Susan M Allen & Wm P Barlow, Jr
64: Donors and Libraries [L-55]
11-15 July 2005
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Fine. 2: Some were useful. I thought the various collection catalogs were not very relevant. One book on famous collectors would really be enough. 4: Barlow, Steele, and the ACRL guidelines were most useful. Basbanes was fun but not crucial. Many readings could be de-emphasized. 5: They were useful. WPB’s about taxes was the most helpful. 6: Very useful -- good background for what was covered in the class. 7: Very useful. 8: The readings were well- thought-out, entirely applicable to the course, and provided an excellent foundation for class time and discussion.
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: The syllabus was well-prepared, though the particular readings might have been listed in relation to the syllabus. In conjunction with notes it will be extremely useful in the future. 2: Yes -- some will be of ongoing use. 3: Very appropriate and useful, and they shall be used in the future. 4: Good syllabus -- getting it a couple of weeks ahead would help organize reading and questions. The handouts will be useful at work with colleagues. 5: Yes, very useful. 6: Yes. 7: Yes. 8: The syllabus proved an excellent framework for class time and was well-though-out and followed.
3) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?
1: I found that the general bent of discussion throughout the course was enlightening -- and the content that I came to discuss/learn about was indeed not ultimately the most important and relevant to my needs. Rather, I learned a great deal from the sessions on development, collection development, &c. from the institutional point of view -- very helpful. 2: The intellectual level was quite good (with the possible exception of the tax material). All content was relevant. I would like either for this course to touch more on fundraising or for a separate course to be offered. 3: All aspects were of equal interest and relevance for my purposes. The intellectual level was high and most appropriate. 4: Information on appraisals, tax implications, and negotiations will be most useful. Also, discussions with the bookseller and collectors in the class. 5: The discussions about how to deal with donors were of the greatest interest. The intellectual level was appropriate. 6: Tax discussions and pros vs. cons of friends groups. 7: Lectures and visitors were very useful and at an appropriate intellectual level. 8: Detailed descriptions of tax issues. All aspects of the course were conducted as a graduate-level seminar.
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: Our brief foray to Special Collections at UVa was dedicated to collections acquired from particular donors, and so gave a nice history of the collection/donor institutional relationship. It was valuable to have tangible evidence of what we had been discussing. 2: The trip to Special Collections to see the fruits of donor relations was interesting. We also had outside speakers, and they were excellent, especially Janet King and Sara Lee Barnes. 3: Yes. 4: Nice visit. A tour of the facility would be good, too. 5: Yes. 6: Yes, very well-spent. More visits would have been good, but I’m not sure if there was time. 7: Yes. 8: A trip to Special Collections was extremely helpful; especially hearing particular examples and descriptions of donors and developing relations.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: The interaction between curators, bookseller, collectors (both instructors collect), and the ease of discussion and sharing of the diversity of participants’ experience. SA and WPB were a well-balanced team -- courteous to each other and to each member of class. 2: The fact that the students could contribute to the discussion based on their institutions’ experience or on their experience as a collector or bookseller. 3: The balance and equal weight given to the librarian’s perspective and book collector’s perspective -- with the perspective of the trade completing the dialectic. 4: Interaction with colleagues, instructors, and development staff. Students did a great deal to bond with each other, which contributed to discussions and ensures future contact. 5: The discussions about working with donors, and the UVa staff who spoke about prospect research. 6: Negotiation was fun. I liked having a mix of librarians, collectors, and booksellers in the class. Without that mix it would not be as successful. 7: The case studies and examples in all areas covered by the course. 8: Well-prepared and experienced instructors; collegial and intelligent classmates.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: (1) I felt that the weakest content/presentation was the initial discussion of collectors and the tradition of collecting and its benefit to American libraries and institutions. (2) I think the discussion regarding tax &c. could be more beneficial if divided into or distributed throughout two days -- not all at one endless go! 2: The tax material was toughest -- I think I would consider (1) rewriting the (useful!) handout to include definitions of terms of art; (2) presenting material in the handout and in class in the same order; (3) spreading tax material over several days -- maybe one session per, rather than all together. 3: Props for the role-playing -- wine perhaps? -- would have improved my performance. 4: (1) Add fundraising to the course. (2) Integrate the syllabus with the reading list. (3) Invite some local collectors for an afternoon discussion over wine. (4) Encourage institutional (library, &c.) development officers to be class members! 6: The chairs were not comfortable for eight hours at a time. 8: More participation from donors and booksellers.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: I thought both TB and Jane Rodgers Siegel were an improvement over my last year’s experience of lectures. Ms Siegel was terrific! 2: Sunday, yes -- very interesting. I wasn’t sure Monday’s was as interesting as others I have heard -- but that might well be personal. 3: Yes. 4: Always interesting. Try to have one lecture in the Rotunda, or in the Small Library function room. 6: I went Sunday. It was nice and a good way to meet people and get a sense of TB. 7: Yes. 8: The Monday-night lecture (on American calligraphy) was extremely informative and entertaining.
9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
2: Yes -- I attended the Jane Eyre talk, which was interesting. 3, 6, 7: Yes.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: Yes! I think the enormous value in understanding relationships between development and collecting of institutions was primary for me -- not simply in the placing of one’s collection, but in the enormous contextual framework of library development office and institutional advancement. 2: Yes. Good faculty, good mix of students. 3: Absolutely! SA and WPB are first-rate teachers who got me interested and excited about matters all too easy to overlook in the profession. New territory is being explored here. I left the course with concrete ideas about my future career in rare books and special collections librarianship and/or the trade. 4: Yes, as usual! Nice interaction between WPB and SA -- having their personable and different perspectives made the class more valuable. 5: Yes, I think I will be able to put what I learned to good use. This class is a nice addition to the other special-collections classes. 6: Yes, absolutely. 7: Absolutely; terrific course. 8: Donors and booksellers could both profit from the course. Any librarian involved with development should take the course.
Number of respondents: 8
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
75% 50% 50% 50%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 25% 25% 37%
N/A: self- N/A: Self- N/A: stayed N/A: lived
employed, re- employed, with friends nearby
tired, or had retired, or or lived at
summers off exchange home
25% 25% 25% 13%
There were two rare book librarians (25%), two archivist/manuscript librarians (25%), one general librarian with some rare book duties (13%), one antiquarian bookseller (13%), one book collector (12%), and one administrator of rare books and special collections (12%).