or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at Home and Beyond › Would you keep a set of 1968 Encyclopedia Britannicas?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Would you keep a set of 1968 Encyclopedia Britannicas?

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
Disclaimer: I'm not a "real" homeschooler. My ds entered kindy this year at a small school (62 kids, K-12), but we have always done an enormous amount of learning at home to this point and that is what this post is about.

So, I was given a set of 1968 Encyclopedia Britannicas.

They're a bit outdated, but it is a complete set and it is the E.B.

The people who gave them to us said "We know you do a lot at home, and these will help your kids learn to "look things up", so here you go."

I'm not sure if I want to keep them until the kids are of age to independently look stuff up and all, but I can't decide if I will regret it if I get rid of them.

Do you find that outdated resources like this are still usable to you in hs'ing, or am I wasting energy and space?

Thanks!
post #2 of 32
There's no way I would. My house is small, and we have so many books already. I would trust precious little in a 1968 encyclopedia to be accurate by current standards, so we would always need to check a second source anyway.

Much of the EB content is available on-line. A fair bit for free. And there are so many other internet sources.

Miranda
post #3 of 32
No, I would not keep that set, and I love books.

Learning how to use the Internet as an informational resource is so much more important, IMO, than learning how to look things up in an encyclopedia. Really, there isn't much to learn about how to use an encyclopedia, other than knowing alphabetical order.

I wouldn't even keep a brand new encyclopedia set. Waste of space, seeing as information changes so quickly and you can buy an entire encyclopedia set on CD-ROM.
post #4 of 32
Nope, in fact we just paid the dump to get rid of them. Someone gave us a set too--I told dh to find out the year (because they take up so much space) and the person said a fairly recent year. Turns out that the set was from the 60s and they also had all the yearbook updates which is why they told us the more current year. Ugh! I can't believe dh took them home.

Amy
post #5 of 32
No way. I only just got rid of my set from the mid-80s, that I was holding onto for the same reason. But in looking through it, there is sooooo much that is out of date. It's a really great resource if you want to find out all about the USSR, though.

I would LOVE a newer set. I toy with the idea of getting a set of the World Book encyclopedias, which seem to be one of the last remaining print ones available. I think that there is A LOT to be gained from having a paper set, and my kids will definitely be learning old fashioned research tools. But it's ridiculously expensive, so we'll probably just end up using the library's.
post #6 of 32
no. i gave our encyclopedia set away on freecycle. if i were to keep a set though, i'd really love the childcraft volume!
post #7 of 32
I personally would not keep paper encyclopedias in the house regardless of the date. They are not very good "cite-able" resources at all.

Maybe recycle them for pictures and paper crafts?
post #8 of 32
YES!.... Not so much for reference but for history.
If I had the space and assuming the books were in good condition I would take them in a second.

Ds and I love learning about the way things were, what people thought, how things were done... a complete set of 45yr old encyclopedias would be awesome
post #9 of 32
Quote:
I wouldn't even keep a brand new encyclopedia set. Waste of space, seeing as information changes so quickly and you can buy an entire encyclopedia set on CD-ROM.


AND you can get pretty much anything else at the library, old and new resources. I'd rather have a bookshelf full of good literature or art supplies or sheet music or any number of other things.
post #10 of 32
No way, Jose. I wouldn't even keep a brand new set. Wikipedia is my friend.
post #11 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by zjande View Post
No way, Jose. I wouldn't even keep a brand new set. Wikipedia is my friend.
Wikipedia is not a valid reference.... As a teacher this is a major pet peeve....
post #12 of 32
No I would not. You can go to by a subscription to encyclopedias or some libraries have one open to anyone.

Wikipedia is not a valid source for research but you need to be teaching your child that and how to find valid information.

Wikipedia can be an awesome starting point if you know nothing but you should always search further.
post #13 of 32
Everything is biased. Humans are biased. The winners get to write the history books. I'm not going to find an unbiased source of information.
post #14 of 32
Yeah, another person who would REALLY not encourage teaching your child that Wikipedia is a valid source. They'll have to learn otherwise when they get to college anyway, so you might as well teach them to do research the correct way now.
post #15 of 32
I wouldn't keep a set of encyclopedias but I have kept outdated science and history books. As he grew, they became an invaluable resouce of how science changes as scientists learn and discover new things. How history and science isn't static or set in stone but expands as knowledge is gained and changed with new discoveries.
post #16 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by zjande View Post
Everything is biased. Humans are biased. The winners get to write the history books. I'm not going to find an unbiased source of information.
Who said "unbiased"? Wikipedia is unreliable, period. It's hit or miss whether the article you're looking at was written by someone who knows what they're talking about, whether it's been changed as someone's idea of a joke, and if any of the information is even correct.
post #17 of 32
Well then, instead of saying "Wikipedia is my friend", pretend I said, "the internet is my friend." "Wikipedia" just sounded good because we're talking about encyclopedias. Whatever site one uses, personally I would not waste all the shelf space a set of encyclopedias would take up. I would research things on the internet instead. And even then I'd take it all with a grain of salt! But at least the information wouldn't be taking up my shelf space!lol
post #18 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by zebra15 View Post
YES!.... Not so much for reference but for history.
If I had the space and assuming the books were in good condition I would take them in a second.

Ds and I love learning about the way things were, what people thought, how things were done... a complete set of 45yr old encyclopedias would be awesome

Me too!! My parents have the set that we had when I was a kid (they are from the late 70s) I loved them!! I would happily keep a set like that!
post #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by zebra15 View Post
Wikipedia is not a valid reference.... As a teacher this is a major pet peeve....
However Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for research. It often offers information in a succinct and clear format and then follows that up with loads and loads of sources. So you look it up on Wikipedia and then you follow their source trails, viola, excellent research! It doesn't mean you specifically cite Wikipedia, it means you use it as a resource. You don't cite the card catalog!
post #20 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone_kneegrabber View Post
However Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for research. It often offers information in a succinct and clear format and then follows that up with loads and loads of sources. So you look it up on Wikipedia and then you follow their source trails, viola, excellent research! It doesn't mean you specifically cite Wikipedia, it means you use it as a resource. You don't cite the card catalog!
i agree. it's not my "go-to" site (especially regarding hot topics such as politics, people,. etc), but it otherwise serves as a pretty good source for most things i need to reference.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Learning at Home and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at Home and Beyond › Would you keep a set of 1968 Encyclopedia Britannicas?