31: The Printed Book in the West to 1800 [H30]
7-11 June 2004
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Very useful -- I’m glad I read them. This is the sort of information I need in my work. 2-3: Very useful. 4: They were excellent and useful. 5: The readings, both required and suggested, were extremely interesting and gave me a good basis for the class lectures. 6: Useful and essential. 7: Very useful and necessary. 8: Some were very technical but we were warned that they would be and that the class would prepare us to read some of these readings at a later time. 9: Yes. 10: They were useful, though I found the Chappell a little unfocused. Gaskell would have probably been the opposite. I know of no middle ground text that covers the same range of info. 11: Very useful. 12: They were extremely useful, providing me with a good background for the course. 13: Very useful. 14: The readings were very useful.
2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?
1: Syllabus was very well organized. It will be a helpful reference when I get home. 2: Yes. 3: Very, particularly the reference lists. 4: The materials distributed in class were top-notch; one of the chief prizes I will take home. The outline of lecture notes and suggested readings will be of great help in the future when I need to refer back to something in detail. I appreciated MA giving this to us. 5: Class materials were very useful -- I wish that we had also been given a list of the books and manuscripts used in the Special Collections sessions, however. 6: Yes to both. 7: The syllabus was appropriate, and I will keep the handbook for future reference. 8: Yes. They will be used in the future. 9-10: Yes. 11: Appropriate in class and will be helpful afterwards. 12: Yes; they were and will be. 13: Very pertinent and appropriate. The lecture and slide guide was particularly helpful. 14: The class materials were particularly helpful. Including written citations for the lectures saved a lot of time.
3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?
1: Yes -- I knew some things but learned a lot more. 2: Extremely so. 3: Yes. 4: Yes. There were people in the class with obviously different levels of knowledge coming in, but MA handled us all appropriately and with aplomb. 5: I found the course content stimulating and well-organized. It built on the pre-readings without duplicating it. 6: Yes. 7: I was interested the entire period/week. Nothing MA presented was too complicated, The pace of the class passed quickly (or should I say appropriately). 8-10: Yes. 11: Yes, even though beginner’s class, MA pushed the level up. 12: Yes, it was. 13-14: Yes.
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1-2: Yes. 3: Very well spent. 4: We spent a lot of time in Special Collections, and it was a highlight of the week to see physical examples of the things described in class. 5: The manuscripts and books viewed were the heart of the course. (I wish, however, that the viewing arena could be improved; I don’t know if the imminent move of Special Collections affected our viewing venue or not, so this may be a comment pertinent to this summer alone.) The new Harrison/Small building opening this fall will indeed solve this problem. -Ed. 6: Yes. 7: The time was well spent. A few times we did not have the correct books for the presentation. 8: Yes. Well spent. 9-10: Yes. 11: Yes, good complement to lecture/discussion. 12: Yes, it was. 13: N/A. 14: The times was well, spent, but we looked at a lot of out-of-scope material. I believe some of it was okay but not in the quantity we experienced.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: Instructor, curriculum, colleagues were all very interesting. 2: The Special Collections visits and the course content. 3: The instructor had valuable insights into the history of the book based on his own vast experience. This knowledge runs very deep, and it was helpful to have him as a guide. I thought he had organized the material very well, and the great amount of preparation he had done really showed; this is what I came to RBS for! 4: MA’s enlightened lectures well-salted with slides. It’s difficult to keep a series of lectures interesting for a week, but he managed. 5: The infectious interest and enthusiasm of the instructor. 6: Combination of lectures and slides and viewing materials. Good balance. 7: I think MA is an excellent instructor. He made the course exciting and interesting at the same time. 8: The books I became aware of that I could read for further study. Slides were also useful. Lectures were very good with references to other sources for reading and study. 9: Examination of actual rare books and general comments about features of them. 10: The teacher’s obvious enthusiasm and passion for the subject. He was very concerned too with whether or not the students were with him and ready to move on. I very much liked how he presented the history of the book both in a broad context and in its details. 11: MA’s riffs on questions. Also, he kept us on track. 12: Enthusiastic teacher; organization of the material; good combination of the technical aspects of printing history with the social and cultural context of the period; use of book samples, videos, and devices related to printing itself (the hand press, paper making mold, binding shop, &c.). 13: MA’s approach to history and life. 14: The lectures.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: Less walking to and from class in the architecture building would be nice. 2: Not hiking through the woods for breaks and to reach Special Collections. 3: I know that it is necessary to spill over -- book into the manuscript period, and in the c19, just to keep things in context, but there could probably have been a little less of this. This is a very minor criticism, however. 4: It would have been nice to have been closer to Alderman so we didn’t lose so much time every day trudging back and forth between the library and the architecture school. 6: Classroom too far from Alderman for breaks, and too small for class members. 7: Classroom could have been closer. Not in the architecture building. 8: The classroom was too small for the number of students. 9: Better location -- not having to take time to walk to the architecture building -- more space in room. 11: Better place to look at rare books (Special Collections is moving). 12: Better classroom being closer to Alderman library.
7) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by UVa’s Special Collections. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?
2: None. 3: I thought the materials were very well handled from a physical point of view. 4: None -- they were handled well. 6: Saw no problems. 9: Being able to touch UVa materials would be beneficial but understand the security concern. 12: N/A.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Did not attend the Sunday event, but Monday’s was very good. 2: Yes. 3: Yes, very. Vander Muelen’s lecture on Warren Chappell made me realize that I’d almost experienced my entire childhood through Chappell’s eyes, in one way or another. 4: Yes. 5: Excellent lectures -- well-paced for both the students and the casual visitors. 6: Yes. 7: The Chappell lecture was very good and relevant to our course. 8: Yes. Enjoyable. 9-11: Yes. 12: Yes, they were.13-14: Yes.
9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
1: Yes. Attended both nights and learned a lot. 2: Yes, yes, yes extremely useful. 3: Yes. I particularly enjoyed the wood engraving exhibits. 4: Not so much; the bulk of the material was geared towards more modern interests and processes. But perhaps it’s too expensive or difficult to get more material from the earliest (pre-1700) periods. 5: The hands-on experience and the discussions with TB were among the high points. 6: Yes. 7: Wednesday night contained interesting material. 9: Yes -- appreciated handouts. 10: Yes. 11: Excellent, especially first night lithograph (I’d always wondered how they worked). 12: Yes, it was. 13: Yes, great samples and examples. 14: N/A.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: Yes. 2: Yes. I would suggest that a more knowledgeable person be used to give the orientation walking tour and that a more thorough orientation on area logistics be given as part of the welcome by RBS staff not students. A simple pointing out of where the parking garage is -- where the student union is, where you can park after 5 pm near the lecture would have helped on the first night. I know it was written in the Vade Mecum, but it would have been nice to have someone point it out on the orientation walking tour. Little things like discount cards for the parking garage, knowing I could park behind Alderman in the evening of the lecture would have helped on that first night. But the whole experience, the teaching, &c. was first class -- thanks. 3: I got more than my money’s worth, particularly to the extent that instructors from other courses, such as Nicholas Barker, made themselves so readily available for advice and consultation. 4: It was certainly worth the money. As for advice -- come well rested! 5: Yes. 6: This course would be a good introduction before taking Descriptive Bibliography, Typography, Binding, &c., as it touches on all of them. A good general intro to RBS. 7: Yes. I plan to attend again. 8: Yes. MA was very good. I have nothing but praise for his preparation, delivery, commitment to teach us the subject matter. 9: Yes. MA is an erudite, pleasant-mannered teacher who made it a rewarding experience. 10: Yes. 11: Yes, terrific week. 12: Yes, I did. 13-14: Yes.
Number of respondents: 14
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
57% 64% 57% 57%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
7% 29% 36% 36%
N/A: self- N/A: Self- N/A: stayed N/A: lived
employed, re- employed, with friends nearby
tired, or had retired, or or lived at
summers off exchange home
36% 7% 7% 7%
There were seven rare book librarians (50%), one teacher/professor (7%), three full-time students (22%), two book-collectors (14%), and one library director (7%).