What do they do now? I know some provide desks, wifi, services like fax and copy machines (which they usually charge for), and public classes (reading clubs, basic computer classes, etc.).
Most US libraries have huge collections of videos (VHS, DVDs), most of them are entertainment, like regular crappy action movies, and there's no real good reason for them to be in the library.
Many US libraries have audio (CDs, cassetes). Most of them are just as senseless.
I think libraries (as buildings) aren't really needed anymore. Switch the library model to digital, it would be orders of magnitude cheaper, and you only really need one large website instead of 120,000 buildings throughout the country.
If you need to save money right now, ditch all videos.
If it is India, you are probably too poor to be literate, or if literate, you have very little time to engage in privilege of reading books. So the answer is I guess, you don't. Pretty much like you don't get (decent) healthcare for poor in US.
Um, the theory behind the government provisioning of police, firefighters and roads is that they are a public good. I.e., people will refuse to pay for police while enjoying not being murdered.
Healthcare provision is rivalrous and excludible, ask any poor American, doesn't mean it shouldn't be universally provided by the government.
Education is rivalrous and excludible, look at private schools - doesn't mean it's wrong for there to be state schools and laws making children attend them.
The only thing that matters is whether the public benefit outweighs the burden on taxpayers.
There's a reasonable argument that even trashy books have value as reading practice. Most humans have no problem finding enough spoken interaction to practice listening (although I definitely watched mediocre television in foreign language to practice...)
(I'd be fine with no government funding for libraries in general; it seems like something which should be privately or charity funded to keep them safe from censorship and political control.)
> Are you saying that libraries should only have sensible holdings? Which ones are those?
You're being facetious, but this is precisely the question libraries have always faced, through thin times and fat, regardless of the social and political winds. They have only so much shelf space and face the simple fact nobody will come to a location that doesn't offer them anything they want.
There's a very old political debate at bottom: Should a government institution give the taxpayers what they want, or should it focus more on giving them what the better-educated types decide they need? Go the first way and you're competing with Wal-Mart and Barnes & Noble; go the second and you have a wonderful temple to Sanctioned Knowledge that, to a first approximation, nobody really cares about.
So, yes, what are 'sensible' holdings? Do you have any answers?
Demand mixed with a librarian's sense of worth/taste is one approach. There are many others. And libraries do have to choose due to shelf space and publisher agreements.
My hackles rise whenever I hear someone tell me what's worthwhile and what's not. But I do recognize practical necessity. I don't believe there's anything magical about the book/text format over electronic/other formats, other than "that's how it's been" up until recently.
I would be pleased to see "Fart Proudly" in any library's holdings, regardless of format.
Don't forget that libraries host community events, children's books, story time, literacy programs, and give poor people access to computers, printers, and the internet.
A new trying-to-be-hip library just opened up in my city. They do a pretty good job of it too. The theme seems to be "How well can we copy Barnes and Noble?" Not only does it include a small coffee shop, but they have a dedicated children's section that looks a lot like Barnes and Noble's (the whole fairy-tail etc. style with elaborate decorations). They even had an opening night where they had the local hit-music radio station came and hosted dance party, complete with neon lights, glow sticks and pounding music (no old lady saying "SHHH" that night).
They rent out conference rooms and have a large auditorium with a theater-sized movie screen. The last time I was there they were showing Kung-Fu Panda which attracted a decent crowd. It's one library that has changed with the times.
It depends on whether you consider the purpose as technically enabling the spreading of information/books, or actually encouraging people to go and read and study. Sure people are able to go and buy or download each of the books in there, but IMO kids still gain a ton from wandering around the stacks until they find something interesting. It's also a good way to impress upon kids the huge amount of gathered knowledge out there, and how important it is to make use of it...
I think modern kids are online already, and are exposed to all kinds of information. No library in the world can even come close to Wikipedia + Google image search.
I strongly disagree. In New York you can walk into almost any library in the city in the middle of the afternoon, head to the children's/young adult section, and find a ton of kids/teens reading, browsing, engaging in local events, etc. I've found this to be especially true in poorer neighborhoods in the Bronx and Brooklyn, the kind of places where some people assume no one would interested in partaking of these resources. (I have family in these areas so I visit these neighborhoods a lot) Remember also, libraries are much more than storage buildings for lots of dead tree books. They provide important services to their communities - e.g. adult literacy assistance, job/resume services, basic internet access and a whole lot more.
A lot of kids (and adults) get a great deal out of their local library. I still vividly remember the very first book that I picked up by chance while browsing the Sci-Fi section and couldn't put down until I fell asleep with it in my hands at 5am.
Yes, I was one of those kids, but most of the kids I went to school with weren't readers and never went to the library for fun.
In a densely populated area if 1% of kids regularly vist the library, it will be packed. Still--most kids don't.
I also wasn't implying that libraries are without merit. The OP implied that the internet wasn't beneficial as an educational tool because most kids don't take advantage of it's potential. I merely pointed out that the same was true for libraries.
It's true that this generation just receives information differently. I was pretty much a non-reader my first 2 years of high school, like most people I knew. Then I received a Kindle for my birthday. Knowing where to find thousands of really great public-domain books and the ease of access gave me so much (free) knowledge I wouldn't have taken the time to discover in a library.
My modern kids visit the local library every 2 weeks and in each visit borrow about 10 books. I don't think I could afford to buy all those books and I would have no space to store the books after the kids read them.
Wikipedia relies on primary sources. So at some point, whether it was academic, national, or local, a library was used to acquire some of those sources.
Anyway, wikipedia relies on sourced research, which requires people that know how to do research. And this was taught...at the library (You'll have a hard time finding Basic Research Methods 101 in any university catalog).
When someone says that wikipedia can replace libraries I immediately want to shake somebody violently. Please understand that wikipedia isn't a primary source. Jimmy never intended it to replace them. They'll give you a topical understanding and a list of ISBN numbers at the bottom of the page. Now you can go to the library and using your freshly acquired ISBN numbers check out the books you actually need.
You can only come to that opinion if you don't read books. I aim to read a (non-fiction) book a week, but usually end up finishing them in roughly 10 days. My split is about 50% library 50% Amazon.com purchases. Without the library my reading habit would be massively more expensive.
Right now I'm reading a book by Bain about the transcontinental railroads that I picked up at my local library (after reserving it online, picking it up at the front counter without even having to look for it, and walking out the door in <60 seconds using the automated checkout machine) and a book on startups I got off of Amazon.
I've read the wikipedia entry on the transcontinental railroad, it's good. But it's not as detailed as book. And there are about 50,000 blog posts on startups, but none are as detailed as the book I'm reading.
Wikipedia and blog posts are all shallow overviews of the subject. If you want nuance, if you want depth, then you need a book. And the internet doesn't even come close.
Having been a Wikipedia editor for a few years, I can assure you that Wikipedia's (and the larger Internet's) content is severely lacking in what you can find in a common library, especially if you consider content older than 20 years.
This may be true, but do you ever go to the library? I often spend a few hours a week there while my kids are in a class, and there are TONS of people doing research (and reading) actual books. Yes, people are doing lots of work online, but in many cases, some material just isn't available (freely) there yet.
Add to that interlibrary loan, and you have a wealth of information available.
Libraries aren't just books, though. That's kind of an old fashioned view of Libraries. Many librarians coming out of schools now have degrees in information services, and they're fairly progressive programs that are a subset of computer science programs. Many of the librarians I know are experts at using the web.
For example, libraries provide services like access to computers and the Internet, for modern kids and adults without access to the Internet.
Many libraries also now provide ebooks available for the Kindle and Nook devices.
And then there's the fact that they're merely an indoor public space, usually with rooms freely or nominally available for the public to simply meet and share ideas.
You seem to have a very narrow view of what libraries provide. Libraries, at least where I'm from, are far more than book storage facilities. They're essential community centers which promote education, literacy and social interaction. They host events from kids competitions to senior citizens groups. You can't replicate that online.
My local library is a hangout for the homeless who look at porn on the public computers and masturbate in the bathrooms. The library administration refuse to filter adult content as they consider it to be "censorship."
Today's reading of Dr. Seuss's The Cat in the Hat is brought to you by the letters M&M.
It's the new reality facing California libraries. Either that, or just close down. Seeing how county and city governments in California are more concerned with telling porn studios how to conduct their business, the libraries are gonna run out of money very quickly.
Doesn't this mean that all public libraries will just shut down or do public libraries in california have other sources of revenue (federal money perhaps?)
I don't know about libraries in California specifically, but traditionally libraries get most of their funding at the municipal level (funded by the cities).
The San Jose library system alone runs a budget much larger than the total of these programs. The programs being cut are supplementary funding, most library funds come from local taxes.
It's going to be a major problem for some libraries, especially in poorer and/or more rural areas, but it's not a total state-wide catastrophe.
Edit: By the way, for more context, the library in my relatively wealthy city (Santa Clara) of 120,000 people, had a budget last year of $6,847,849. That's for one main library location and one small branch.
The most important resource any country has is intelligent people. Cutting library funding is cutting general education for the masses. It is actively dumbing down populous.
I think it's more a reflection of the decline in paper books as tool for education.
I've always loved libraries, but our local branch functions more as an internet cafe than a library.
>The most important resource any country has is intelligent people.
When I was younger my local library was a gathering place for students, and scholars (the intelligent people you mentioned). However, the last time I went, it was primarily full of people who couldn't afford internet access surfing Facebook.
That's true, but for 15%-20% of the population, libraries are more or less the only place where they can access the internet. Considering how many transactions are now carried out online, providing cheap/free internet access is actually a pretty good idea (and saves money overall when the paperwork savings from their interactions with government agencies are taken into account).
I yield to no one in my steadfast love of libraries, and I'm sure that the state government could have found better places to make cuts. However...
...this would be slightly more interesting if it wasn't only a 3% cut to the funding of Californian libraries.
(Well, according to my back of the envelope calculation. The linked article claims the entire $30m of state funding has been cut. As of 2007, Californian libraries were apparently getting total funding (federal, state and local) of $26.47 per person. The population of California is 37m in 2009, which implies that California has total library spending of around $920m/year. And $30m is only 3% of $920m. To crosscheck, I found a report from 2000 that estimates total US library spending at $12b/year, and since California has around 12% of the total US population, that would imply around a $1.5b/year in spending. I assume spending has gone up quite a bit since then, so $920m/year certainly doesn't seem too high. I'd welcome better numbers if anyone can find them!)
Again, I don't support these cuts. But the article lacks context, and what context I can find from a few minutes of searching makes this seem very underwhelming.
(Related: back in around 2003 some people loved to talk about how Bush had increased federal education spending by 70% in his first three years. Quite true, but quite misleading if you didn't know that it was being increased from a base of effectively nil, since the federal government isn't responsible for education. Context matters!)
Actually, the article has plenty of context for its intended audience. It specifies that it's state funding, lists the programs being cut, and notes the primary concern of advocates: equal access.
The publication is called "Library Journal". It's not intended for the general public, it's intended for librarians and others concerned with the operation of libraries. That audience will have no trouble understanding the article.
You're right, and I was not intending to criticize the article as such, but rather the submission. It is relevant, important news to librarians, and contained all the context it needed.
But I doubt one person in 100 who saw it on Hacker News had that context. And in particular, I suspect the people commenting on the article in apocalyptic terms do not have that context. But it was a perfectly fine article. :)
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd much prefer to see "this was the line item last year, and this is the line item this year", rather than saying some circumstantial evidence supersedes a black and white figure.
If he cut state funding to zero, he cut state funding to zero. If some municipalities can still afford to run libraries on their own dime, that doesn't really change the fact. Especially considering that federal grants have dried up and municipal budgets have tightened over the last 10 years.
The government wants to raise taxes.
(We are already the highest taxed state.)
To soften up the voters they will threaten to cut things that are popular.
Beaches, Parks, libraries, police, fire.. release the prisoners etc etc..
I say good go ahead... its scare tactics. Even if they do cut these things then maybe enough people will notice and throw them out.
They recently announced cutting funding to animal shelters, so strays will be killed in a 72 hours.
In other news... it was recently revealed that parking lot attendants at the Dept Of Water earn $74,000 per year.
LA city has a $1M yacht (they kept hidden). They used $500K in obama 'stimulus money' to install new engines.
Starve the beast. No more money. Wake-up voters - dont be fooled.
We actually pay taxes comparable to other states (California is 23rd in tax revenue per capita), but have our taxes distributed much differently. Things we pay higher taxes on: 14th in revenue per capita deriving from property taxes, 12th in income taxes per capita, 21st in sales tax per capita, 5th in corporate tax revenue per capita, 4th in estate taxes per capita. Things we bring in less revenue from: 35th in lottery revenue per capita, 32nd in cigarette tax rate, 41st in excise taxes per capita.
I assume property tax revenues in CA are high mainly due to the high value of CA real estate, not that the rates themselves are high -- they're not high rates (compared to the East Coast, maybe 25-50%) and due to Prop 13, they're not at market rate on many properties.
CA tax is highly variable year to year -- 10.3% on capital gains (and other income) of rich people, largely happens based on business cycle factors. Same with corporate tax.
What's really odd about property taxes in CA is they only go up a fixed amount per year which has not kept up with growing property values in many areas. So, even though property values have dropped significantly revenue has not dropped as much as other states.
Can startups solve this problem somehow? After all, there is a market need for libraries, it just might not be obvious since it's somewhat hidden by the taxation model.
What would a free-market public library look like? And I'm not thinking McDonald's capitalism here, I'm thinking more like Google capitalism. What would the Gmail of public libraries be like?
The way I see it public libraries offer three things: physical books, physical locations, curators of content. So how could this be done in a different, startup-y way?
What would a free-market public library look like?
In India, it's a physical library just like the ones in the US.
You sign up as a member and pay a deposit. You also pay a per-book reading fee, as well as late fees if you don't bring the book back. If you fail to return the book you lose your deposit.
That would be like Gmail requiring a $10 fee / year. Much less appealing than free(mium).
Sure, public libraries are obviously not zero-cost, just as someone (most likely people who buy ads) pays for Gmail at some point, but they both feel that way.
I'm often surprised to see that few people get what's going on.
Jerry Brown wants to raise taxes (yet again). But the public at large is tired of waste, and refuses to go along.
So the Governor proposes cuts to those things that cause maximum pain to the public: state parks, libraries, etc. A fairer approach would, say, cut funding across the board. A $30M budget item in a $100Billion budget works out to, 0.03% ? If he did that, no one would notice and no one would yelp in pain. So, to drive the point home and make the public notice, you go for the public's soft spots.
The first thing Jerry Brown did when he took office was to sign contracts with the powerful unions in the state. Once they were happy, he turned around and started crying about the budget. Since their contracts are signed now, they can't be subject to these budget cuts; base secured!
"So the Governor proposes cuts to those things that cause maximum pain to the public: state parks, libraries, etc."
You're bringing me back here. I was a selectman once in a small town in massachusetts, we had budget problems, put the option to a town in a vote: raise taxes or we lay off teachers.
Know what we got from the taxpayers? "How DARE you threaten to lay off teachers unless we let you raise taxes".
It's as if there's some giant line-item labeled WASTE somewhere, and Brown is stubbornly refusing to cut it and insisting on cutting useful things instead, in order to fulfill his liberal dream of taxing people.
I'll admit that I don't know the ins and the outs of the california budget. But I'd imagine he's cutting everything except for the things he's legally not allowed to cut, and attempting to save "must-haves" like emergency response at the expense of luxuries like parks and libraries.
The stories of waste in California's budget are legendary.
There's a reason why a study showed that given a choice between Harvard and the California Prison Guards' academy, you are better off if you pick becoming a prison guard!
70 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 80.9 ms ] threadMany US libraries have audio (CDs, cassetes). Most of them are just as senseless.
I once checked out le Carré's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. It was something of an action novel, and it was entertaining. Was that one OK?
If you need to save money right now, ditch all videos.
Given that the private sector does seem fully capable of providing libraries to those who want them, why do we subsidize them?
The question is rarely as simple as "could the private sector do it?"
Healthcare provision is rivalrous and excludible, ask any poor American, doesn't mean it shouldn't be universally provided by the government.
Education is rivalrous and excludible, look at private schools - doesn't mean it's wrong for there to be state schools and laws making children attend them.
The only thing that matters is whether the public benefit outweighs the burden on taxpayers.
(I'd be fine with no government funding for libraries in general; it seems like something which should be privately or charity funded to keep them safe from censorship and political control.)
You're being facetious, but this is precisely the question libraries have always faced, through thin times and fat, regardless of the social and political winds. They have only so much shelf space and face the simple fact nobody will come to a location that doesn't offer them anything they want.
There's a very old political debate at bottom: Should a government institution give the taxpayers what they want, or should it focus more on giving them what the better-educated types decide they need? Go the first way and you're competing with Wal-Mart and Barnes & Noble; go the second and you have a wonderful temple to Sanctioned Knowledge that, to a first approximation, nobody really cares about.
So, yes, what are 'sensible' holdings? Do you have any answers?
My hackles rise whenever I hear someone tell me what's worthwhile and what's not. But I do recognize practical necessity. I don't believe there's anything magical about the book/text format over electronic/other formats, other than "that's how it's been" up until recently.
I would be pleased to see "Fart Proudly" in any library's holdings, regardless of format.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_Proudly
Don't forget that libraries host community events, children's books, story time, literacy programs, and give poor people access to computers, printers, and the internet.
They rent out conference rooms and have a large auditorium with a theater-sized movie screen. The last time I was there they were showing Kung-Fu Panda which attracted a decent crowd. It's one library that has changed with the times.
A lot of kids (and adults) get a great deal out of their local library. I still vividly remember the very first book that I picked up by chance while browsing the Sci-Fi section and couldn't put down until I fell asleep with it in my hands at 5am.
>A lot of kids
Yes, I was one of those kids, but most of the kids I went to school with weren't readers and never went to the library for fun.
In a densely populated area if 1% of kids regularly vist the library, it will be packed. Still--most kids don't.
I also wasn't implying that libraries are without merit. The OP implied that the internet wasn't beneficial as an educational tool because most kids don't take advantage of it's potential. I merely pointed out that the same was true for libraries.
Anyway, wikipedia relies on sourced research, which requires people that know how to do research. And this was taught...at the library (You'll have a hard time finding Basic Research Methods 101 in any university catalog).
When someone says that wikipedia can replace libraries I immediately want to shake somebody violently. Please understand that wikipedia isn't a primary source. Jimmy never intended it to replace them. They'll give you a topical understanding and a list of ISBN numbers at the bottom of the page. Now you can go to the library and using your freshly acquired ISBN numbers check out the books you actually need.
Right now I'm reading a book by Bain about the transcontinental railroads that I picked up at my local library (after reserving it online, picking it up at the front counter without even having to look for it, and walking out the door in <60 seconds using the automated checkout machine) and a book on startups I got off of Amazon.
I've read the wikipedia entry on the transcontinental railroad, it's good. But it's not as detailed as book. And there are about 50,000 blog posts on startups, but none are as detailed as the book I'm reading.
Wikipedia and blog posts are all shallow overviews of the subject. If you want nuance, if you want depth, then you need a book. And the internet doesn't even come close.
Add to that interlibrary loan, and you have a wealth of information available.
For example, libraries provide services like access to computers and the Internet, for modern kids and adults without access to the Internet.
Many libraries also now provide ebooks available for the Kindle and Nook devices.
And then there's the fact that they're merely an indoor public space, usually with rooms freely or nominally available for the public to simply meet and share ideas.
It's the new reality facing California libraries. Either that, or just close down. Seeing how county and city governments in California are more concerned with telling porn studios how to conduct their business, the libraries are gonna run out of money very quickly.
Also the old anarchist saw:
It's probably inspired by this earlier quote from Gilbert Shelton's wonderful "The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers" comix:
I'm curious about anarchist thought on libraries, mind telling me more?
It's going to be a major problem for some libraries, especially in poorer and/or more rural areas, but it's not a total state-wide catastrophe.
Edit: By the way, for more context, the library in my relatively wealthy city (Santa Clara) of 120,000 people, had a budget last year of $6,847,849. That's for one main library location and one small branch.
The most important resource any country has is intelligent people. Cutting library funding is cutting general education for the masses. It is actively dumbing down populous.
I've always loved libraries, but our local branch functions more as an internet cafe than a library.
>The most important resource any country has is intelligent people.
When I was younger my local library was a gathering place for students, and scholars (the intelligent people you mentioned). However, the last time I went, it was primarily full of people who couldn't afford internet access surfing Facebook.
...this would be slightly more interesting if it wasn't only a 3% cut to the funding of Californian libraries.
(Well, according to my back of the envelope calculation. The linked article claims the entire $30m of state funding has been cut. As of 2007, Californian libraries were apparently getting total funding (federal, state and local) of $26.47 per person. The population of California is 37m in 2009, which implies that California has total library spending of around $920m/year. And $30m is only 3% of $920m. To crosscheck, I found a report from 2000 that estimates total US library spending at $12b/year, and since California has around 12% of the total US population, that would imply around a $1.5b/year in spending. I assume spending has gone up quite a bit since then, so $920m/year certainly doesn't seem too high. I'd welcome better numbers if anyone can find them!)
Again, I don't support these cuts. But the article lacks context, and what context I can find from a few minutes of searching makes this seem very underwhelming.
(Related: back in around 2003 some people loved to talk about how Bush had increased federal education spending by 70% in his first three years. Quite true, but quite misleading if you didn't know that it was being increased from a base of effectively nil, since the federal government isn't responsible for education. Context matters!)
The publication is called "Library Journal". It's not intended for the general public, it's intended for librarians and others concerned with the operation of libraries. That audience will have no trouble understanding the article.
But I doubt one person in 100 who saw it on Hacker News had that context. And in particular, I suspect the people commenting on the article in apocalyptic terms do not have that context. But it was a perfectly fine article. :)
If he cut state funding to zero, he cut state funding to zero. If some municipalities can still afford to run libraries on their own dime, that doesn't really change the fact. Especially considering that federal grants have dried up and municipal budgets have tightened over the last 10 years.
In other news... it was recently revealed that parking lot attendants at the Dept Of Water earn $74,000 per year. LA city has a $1M yacht (they kept hidden). They used $500K in obama 'stimulus money' to install new engines.
Starve the beast. No more money. Wake-up voters - dont be fooled.
CA tax is highly variable year to year -- 10.3% on capital gains (and other income) of rich people, largely happens based on business cycle factors. Same with corporate tax.
What would a free-market public library look like? And I'm not thinking McDonald's capitalism here, I'm thinking more like Google capitalism. What would the Gmail of public libraries be like?
The way I see it public libraries offer three things: physical books, physical locations, curators of content. So how could this be done in a different, startup-y way?
Physical books: maybe something involving print-on-demand technologies?
Physical locations: maybe something that piggybacks on existing physical locations?
Curators of content: I dunno, crowdsourced mobile/local/social librarians?
I am only half-kidding with this comment...
In India, it's a physical library just like the ones in the US.
You sign up as a member and pay a deposit. You also pay a per-book reading fee, as well as late fees if you don't bring the book back. If you fail to return the book you lose your deposit.
Sure, public libraries are obviously not zero-cost, just as someone (most likely people who buy ads) pays for Gmail at some point, but they both feel that way.
It's a little out of date, but here's an article about such libraries:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/yourmoney/11libra...
Jerry Brown wants to raise taxes (yet again). But the public at large is tired of waste, and refuses to go along.
So the Governor proposes cuts to those things that cause maximum pain to the public: state parks, libraries, etc. A fairer approach would, say, cut funding across the board. A $30M budget item in a $100Billion budget works out to, 0.03% ? If he did that, no one would notice and no one would yelp in pain. So, to drive the point home and make the public notice, you go for the public's soft spots.
The first thing Jerry Brown did when he took office was to sign contracts with the powerful unions in the state. Once they were happy, he turned around and started crying about the budget. Since their contracts are signed now, they can't be subject to these budget cuts; base secured!
More on California's budget woes:
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-...
You're bringing me back here. I was a selectman once in a small town in massachusetts, we had budget problems, put the option to a town in a vote: raise taxes or we lay off teachers.
Know what we got from the taxpayers? "How DARE you threaten to lay off teachers unless we let you raise taxes".
It's as if there's some giant line-item labeled WASTE somewhere, and Brown is stubbornly refusing to cut it and insisting on cutting useful things instead, in order to fulfill his liberal dream of taxing people.
I'll admit that I don't know the ins and the outs of the california budget. But I'd imagine he's cutting everything except for the things he's legally not allowed to cut, and attempting to save "must-haves" like emergency response at the expense of luxuries like parks and libraries.
There's a reason why a study showed that given a choice between Harvard and the California Prison Guards' academy, you are better off if you pick becoming a prison guard!