No. 15: Advanced Seminar in Special Collections Administration
15-19 July 1996
|
No. 15: Advanced Seminar in Special Collections Administration 15-19 July 1996 |
|
1. How useful were the pre-course readings? 2: I didn't read all of them, but will and think it is very useful. It gives in-depth analysis for topics that could not be discussed in length during the course. 3: Very useful  even the articles read previously were worth looking at again. 4: Very useful. 5: Very well-selected. 7: The course readings were excellent and covered all of the relevant issues. |
|
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: Useful syllabus I will keep it to plug in all my planning for my new job. 2: Yes. I enjoyed all the handouts from the course and from the instructors, both SS and MT and our guest instructors. 3-6: Yes. 7: The distributed materials from the instructors and other people in the class gave me some valuable ideas about what we could be doing. It will be very useful to go back and look at the Web sites what were mentioned. |
|
3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: It wasn't an intellectual course the way "History of the Book" is. But in terms of dealing with big picture philosophical issues in the field, we certainly did. 2-6: Yes. 7: The intellectual level of the course content was perfect. I knew a great deal about areas such as security and preservation, but was challenged/stretched in areas outside my expertise, such as automation. |
|
4. If your course had field trips, were they effective? 1: Yes, I wish we could have had more field trips or guest speakers it was extremely helpful to get the insight of the UVa librarian, for example. Probably there should be another speaker, in addition to the Washington & Lee librarian, representing a less wealthy and smaller institution. Virginia Historical Society, perhaps, or a similar institution in Richmond? 2: Yes. We went on a field trip to the UVa Librarian's office. This helped to give insight into how others were handling issues discussed in class. Another perspective is always nice. 3: Yesguest lectures provided good insights into questions being discussed and added a measure of variety to the instruction. 4: Yesespecially enjoyed the visit with the head of the Library and the head of Special Collections at UVa. 5: Yes. 6: Yesthough I'd have liked an operational level tour of Special Collections as well as an administrative level visit to the University Librarian. 7: We left the classroom only to meet in the office of UVa's University Librarian to discuss the relationship between Special Collections and the University Librarian. I believe it added to the discussion/presentation to have this take place outside the classroom. Barbara Brown, from Washington & Lee, traveled to our classroom to talk about the same issues in the context of a smaller university setting and this, too, was a valuable experience. |
|
4. 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: It absolutely met my expectations. I was looking for a prelude to my new job a mix of what's happening in the field, how I done it good, and the new issues like digitization and c19 books. 2: Yes. 3: Exceeded expectationsmore attention devoted to intra-library dynamics than anticipatedbut all the content of the instruction was useful. 4-6: Yes. 7: This course greatly exceeded my expectations. I did not expect to learn so much in only five days and to come away with such excellent practical knowledge in the area of Special Collections administration. |
|
5. What did you like best about the course? 1: The team approach of two colleagues with very clear differences in job focus, but really in synch with each other. Two excellent librarians with national, good reputations in their respective areas. 2: Being able to present problems you were personally facing with your job and having direct input from colleagues with experience in similar situations. 3: 1) Structured approach to instruction. 2) Team teaching give and take of class discussion. 4: The combined expertise and experience of MT and SS were top notch. They worked quite well together as co-teachers. I appreciate their knowledge and their ability to present it in a clear and effective manner. 5: The instructors were very generous with their time during breaks and lunch. In class, they provided excellent content, and allowed for appropriate interaction and discussion. I had a sense throughout that I was in the hands of deeply experienced, knowledgeable individuals. 6: 1) Realism. 2) Excellent rapport between instructors and among students. 3) A broad range of experience and expertise in instructors. 4) Adaptation/updating of material as issues change. 7: The last segment of the course in which we each discussed an issue with which we are currently wrestling and developed a strategy based on what we had learned in the course. Student and instructor input was valuable and appreciated. |
|
6. How could the course have been improved? 1: More emphasis on institutions less fortunate than Brown. One class member asked rhetorically whether poor or small institutions should have Special Collections, and I actually think we could discuss that very seriously. I think it would be interesting to look at the published Mellon study of New-York Historical Society, for example, and discuss what went wrong and how to survive and/or fold. 2: My one complaint is that I had a hard time relating ofttimes with our instructors' situations. They come from a very well-funded institution with (to me) a lot of money and resources. It is hard to relate when you have smaller staffs, limited budgets, and more responsibilities than larger depositories. 3: As a possibility additional guest lecturers (university president or chief development officer. I have mixed feelings about this recommendation). Possibly, to attempt to advertise this course in a way that would be calculated to attract a less diverse group of librariansbut the diversity itself was a plus. 4: Better room next year. At least a room with windows and/or better ventilation would be appreciated. Might you want to consider someone to teach this course who comes from a more modest background in terms of $$$ (which the vast majority of the class could relate to more easily). 5: It might have enhanced discussion if the group had been a little more homogeneous (in terms of institutional context, individual experience). Our differences were not at all incapacitating and I'm really not sure how to address the situation. Maybe the course descriptions could urge attendance at the introductory course before taking this one. 6: Not for my purposes. Perhaps there is now less need for a full day on the introductory philosophy of maintaining Special Collections than three was when the course was first taught. 7: I really see no room for improvement. |
|
7. Please comment at will 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 and videos, Bookseller Night, tour of the Etext Center or Electronic Classroom, printing demonstrations, evening lectures, &c. 1: I always like to hear TB it just is an integral part of the RBS experience. 2: I enjoyed the lectures that I went to. I feel that each presenter (though I do not agree with everything they said) did a fine job in discussing and presenting their objectives. 3: Very high. 4: Generally good, some more interesting than others. 5: All excellent. No matter how exhausted I felt at 6, I always left the Rotunda with a strong second wind. 6: I learned from each of them, though TT is less interesting as a lecturer than as a writer on the same topics. I appreciated the opportunity to hear TB on Thursday, as I hadn't then met him. 7: Excellent. |
|
8. Any final thoughts? 1: This course was EXACTLY what I wanted needed!! I will be back next year. 2: Depending on who is enrolled, maybe a longer time spent on public or smaller institutions' special collections needs and concerns. Overall, though, I rate this an A. I really learned a lot. 4: I highly recommend this course to anyone who has any administrative responsibilities for Special Collections. 5: Hard to imagine anything not already covered in your wonderful Vade mecum. 6: RBS in general: 1) RBS is an incredibly valuable national resource. 2) Participation by rare book librarians is a very cost effective means of professional development. 3) I was impressed by the maturity/responsibility of the participantsnot just for neophytes. This course: It was just right for me this year, but not for everybodywhereas the actual book history/bibliography courses would be valuable at almost any career point. 7: This is a wonderful experience and I highly recommend it. |
|
Number of respondents: 7 |
|
|
|
There were seven students: three were rare book librarians (43%), two were archivist/manuscript librarians (29%), one was a general librarian with some rare book duties (14%), and one was a rare book/manuscript librarian (14%) |