1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Somewhat useful for general background. 2: Very useful! 3: They were relevant and very helpful. 4: Pre-course readings were useful, appropriate, and essential. 5: Somewhat useful -- especially the introduction to composing room experiences. 6: Very useful. 7: They were interesting but not absolutely necessary. They gave background, but much was covered in class. 8: Very useful for background. 9: The readings were useful. I wish only I had had the time to read all of them. Having the reading list is very useful for the future. 10: So-so.

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: Definitely, especially the workbook. 2: Useful now, useful later. 3: Yes. Excellent. Took relevant notes on the syllabus which will serve as a reference tool. 4-6: Yes. 7: Yes, there were a lot of materials given in class which will be useful. Lots of examples of type, for instance. 8: Yes. 9: Yes, appropriate and useful. 10: Yes.

3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1: Yes. 2: Perfect. 3: Yes. AP has in-depth knowledge of the art and craft of type design and use. 4-6: Yes. 7: Perhaps more of the historical could have been incorporated to make it more intellectual. 8: Yes. 9: Being a new course, it seemed the intellectual level is yet to be determined, if not also the instructor. 10: Course level (presentation) was somewhat below RBS standards.

4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?

1: Yes. 2: Yes -- we set type in the RBS pressroom. 3: N/A. 4: The time in the pressroom was informative, fun, useful, but did not seem essential to the course. 5: Yes (books were brought to us from Special Collections). The labs in printing room were fun and very helpful in putting some questions to rest. 6: Yes, for the most part. When looking at books from Special Collections, I would have enjoyed more comments about the type used. 7: N/A. Although books were brought to the classroom from Special Collections, and it was most interesting to see the examples. 8: None. 9: See question seven in relation to this question. 10: N/A.

5) Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description (ECD)? Did the course in general meet your expectations?

1-4: Yes. 5: Yes, mostly. There were a number of diversions and digressions, though. 6: Yes. 7: I guess I expected more history and to stay more with type faces used early in printing history. 8: Yes, I was quite pleased. But the lab sessions began to drift to Print Shop 101 and however helpful the exercise of composition is, it must be fitted. 9: Sorry, I have not read it recently. 10: Actual course was a bit short on history aspect.

6) What did you like best about the course?

1: The instructor's style of presentation. 2: AP's lively discussion of typefaces and type designers. 3: Knowledge of the hands-on aspects of composition and printing. 4: AP made a potentially dry subject exciting, fun, and very interesting. His knowledge, presentation, and passion for type really made the class. 5: AP's personality. 6: AP's teaching style kept me alert and on track. Lots of memorable stories and plenty of useful information on key points for identifying specific typefaces. 7: Besides the instructor's boundless sense of humor, learning some of the fine points of type identification and printing on the Vandercook. 8: AP was immensely good on modern typefaces and type designs. His style of teaching was winningly self-deprecating and humorous. His frequent asides nearly always rounded back to a pertinent or interesting fact. Thanks also to our competent and kind lab leader -- Terry Chouinard. 9: I think and know that AP is a great guy and quite knowledgeable about type composition, typefaces, and type histories. I appreciated his experience and anecdotes. 10: Looking at books from Special Collections. Typesetting and printing.

7) How could the course have been improved?

1: Better organized demonstrations of examples from the RBS collections and Special Collections. 2: 1) Look at Special Collections books in McGregor Room and not in cramped classroom. 2) Better organized labs with attentive (not passive) lab instructor. 3: Excellent balance but more knowledge of the printing and design aspects of the book in terms of aesthetic choices might have helped. 4: There were a few glitches in audio-visual, coordination of times for activities, and special projects -- but I attribute that to a first time class. Not AP's fault. 5: Fewer digressions. 7: More comparative examples side by side. 8: It was not clear to me how the lab (composing/printing) sessions were -- or should have been integrated to the lecture segment. We spent three hours composing -- that is enough. Anymore would make it Print Shop 101 -- not "typography." 9: More on history, more examples, more thorough. Perhaps the development of a type identification cheat sheet. More on type identification. Type composition is not a necessity for this course. E.g., students do not expect to bind a book for the binding history courses, nor do they expect to practice lettering, calligraphy, or type setting during James Mosley's course. This is (the type course) a historical overview. At most, perhaps a video about type composition would suffice. I would prefer to spend the time studying the types and seeing examples. 10: More structure in lectures. (Fewer jokes and anecdotal stories.) Better overall planning before course begins. The course seemed to have no clear goal/direction.

8) 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?

1-2: None. 5: Curators were not always present. They should be. They should be objective and not give in to the teacher's charms. 8: We had to wait forty-five minutes one session for book delivery. This was a highly unusual RBS glitch. 9: No comment.

9) Please comment on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class (e.g. 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: Did not attend, except lecture which was interesting. 2: Everything was perfect. 3: N/A. Did not participate. 7: Sunday night dinner was a good way to meet others. TB's Monday night lecture on the state of rare books was interesting yet a bit depressing. 8: Would have been nice to have a big name lecturer (aside from TB) in the week. All other activities, a delight. 9: No comment. 10: Sunday dinner and lecture enjoyable -- Monday night lectures are good.

10) Did you get your money's worth? Any final thoughts?

1: My institution did, I hope. 2: Yes! Advice: Be sure to do pre-course reading. 3: Yes, good value for money. 4: Yes. 7: Yes it is worth the money. 8: AP's approach -- from the shop floor up -- meets nicely with JM's "from culture, down." I learned a lot and got "world's greatest university's" money's worth. I hope AP comes back. RBS takes some getting used to; by Wednesday morning, AP was in groove. 9: I believe I get my money's worth every time I attend RBS. 10: Consider presenting two-thirds history and theory and one-third lab (typesetting and printing). Perhaps team teaching would be appropriate, i.e. an academic/librarian for lectures and a practicing printer for labs. How about some typeface identification problems for homework similar to DesBib set-up.

Number of respondents: 10

There were four rare book librarians (40%), two general librarians with no rare book duties (20%), one general librarian with some rare book duties (10%), one full-time student (10%), one conservator, binder, or preservation librarian (10%), and one bookseller (10%).

RBS Home