleeby. Offsetting this was a moderate and liberal standpoint in many areas: other races might be inferior, but they should be treated with respect, and imperialism was justified only if it improved the lot of its subjects. At a time when the relation between science and religion was highly controversial, the Encyclopædia was firmly in support of evolution, but did not admit any contradiction between the two. (Cf. Tracy (2008)[1])...

 

If you look at the books, these views aren't readily apparent. I personally don't find it of major concern especially considering I don't think a Wiki may is necessarily the best resource. Do you have any other references I could take a look at?

Edited July 19, 2009 by 2cents

[stripe]

No, I haven't been able to. I was looking at a book, Homework for Grown-ups by E. Foley, B. Coates, and I found a review (not on Amazon, I think) that said it reminded him/her of Mee's encyclopedia (same thing as Encyclopaedia of Knowledge), which I looked up, but came across some comments about it.

 

In this one, for example, which you linked to in your original post, the author is obviously fond of the books, but in a sort of amused way: "They are an absolute joy to peruse and the fact that they are written for children makes the condescending tone in which the 'facts' are presented so much more fantastic." And he has photos of articles from the encyclopedia discussing the friendly creatures who likely live on Mars, and notes the description of the British colony of Newfoundland; another commented about the discussion of the uselessness of studying stars that cannot be seen.

 

The LibraryThing entry for this book does have one review that covers two sections that the reviewer refers to as "jaw droppingly" racist.

 

I really wasn't trying to make this a big debate about the encyclopedias, or about racism in old British sources, but since I haven't had a chance to see them, I wanted an idea of how they strike others who have. I am wondering if it is very complicated to contend with a bulk of outdated information.

Edited July 19, 2009 by stripe

[LisaS]

When we first had our children we bought a set and like you we have barely used them. Now in hind site (don't you wish you could have that before :001_smile:) I wish we had gotten a CD version. Most of the time we just use the internet or library. Good luck. It sounds like you have already made your decision.

[2cents]

No, I haven't been able to. I was looking at a book, Homework for Grown-ups by E. Foley, B. Coates, and I found a review (not on Amazon, I think) that said it reminded him/her of Mee's encyclopedia (same thing as Encyclopaedia of Knowledge), which I looked up, but came across some comments about it.

 

In this one, for example, which you linked to in your original post, the author is obviously fond of the books, but in a sort of amused way: "They are an absolute joy to peruse and the fact that they are written for children makes the condescending tone in which the 'facts' are presented so much more fantastic." And he has photos of articles from the encyclopedia discussing the friendly creatures who likely live on Mars, and notes the description of the British colony of Newfoundland; another commented about the discussion of the uselessness of studying stars that cannot be seen.

 

The LibraryThing entry for this book does have one review that covers two sections that the reviewer refers to as "jaw droppingly" racist.

 

I really wasn't trying to make this a big debate about the encyclopedias, or about racism in old British sources, but since I haven't had a chance to see them, I wanted an idea of how they strike others who have. I am wondering if it is very complicated to contend with a bulk of outdated information.

 

I understand what you are saying. I wouldn't recommend these as an up-to-date reference. :) We like them because they offer us a glimpse of the past when space travel and some of our modern medical discoveries were unimaginable. That is a huge part of the appeal of these particular encyclopedias. We've had some fun discussions prompted by the material in these books. It was a different time and children would have to have the maturity to understand the historic value and know enough history and science to appreciate the datedness. Unless you were ok with covering that with them then I wouldn't recommend these books. You might have a lot of clarifying to do..especially in the science dept. :) Hope this helps!

[Laurie4b]

I have a fairly new set of Encyclopedia's but no matter how many times I think about them and make an effort to use more often we never use them, lol.

 

I am seriously wanting the shelf space back. Should I keep them or not?

 

Do you have a set? Is it really needed?

 

We do use our encyclopedias frequently. Some things are out of date (science, etc.) and for those subjects, we use the computer. However, for the first pass on a report of some kind, the encyclopedia is hard to beat for giving you an overview of the subject.

 

Additionally, it's nice to have books rather than always have to use the computer.

 

Lastly, we have two sets: one was ours when I was a kid and I have such fond memories of pouring over them! It's interesting to see how history is treated differently in those versus our more up-to-date set..

[Moni]

"Needs" ? No.

It's a priority here though.

 

It's what we used before Google. :lol:

 

:seeya:

[In the Rain]

I voted no because I really need the shelf space. On the other hand, I loved reading encyclopedias as a kid. My dd would probably enjoy browsing them too.