David Vander Meulen
G-55: Scholarly Editing
10–14 June 2013

 

Detailed Course Evaluation

 

1)    How useful were the pre-course readings? Did you do any additional preparations in advance of the course?

 

1: Very helpful. The Tanselle book was tough going but an essential prep for the course. The syllabus recommends additional (optional) reading from the Tanselle syllabus…I did some of this, but it was less critical. 2: Pre-course reading is very useful and necessary. 3: Extremely useful, must-read. I did no specific additional prep. 4: The Tanselle book was great theoretical background. By its nature, it got repetitious towards the end. I think it would be possible to package a slightly different selection of his articles that would cover more, more efficiently. But I was glad to have the incentive to read this book through. 5: The pre-course readings were useful, but we didn’t actually discuss them in class. 6: Very useful—introduced the questions and terminology. They seemed particularly important for a class that covers so much in one week. 8: Very useful as an overview of a complicated and surprisingly long-lived field.

 

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

 

1: In-class handouts were very useful (additional readings, exercises, illustrations). 2: The material was distributed appropriately. It is a set of material, most of which, I was not able to read between classes. I will read it when I get back home. 3: Yes, they were great for stirring in-class thought/discussion and will be useful reference tools in the future. 4: Yes. Wonderful examples as well as theoretical articles. 5: Yes—DVM distributed many helpful handouts and showed great textual examples to illustrate his points. 6: Yes—I will certainly keep them and use them. 7: The workbook had many interesting and entertaining items. 8: The notebook, additional readings, and copious notes I typed into my laptop will be valuable resources to my work. Both research and pedagogy.

 

3)    Have you taken one or more RBS courses before? If so, how did this course compare with your previous coursework?

 

1: This is my first course. 2: This is the first course I have taken. 3: N/A. 4: I’ve taken two courses before, in 1984(!) and 2007. This course was probably better theoretically—or rather, in the thoughtfulness of its structure. Also everything went more smoothly with a lot less stress. 5: I took DesBib. That class was a bit more intense, but not by much—we had some hefty homework in this class too. 6: No. 8: N/A.

 

4)    What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes?

 

1: The bibliographic review and work on the collating machines were of greatest interest (though not enough time for the latter!!) 2: I’m interested in the most practical aspects of editing. 3: Our work on manuscript document and discussions on the various kinds of scholarly editions and their consequences. 4: DVM’s genius selection of examples made evident the value of critical editions for multiple purposes. 5: Info for locating and collating texts. 6: It was all very useful. Reading the textual apparatus will be most useful long term. 8: I found the final project, a critique of a critical edition, very helpful, as it enabled me to examine texts I might teach—or emulate—with discernment.

 

5)    Did the instructor(s) successfully help you to acquire the information, knowledge, and skills that the course was intended to convey? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?

 

1: Absolutely, and the standard was very appropriate. 2: The intellectual level of the course was of the highest quality. I truly enjoyed it but I wished there were more time to do more practical tasks. 3: Very much so. My interests were in some ways far afield of those of the instructor, yet he nevertheless helped me understand how best to transform the information presented. 4– 5: Yes, and yes. 6: Yes—DVM was great: incredibly knowledgeable about editing and very clear in his instruction. 8: Absolutely.

 

6)    What did you like best about the course?

 

1: The exercises (collation, transcription, edition review). 2: Having access to the wealth of material in the library. DVM showed us many examples drawn from the original sources (not just photocopies). 3: It was exactly what I had hoped it would be. 4: The though exercises in class based on carefully selected examples—whether of variant texts, or apparatuses, or illegible MSS. 5: DVM made me care about textual aspects that previously I might have considered minutiae. His knowledge and enthusiasm was top-notch. 6: Discussion of questions editors need to ask/review of editions. 7: DVM was lively, accessible, and persuasive. Most of his examples were vivid. 8: The variety of current projects the students brought into conversation with course materials demonstrates how applicable the principles and practices of scholarly editing are in diverse situations!

 

7)    How could the course have been improved?

 

1: A little more time allotted for the collating exercises. 3: I wish we had spent more time discussing radial texts and their nuances/implications. 4: See comment on readings. Perhaps for projects—given short time—topics might be suggested. 5: A bit more crowd control—we had one student who interrupted everybody else.

 

8)    Did you learn what the course description/advertisement indicated you would learn? Additional comments optional. Y/N

 

1-2: Yes. 3: Yes. 100%, which is always somewhat surprising. 4: Yes. At least in theory! 5-8: Yes.

 

9)    Did you learn what you wanted in the course? Additional comments optional. Y/N

 

1-3: Yes. 4: Yes. I’m not sure I’m ready now to do it myself, but I am much better placed to select editions and appreciate the work. 5-6: Yes. 7: No. 8: Yes.

 

10)  How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?

 

1: I will be looking more closely at materials in my home library/archives for editorial projects! 2: I’m going to finish a critical edition of a manuscript. 3: I constantly use edited works in my academic work and this class has given me wonderful tools for judging these editions. I also hope to produce critical editions of my own. 4: Realistically, probably just in my own critical appreciation of others’ texts. 5: In future editorial projects. 6: They will definitely help me complete my editing project, but I think the general questions and concerns will be useful in later dissertation work, too. 8: I am eager to begin the work of locating, collating, relating, selecting, and emending the work for which I hope to produce a scholarly edition.

 

11)  If your course left its classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?

 

1: Trips to SC and the GW papers were very well spent! 2: Yes. 3: Yes, we went to SC to see material and used collating machines, which was great hands on work, and toured Washington Papers, which is a huge editing project. 4-6: Yes. 8: Yes—the trip to the Scholar’s Lab to learn about electronic collation, and the trips to SC were time well spent.

 

12)  If you attended the evening events (e.g., RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers’ Night) were they worth attending?

 

1: I attended two lectures, and both were excellent. Didn’t get to Booksellers’ Night, but that was OK. 2: No. I had to go to the hotel and take care of the kids. 3: I attended the RBS lecture, which was OK. 4: Monday lecture was superb. Didn’t attend the others—conservation of energy! 5: The RBS lecture by Steven Karian was fantastic and complemented the class very well. 6: Yes. 8: The RBS Lecture reconfirmed several things we had just learned in class—serendipity!

 

13)  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: None. 4: I saw no problems. 5: None—they were handled very well.

 

14)  Did you (or your institution) get your money’s worth? Would you recommend this course to others?

 

1: (Somebody else’s) Money well spent! This week was an excellent, immersive experience, and I would highly recommend it to others. 2: I would definitely recommend this course. 3: Certainly got my money’s worth and would highly recommend this course to those interested in scholarly editing. This was all new to me, and I am amazed at how much I learned. 4–5: Yes, and yes. 6: Yes. 8: Yes, and I plan to recommend this course to my colleagues.

 

15)  Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year? (If you have further praise/concerns, please speak with Amanda Nelsen or Michael Suarez.)

 

1: The course content and delivery were excellent, and DVM’s teaching makes me wish I was attending UVA. Thank you for a great week! 2: Course on editing specifically designed for texts in Spanish. 4: As always at RBS, start out well rested! 5: Bring warm clothes and a sense of humor (to enjoy DVM’s wonderful dry wit). 8: If you have any interest in editing a text that is clean to you or important in your research and teaching, take this class!

 

Aggregate Statistics

 

Number of respondents: 8

 

Leave

Institution gave me leave: 3 (37%)

N/A: self-employed, retired, or had summers off: 5 (63%)

 

Tuition

Institution paid tuition: 4 (50%)

I paid tuition myself: 3 (38%)

Other, gift: 1 (12%)

 

Housing

Institution paid housing: 3 (37%)

I paid for my own housing: 5 (63%)

 

Travel

Institution paid travel: 3 (37%)

I paid my own travel: 5 (63%)

 

Which one category most closely defines what you do for a living, or why you are at RBS? (Please check only one category)

 

Student, Ph.D. (humanities): 2 (25%)
Retired: 2 (25%)
College, assistant professor: 1 (13%)
University, assistant professor: 2 (25%)
Librarian with no rare book duties: 1 (12%)

 

How did you hear about this course?

 

RBS website: 4 (50%)
Advertisement: 1 (12%)
Work colleague: 2 (25%)
Word of mouth: 1 (13%)