Timothy Barrett and John Bidwell
No. 12: History of European and American Papermaking
14-18 July 1997




1.How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Extremely useful and well selected. 2: Very useful. Good background for the class sessions. 3: Very useful. I wish some of the titles listed in the workbook bibliography had been provided before the course. 4: The excellent general as well as specific lists gave a full preparation for the course. 5: Very useful as background material. 6: I was familiar with all of them and would have appreciated the bibliography that came with the course book, but better later than not at all. 7: Very useful. 8: Good. Enough to get familiar with the subject and form some questions. Not too much to read. 9: Very good and just enough to sink my teeth into this subject. 10: Dard Hunter ­ excellent. Martin/Febvre ­ less so, but still good.


2. Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?

1-2: Yes. 3: Very much so ­ and the tidy format is much appreciated. 4: They were very appropriate and had enough space for editing notes from the course. 5-6: Yes. 7: Very useful and good for future reference. 8: Yes, they are useful as an aide-memoire. The bibliography for further reading contains many works of reference value and works I would like to read for pleasure and interest-- aroused by particular class anecdotes. 9: They are excellent! I am especially pleased with the workbook bibliography and plan to use it as a continuing education tool, and to improve our collection. 10: Yes.



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

1-3: Yes. 4: At the top. 5: Excellent. 6-8: Yes. 9: I was entirely carried away by the wonder of it all: colorful history filled with lots of drama delivered by a scholar who very obviously loves his field. Lab sessions were carried out very successfully with the instructor guiding students in making their own paper. 10: Yes.


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

1: Yes; field trip was relevant and valuable. 2: Yes! The field trip to the Bear Island paper plant was definitely worthwhile and a perfect complement/contrast to the rest of the course. 3: Visiting the paper mill was worthwhile mostly for a basis of comparison to class discussion and the chance to see mechanized operations first hand. 4: Yes. The trip to Bear Island paper mill fit very well with the course's theme of the evolution of paper. 5: Yes ­ visit to paper mill was definitely worth the trip, but maybe leave earlier next time and take a box lunch in the van. 6: Although the trip to the mill was interesting and enjoyable, I feel it was too much time in the car. The van was late and I think the class time would have been better ­ we had to rush through a lot of topics. 7: Yes, except for the delay in van departure. 8: The field trip to Bear Island paper mill was good because, despite enormous technical changes, the principles governing the setting up and running of a paper mill have not changed. It was a dramatic lesson that certain basic principles remain in operation. Given the emphasis on manufacturing, the trip was appropriate. 9: It actually turned out to be incredibly interesting. Between the actual paper mill operations and our very enthusiastic guide, who knew the mill inside out (and was a bit of an entertainer), this was a brilliant idea. 10: Yes. The paper mill visit was invaluable (and not just because we received a lovely bunch of parting gifts). It's the only way to truly understand the scale of these operations and where they fit into the general scheme of things now.



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: Yes 2: Yes.Yes. 3: This course more than met my expectations because of the fantastic level of detailed information both instructors consistently offered. I don't recall any slack time. 4: Yes. 5: Yes, the course was excellent. 6: Yes. 7: Yes. It exceeded expectations in both depth of content and hands-on experience. 8: Yes. 9: Everything was just fine, until I walked through the classroom door and entered another world, more than fulfilling my expectations. I'm smitten and will most likely go hunting for paper mills. 10: Yes. The course was everything I hoped it would be, and more.



6. What did you like best about the course?

1: Knowledge of the instructors. 2: The mixture of the course: the instructors' combined knowledge of historical and technical matters; the different interests of the students; the combination of lectures, practical demonstrations, videos, slides, and the field trip. 3: The combination of the instructors' expertise and the use of audio/visual aids matched with lectures. 4: Bronofsky presentation 5: The instructors' manner of teaching, hands-on paper 6: The rapport between TB and JB, their complementary knowledge. 7: Analysis of source and fabrication date of various papers, and correlation of properties with manufacturing procedures. 8: The hands-on papermaking. JB's descriptions were very dramatic and amusing ­ and memorable. 9: TB and JB are pure harmony! 10: The combination of visual and hands-on materials was extremely helpful. There was a good balance between philosophy and idealism and practical, real-world things. TB and JB's interaction was wonderful.



7. How could the course have been improved?

2: More time set aside for question and answer periods. 4: Do not fiddle with success. 5: Very minor improvement in an otherwise excellent, excellent course ­ Friday morning reading of papers on Dard Hunter and Stedman detracted a bit from the spontaneity of the other sessions. 6: More science (but that's conservator-centric) about permanence issues. 8: I would like to have had a longer session where we examined the sample papers and discussed date, place, and method of manufacture as part of the course. I liked the fact that we remained in one group. 9: More time listening to them. 10: n/a.



8. 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 and videos, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers, printing demonstrations, &c.

3: The Sunday night dinner was great, as were all three talks and the Tuesday night event. 4: They maintain the theme of RBS very well. 5: The lectures and dinner were all enjoyable. I would love an in-depth tour of BAP facilities and resources ­ what's there, how they are used, what can outside researchers use. 6: The Stallybrass lecture was excellent. 7: Very enjoyable. 8: The food is fine. Loved the videos, particularly appropriate to have TB making paper. 9: Food has been delicious! Thank you and thanks to Bruce Royer and crew! 10: Very good. Tours were helpful, bookseller night is a must. How do I get a copy of the James Burke video?


9. Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth?

2: Yes! I definitely got my money's worth! 3: Absolutely! 4: It's an excellent course for all levels and types of students and money very well spent. 5: It was an excellent course, well taught, with great interaction between TB and JB ­ patient, knowledgeable, interesting, good rapport with the class. Definitely recommendable. 7: Don't miss this course ­ basic for any bibliophile. Yes. 8: Yes, excepted I wanted more emphasis on identifying and dating types of paper. 9: Thank you. I hope I have the opportunity to attend next year ­ perhaps for two sessions instead of one. 10: Information on financial assistance or working programs would have been nice. This is actually a financial hardship for me. It was certainly worth it, but if there are ways to make financing easier, I would like to have known about them.


Number of respondents: 10


PERCENTAGES


Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution gave me leave Institution paid tuition Institution paid housing Institution paid travel
60% 33% 20% 20%
I took vacation time I paid tuition myself I paid for my own housing I paid my own travel
10% 57% 80% 80%
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
30% 0% 0% 0%


There were ten students; three were conservator/binder/preservation librarians (30%), three were rare book librarians (30%), two were collectors (20%), one was a prints and photographs curator (10%) and one was a retiree (10%).