1) How useful were the pre-course readings? [The instructors provided an advance reading list but did not ask students to read anything on it before attending class. -Ed.] 1: Did not have time to read. Hope to, after the fact - it's a very useful looking list. 2: A good professional reading list. 3: They were good for preparation, though not in any way essential as SAS and MET covered everything so thoroughly and articulately. I liked receiving different perspectives. 4: Very useful and will serve as a bibliography that I will add to over the years. 5: The reading list itself was useful. The articles I read raised relevant and interesting issues and caused me to re-think various matters. 6: Very useful; it will also be a useful bibliography to have for reference in the future. 7: I did not have the time to read before class began, but plan to use later. 8: They were very useful and will continue to be so. It's nice to have a choice of readings rather than a specific assignment. 9: Quite. Some will bear rereading. 10: It was stated that they were optional, but they were very good. 11: Very useful for me personally. We did not, however, use them in class. 12: Very useful. I was very glad to have been guided, and found the readings to be quite enjoyable. I am glad, however, that a complete reading of the entire list was not required, as the time to do so wasn't there. 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: Yes. The overall outline for the course was relevant and helpful. 2: Because the course is framed as a series of discussions on management topics, the syllabus and handouts are only general guides to keep us on track and indicate topics to be covered. As such, they are fine. 3: The outline distributed was useful to keeping track of complicated issues. 4: The syllabus was an outline of topics and helped keep you aware of what was coming and helped keep discussion on target. 5: There was only a syllabus - it was appropriate and useful. 6: The syllabus was good. It would be nice to have strategies discussed in writing (at least a listing of them). 7: Useful syllabus to let us know what the course content would be. Useful for shorthand notes and references. 8: Yes; the syllabus might have been more structured. 9: Yes. 10: This was not a course that needed handouts. 11: We were given a general 1 = page outline for the week. In some instances it would have been helpful to have had additional handouts, particularly to supplement lists of suggestions made by the instructors. 12: The syllabus was useful during class to keep us focused. I may type my extensive notes/ideas into the syllabus framework after returning home. 3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: Yes - good content and good balance of lecture and general discussion. 3: Yes - we all seemed to speak the same language (!) - mature, thoughtful, yet critical and scrutinizing. 4-5: Yes. 6: Very good. It invited great discussion, although sometimes it was hard to relate small libraries with large, well endowed ones. 7: Yes, indeed. The topics covered were discussed at both the instructors' and students' levels in an invigorating, open, and encouraging manner. It was a pleasure to be there. 8: The first half tended to be basic, the second half was extremely stimulating. 9: Yes. 10: Very appropriate. 11-12: Yes. 4) If your course had field trips, were they effective? 1: N/A. 2: Yes, very. The visit to the Electronic Text Center was inspiring; David Seaman gave a very good explanation and demonstration. Dialog with the University Librarian [Karin Wittenberg] and head of Special Collections [Michael Plunkett] was provocative and echoed teamwork displayed by our instructors. Achieving such a good working relationship was one of the points of the course. 3: Yes! DS gave an excellent presentation and KW was quite impressive. 4: Yes, we visited the electronic classroom and the UVa Library Director's office. Electronic text is an exciting direction for libraries and especially for special collections, and it was interesting to see and hear from one who is really in the forefront of what is being done. The visit with UVa's Library Director and Special Collections reinforced much our instructors had already said and provided additional viewpoints as well. 5: Two trips - one for presentation on administrative aspects of the Electronic Text Center, one for meeting with KW and MP. Both were very worthwhile. DS had some difficulty remaining focused on administrative information and issues (as compared with Center services and collections), but the presentation was still time well spent. 6: Places were well selected and gave good examples of what was being discussed. 7: The time spent with KW and MP was very useful for another perspective than mine or that of SAS or MET. The room for DS was so cold that content went begging. 8: Absolutely. Two trips: Electronic Text Center was highly motivating. University Librarian's office was a perfect balance against the instructors' perspectives on administration. 9: Yes. 10: The two trips were both excellent and stimulated our classroom discussion afterward. 11: Yes. 12: Very much so. They served as springboards for discussion. 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 - I think all topics listed were covered, or at least touched on, adequately. Most were covered in considerable depth. I did not feel cheated in any of my expectations. 2-6: Yes. 7: yes, and more so. I really did not expect such detailed coverage and open discussion of the topics. I plan to use much of the information in the future. 8: Yes, perfectly. 9: Yes. 10: Yes, the description was very accurate. 11-12: Yes. 6) What did you like best about the course? 1: It was a great reality check for me - confirmed that I have hit on some good tactics and solutions in the way I do things. Also provided some excellent insights into the ways library directors, development officers, other library staff, and the public view special collections. Good insights regarding budgets and personnel issues. Discussions provided interesting information and suggestions from others. 2: I like team teaching. It is good to have multiple points of view and methods of presenting information. As someone who has been institutionalized for 23 years, I liked hearing how things are done in the real world. It was instructive. Many of the same principles apply and the advice was WA relevant. It made me appreciate my institution. 3: SAS and MET. They are both very engaging and articulate speakers, interact beautifully, and were excellent at listening, giving advice, and making the class feel relaxed. 4: Team approach. Hearing the same topics discussed from a director's and a special collections viewpoint. The session of everyone bringing an issue for discussion and the resulting ideas for solutions. 5: The meeting with MP and KW was certainly a highlight. There was a good balance of information from the instructors and discussion among the students. 6: Open discussion related to strategies being presented. The opportunity to ask questions freely. 7: Knowing the context in which SAS and MET work and learning about other special collections and what their respective positive/negative conditions/challenges might be/are. 8: Team teaching. Having a University Librarian and an AUL teaching together offered highly insightful presentations. Case study format with instructors' commentary was also very, very beneficial. 9: Interplay of the two instructors and their points of view (especially the view from the director's office); caliber of the participants; case studies. 10: The two instructors were very intelligent, entertaining, and informative about all areas of special collections administration. Their two perspectives presented together definitely add to this course. Only one of them, and it would lose something. 11: The opportunity to interact with other heads of special collections and to learn about special collections from a director's viewpoint. 12: Discussion (candid) among students and instructors. Generation of great suggestions to solve our respective problems. 7) How could the course have been improved? 1: I thought it was fine. Because of some aspects of my own situation at the moment, I would have liked a little more discussion of personnel issues and of balancing priorities in such a way as to keep the technology tail from wagging the whole library dog. But I can't think of what I'd have been willing to cut out in order to fit those things in. 2: The most engaging exercise was the presentation by each student of a specific problem, responded to with questions, strategies from the instructors and other students. We did this the final day. Maybe a similar exercise could be inserted earlier in the week after the basic principles and strategies are stated. 3: I particularly appreciated discussing with the other registrants and SAS and MET our various environments, being able to bounce ideas off one another, &c. I think we could have spent more than one day doing this. 4: A few times there was a little too much "Brown" to be useful. 5: The assignment at the end of the course was helpful in applying the week's discussions to my work situation. I find that's often a shortcoming with respect to my attending professional conferences - I'm so busy catching up when I return to my library that I don't make time to think carefully about how to apply the contents of the conference or workshop. Perhaps an additional assignment would be helpful - make a list of things learned that you want to apply in your work situation. 6: Handouts on strategies would help for understanding and taking notes. 7: N/A. 8: Less emphasis on introductory topics such as context for special collections - limit to half a day (?) to allow more time for seminar-style discussion and idea exchange. 9: Slightly less on context (the first section of the syllabus); more on the business (as opposed to fund-raising) aspect of special collections. I use business in the sense KW did in her opening remarks to us; I don't mean to suggest that the discussion of fund-raising was not useful. 10: I cannot think of a way to improve this course. 11: More handouts to refer to when we return home. 12: I would have liked to hear more anecdotal comments about their own personal experiences come from the students. I felt that they were holding back. 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. 1: I did not take part in the tour, Bookseller Night, or the demos. Haven't made it to the exhibit, but hope to. Sunday dinner was a good way to start meeting people. Any lecture at 6pm, regardless of how good, is fighting an uphill battle to keep me awake. Classes all day long take about all my energy. 2: I liked the Library of Congress video. It applied very well to the mission of libraries and to the topics of this course. Evening lectures were on broader, more generally applicable topics than in previous years - an improvement. 3: As usual, everything was delightful (including the fig newtons). I would personally have liked the opportunity to see the video on pen ruling being shown in other weeks. 4: I only attended TB's lecture, which was very informative. 5: I participated only in Sunday night dinner, the evening lectures and Bookseller Night. DT's lecture was outstanding. Bookseller Night was fun and worthwhile. 6: Enjoyed outside activities. Did not enjoy breaks. Lectures should be closer to the end of the class day or later in the evening. The tour and Sunday dinner is a good beginning. 7: I really did not engage in after-class activities other than the lectures and Sunday diner. The latter was somewhat uncomfortable because of the close space, but that was the nature of the space. 8: All were excellent. The breaks tended to be slightly cramped, however. 9: Evening lectures were too long; the tour of the electronic center was focused, interesting, and useful. 10: After coming for several years, I still enjoy the Sunday night dinner to meet people, the Bookseller Night, and the quality of the evening lecturers. Having a course without homework is greatly appreciated. 11: I enjoyed the films and lectures very much. 12: I thought that they were fine, but not terribly exciting (ie, Sunday dinner, evening lectures). Lectures were quite rarified, Sunday dinner was awkward as I knew no one. Bookseller Night was great - a good idea. What printing demo? Had I known, I would have gone. 9) Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth? 1: I definitely feel that I got my money's worth, and UVa is a wonderful location. Refreshments were not inspired, but not awful, either. People staying on the Lawn are well advised to bring a small oscillating fan if they can manage it. Thanks for the reminder to bring lamp, coat hangers, alarm clock, and umbrella - used them all. The tour was superficial and busy work. Videos and all but DT's lecture were promos for RBS, i.e., preaching to the choir. Recommending more inexpensive restaurants on the downtown mall would have helped. Literature on travel and housing is excellent. Keep up the good work, and thanks! 2: Yes. 3: Thanks again! 4: If you're administering a special collections, take this course: it will give you new insights and help focus you on the real issues. It's definitely worth the money. 5: Yes, I got my money's worth. 6: I would recommend it as is not only to rare book librarians, but also to library administrators (especially those who are unsure of the role and function and use of special collections). 7: Got my money's worth - without a doubt! What the eventual results might be for me and my institution, see me next year! 8: The course was well worth the small tuition. It provided an excellent forum for discussion and lent a multitude of perspectives from which to consider administrative issues. The composition of the "student body" contributed significantly to the class's success, as well as the experienced, energetic, and lively instructors. 9: Yes, I got my money's worth. 10: This is a highly recommended course. 11: This was a wonderful course. There are so many ideas that I have come up with to improve my situation and our own special collections. Every minute was well spent. 12: I found it quite inspiring, and wish that other of the staff in our library (not just special collections) could come. Advice to others: talk to everyone; don't let instructors intimidate you - they're all normal Joes and all quite personable. Number of respondents: 12 PERCENTAGES Leave Tuition Housing Travel Institution gave me leave 100% Institution paid tuition 92% Institution paid housing 100% Institution paid travel 92% I took vacation time 0% I paid tuition myself 8%* I paid for my own housing 0% I paid for my own travel 8% N/A: Self-employed, retired, or had time off 0% N/A: Self-employed, retired, or exchange 0% N/A: Stayed with friends or lived at home 0% N/A: Lived nearby 0% There were twelve students: nine (75%) were rare book librarians, two (17%) were archivist/manuscript librarians, and one (8%) was a general librarian with some rare book duties. * UUP scholarship

[an error occurred while processing this directive]