|
|
No. 43: The American Book in the Industrial Era, 1820- 1940. 4 August - 8 August 1997 |
|
1. How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Excellent, but a little too long. 2: Rather helpful; gave an overview of many aspects of the course content. 3: Very nice general reading, which gave a nice foundation for the course. 4: Excellent background and overview. 5: Pre-course text was too dense/lengthy for a single read recommend keeping the text, but tell prospective students to read/skim it over time. 6: Very helpful as background reading, and it was nice that the instructor didn't spent time simply reiterating what we had already read. 7: The instructions should have been to skim the re quired text, as the book is quite detailed and was tough going at times. 8: Pre-course readings were relevant and well-chosen. 9: Useful. Lehmann-Haupt gave a good background to the period. I suggest that you add to the list the sections in Gaskell that cover specific processes like stereotyping, etc. 10: Useful, but boring. 11: Extremely useful. 12: Very good and highly applicable to the course content. |
|
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: a) Yes. b) Yes. 2: The syllabus was OK, but presentations were flexible, geared to interests of students, if made known. Good bibliography and a couple of handouts. 3: Yes, very. 4: Yes, including an excellent bibliography for the course. 5: Yes. 6: Bibliography handout is most appreciated. 7: Oh, yes, especially the bibliography, which will help me to focus on my areas of interest. 8: Syllabus was a brief outline of the topics to be covered through the week. It was generally followed, but not necessarily in the order printed. 9: Yes. The bibliography will be very useful. Also, the handouts were well-selected we did not drown in paper! 10-12: Yes. |
|
3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?
1: Yes, excellent, especially the more abstract and theoretical areas, such as reading and literacy. 2: Very much so. 3: Yes, and he made sure we all understood new terms. 4: Exceptional classmates, exceptional instructor. 5: Yes. 6: Very stimulating. Instructor encouraged students to think and analyze and pursue research on their own. 7: Not too easy, not too hard. Kept my attention and whetted my appetite for the next day's lectures. 8-12: Yes. |
|
4. If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: Yes, wonderful (an hour and a half with multiple copies and editions of Leaves of grass). 2: Very much so we could have doubled the time and still not seen all the books on the truck in Special Collections. 3: Yes excellent. Actually, the first time I saw Special Collections in my two years at RBS. Enjoyed it immensely. 4: Extremely. 5: Yes. 7: Yes, indeed. Special Collections at UVa has wonderful things. I wished I could have handled the items, but I understand the rationale for not being able to do so. 8: Yes, both to Special Collections (Whitman items) and to the Rotunda (Lucile collection). 9: Yes. The display of Whitman books in Special Collections was particularly interesting. 10: The trip to Special Collections to see the Walt Whitman editions was very good and worth it. The trip to see more editions of Lucile was unfocused and not overly enlightening. 11: Yes. 12: Absolutely. |
|
5. Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course De scription (ECD)? Did the course in general meet your expectations?
1: Absolutely. 2: I think that the content pretty much corresponded to the description (plus some extra premiums). 3: Yes, and more. I kept my expectations minimal so I could accept the chosen program of our instructor 4: The course content exactly correponded to the brochure descriptions and exceeded expectations by far. 5: Yes, a thousand times, yes! 6: 1) Basically, I would limit the time frame in the course title to 1820-1900. 2) It more than met my expectations. MW is an extraordinary teacher, passionate and knowledgeable about so many aspects of American book production. 7: I thought there would be more social, labor, and intellectual history than there was, instead of the focus on the book as an artifact. Despite this, and in spite of it, I was certainly not disappointed. In some instances the course exceeded my expectations (as usual, for RBS!). 8: Yes, for the most part. 9: Yes. 10: The course is really two courses, one on the physical books in the c19 and the other on the publishing industry. Either could be expanded to fill an entire week. The course description should also be shortened in chronological period to cover only 1820-1918 (World War I). We covered nothing of the later period. 11: The description of the course was accurate. It met my expectations. 12: Yes. |
|
6. What did you like best about the course?
1: Many things, but perhaps best of all, I liked MW's ability to listen to and respond to student questions. That, to my mind, is one mark of a great teacher. 2: MW. 3: The range of topics MW chose, considering how vast a subject this is. And he willingly answered all of our questions during and after class. 4: The instructor brings a wonderful sense of skepticism to his material, making the investigation the more enjoyable. 5: MW, the content, MW again. 6: 1) Enthusiasm of instructor, 2) the focus on how books are made, 3) the encouragement to delve deeper into the subject. 7: Being with MW. Picking his brain. He is a wealth of knowledge, a great teacher, with the gift to cut to the chase and focus on what is really important, without a lot of superfluous material. 8: MW's knowledge about American publishing in the industrial age is impressive, and his wit and dry sense of humor made the course that much more enjoyable. 9: MW's knowledge of the history and economics of the period and the book trade was enlightening; it gave me a greater understanding of our collections. 10: MW is a good instructor and knows his subject. 11: I finally understood how the machinery in printing books worked. 12: The course helped me integrate the fragments of information I already had into a more coherent whole. I also discovered totally new issues I want to pursue further. |
|
7. How could the course have been improved?
1: Hard to imagine how. 2: Can't think how. 3: We could have condensed the bibliographical stuff into one shorter, tighter session. 5: Make it two weeks. 6: I would drop the segment about quasi-facsimile transcription. 7: See no. 6, above. 8: MW seemed at times to lose his concentration and forget his place in the discussion and at other times tended to go off on tangents, interesting as they were, while answering student questions. 10: See no. 5, above. 11: The course was good as an overview of the period. 12: Pick up the pace a little bit. So much to cover, so little time. |
|
8. 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 and videos, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers, printing demonstrations, &c.
1: I missed some of these, but enjoyed the ones I made. Roger Stoddard's lecture was disappointing to me on two counts 1) it was not my field of interest, 2) I have heard him give other lectures which were spellbinding. 2: Very good, both in quality and enjoyability. 3: All were very enjoyable. We could pick and choose activities which pleased us most without pressure to do all of them. 4: All of the outside activities contributed to the overall experience stimulating and fun. 5: More variety with the videos. Most of them repeat year after year. Loved the video with TB wearing a tie. 6: Lectures were informative. Enjoyed the informal dinners and lunches with new and old acquaintances. 7: I did not participate, with the exception of TB's address, because I brought the family with me and felt a responsibility to be there after being in class all day. 8: The extracurricular activities were, as usual, varied and well-chosen. 11: Enjoyed RS's lecture. 12: Sunday night dinner was very pleasant. The content of RS's lecture was fascinating, which made it all the more frustrating that his slides were blocked by pillars! |
|
9. Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth?
1: This course exceeded my expectations. Yes. 2: Highly recommended! Got my money's worth. 3: Got my money's worth and received a wealth of information. Most impor tant, it breathed new life into my career and made me want to learn about related fields, like labor history. Thanks, MW! 5: Excellent course by a competent and excellent teacher. I'd like to see MW offer other courses. 6: This course is most worthwhile, and highly recommended for those wanting to know more about the history of American book production and how books were actually made. MW is very generous in sharing his knowledge and stimulating students to pursue further study. 7: Does RBS get any better? Every year at the end, I think it couldn't possible do any better, it's nearly perfect. But it does. I continue to derive great pleasure, a good time, collegial relations, and useful knowledge during this short week. This is my sixth RBS course. Never, never spend your money on ALA, SLA ever again. This is the best bang for your money. 8: RBS is a very worthwhile experience that I've been fortunate enough to attend over a few summers and hope to continue. 10: Overall, this was a good course and I would recommend it to others. 11: Congratulations on 25 years. 12: Positively got my money's worth. |
| Number of respondents: 12 |
|
| There were twelve students: five were rare book librarians (43%), four were antiquarian booksellers (33%), and one each was an auction house employee, a conservator/binder/conservation librarian, and a general librarian with some rare book duties (8% each). |