|
1) How useful were the pre-course readings? 1: Moderately useful. 2: Very useful considering I did not know one thing about the subject. The readings piqued my interest and enthusiasm before I started the class. Basic background was helpful. 3: Somewhat useful, but tedious reading -- I think they will be more useful to read after completing the course. There was too much to be read in the short time between acceptance and the beginning of classes, especially since the holidays fell between the two. 4: The course readings were useful for providing a good basic knowledge. 5: Moderate. Some applicable, others not so much so. We did not cover all the material I expected from the course description. 6: Appropriate and useful, though Adrian Johns should be on the list for an example of the more up-to-date contributions to the historiography. 7: Useful, but even more basic texts were available that could have been recommended. 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: The syllabus was not very detailed and so therefore was no more useful than the short bibliography it contained. 2: Not many distributed. A printed list of books DT mentioned would have been helpful so we're not always asking "What's the spelling?" "What's the title?" He should remember the names at least. 4: The course syllabus was not closely adhered to, but the syllabus and expanded reading list will be useful in the future. 5: We received no materials in class to be taken home. A disappointment. Syllabus was irrelevant. 7: Appropriate and useful. Unfortunately did not see enough examples of different types of books and printing styles because the instructor talked too much about other things tangentially related to the class. 3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: No. The intellectual level of the course was too amorphous. The topic of study was clear, the students were educated and prepared, so the lectures, therefore, should have been challenging. The only thing challenging in this class was following the name-throwing by the professor. 2: Yes. 3: At times the content was "beneath" the students and at times we were in the dark. But generally it was challenging, interesting and stimulating. 4: Yes. 5: No, it varied and was confusing. 6: Yes, wonderful. 7: No. I needed a basic course in book history of the book as a physical object. Instead the course degenerated into a course on obscure English literature. 4) If your course had field trips, were they effective? 1: The visits to Special Collections should have been meaningful but the demonstration of the works was weakened with convoluted discussion of what the works represented. 2: Absolutely! There were so many details that were fascinating to me around the printing press, Special Collections, &c. 3: We saw many interesting books, but could have seen more, if explanations and divergence had been better controlled. Printing press demo was really good. 4: Yes. 5: No, we did not get to very many materials that had been pulled for the class. 6: Yes, wonderful. 7: Seeing Special Collections was the most instructive part of the course. Unfortunately the instructor ran out of time to show us examples because he repeated too much information that was tangentially related and took hours to answer literature questions. 5) Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and ExpandedCourse Description (ECD)? Did the course in general meet your expectations? 1: No -- the course was far too discursive about tangentially related topics to give a thorough introduction to the history of the book. 2: Perfectly. 3: Too much material, focus is too broad so material cannot be adequately covered in one week. 4: Yes, although the course was so broad in scope, that a precise description is very difficult. 5: No. 6: Yes. 7: NO. 6) What did you like best about the course? 1: I liked very little about this course. 2: Without DT and his depth of knowledge, as well as fabulous sense of humor, I wouldn't have been back the second day. I have a very short attention span. At the end of five days I'm energized and excited about studying the book even more. Also, incredibly thought-provoking and put so much in context for me. (I can now talk about the history of the book for more than two minutes. Hurray!) 3: I liked the descriptions of the historical setting, the actual looking at the books. I now have more perspective on where the rare books in my library's collections fit in to their history/culture, &c. 4: I enjoyed being able to work with examples, hands-on activities, and working with the hand press. These activities made the course content much more tangible. 5: I was able to take down a few references to explore on my own after the course. 6: DT, what an honor. 7: Seeing the books, and being able to understand certain printing processes, binding, &c. 7) How could the course have been improved? 1: The course could have taught the history of the book rather than offering an almost meaningless conversation about the book with extreme emphasis on anglicized use of the book, dependent on socioeconomic status (specifically tied to association with esteemed institutions like Oxford). Additionally, it would have been helpful for the instructor to have included all students in his lectures. In this particular class, the instructor selected one student in whom he found "scholarly" common ground and he was quite condescending to the rest of the class. He made me feel shame for having a "public" education rather than having been privileged with Princeton, Columbia or Oxford. 2: More time. I'd be back next week if it was available. Some digressions were a little long, but personally I found them interesting. "Super scholar" was pretentious, condescending and arrogant: like not living in the real world. If the makeup of the class was mostly Oxford scholars I would have thought RBS was falsely advertising. 3: 1) Fewer sexual references, which often seemed gratuitous, and mainly for the amusement of the instructor. 2) Allowing time at end of each day for questions and discussion. 3) Narrow the focus. This course was too ambitious, at least with this style of teaching (which I did enjoy!) 4) Eliminate the boring videos. 4: Narrow the scope of the course by turning it into two courses: early and later history of the book. 5: The instructor was disorganized and ill-prepared, and the course unstructured. Although his knowledge of the topic may be vast, he spent too much time talking and going off on other subjects. He was condescending at times and did not like to be interrupted with questions. There was no time for discussion, nor was it encouraged. 6: More dates, clearer chronological sense. 7: By having an instructor that would answer direct questions. He would 99% of the time not even answer the questions he was asked but ramble for a half hour. 8) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the BAP's 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? 1: No pens, no food and no beverages should ever be present when handling rare books. The class was permitted to eat, drink and take notes in pen while handling books. 4: None. 5: Since we got to handle very little, I have no suggestions. 6: We should wash our hands. 7: Would liked to have seen more books of authors I had actually heard of; instead instructor always chose obscure authors. Would have liked to have seen more examples of different bindings and printing styles. Would like to have seen the materials presented roughly in date order instead of the instructor jumping all over the place. 9) Please comment on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class (eg Sunday afternoon tour, Sunday night dinner, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, Video Night, Study Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers, printing demonstrations, &c.). 1: I enjoyed the RBS activities and only regret requiring rest most evenings rather than fully partaking of all events. 2: Sunday evening dinner was the only event I attended. I would have been at more, but I have a puppy that needed tending. 3: Bookseller night was a sham! Only two stores were open, one of which only until 6 pm! Sunday night dinner was enjoyable and set the stage for the week. It's a good idea to meet the other students and instructors before the courses begin. 4: The activities were generally quite enjoyable. It would have been nice if more stores had been open for Bookseller Night. 5: Bookstores downtown were not open. 6: Surprised attendance wasn't 100% (though those of us paying for ourselves might feel more pressed to take advantage of all offerings). 7: The activities were good and appreciated that [one] could bring friends or family. Did not attend all events. The study night was the best. Suggest that you do that more than one night. 10) Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth? 1: I recommend taking courses that have been successfully taught by the instructor teaching it during the semester for which you'll attend. I have been told that prior instructors for this class presented too much information and my class sadly presented too little information. I felt this course to be an utter waste of my time. 2: More than I ever could have thought [Got my money's worth]. I have always disliked (found boring) history, but now I can blame my former teachers. DT has turned me into a seeker instead of a sleeper. 3: Don't ask very many questions, because an average response takes 20 min., so class time is sucked up in a disproportional amount. 4: I felt I got my money's worth. Overall, a great experience. 5: The course was a disappointment, and I learned very little about book history. I would recommend it only to those who want nothing but lecture on very broad topics from the instructor's background. 6: I thought it was fantastic and such a pleasure though I sense for others with less scholarly backgrounds it was tedious at times -- however, don't change the course. 7: I would NOT recommend this course. I did NOT get my money's worth. Instructor was condescending, too much name-dropping, rambled, never could answer a question.Number of respondents: 07 |
| Leave | Tuition | Housing | Travel |
|---|---|---|---|
| Institution gave me leave | Institution paid tuition | Institution paid housing | Institution paid travel |
| 57% | 28.5% | 28.5% | 28.5% |
| I took vacation time | I paid tuition myself | I paid for my own housing | I paid my own travel |
| 0% | 43% | 28.5% | 28.5% |
| N/A: self-employed, retired, or had summers off | N/A: self-employed, retired, or exchange | N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home | N/A: lived nearby |
| 43% | 28.5% | 43% | 43% |
|
There was one rare book librarian, one archivist/manuscript librarian, one general librarian, one full-time student, one RBS staff member, one applicant to Ph.D. programs in c18 book history and one business owner/TV producer (14% each). |