Stephen Greenberg
C-60: Examining the Medical Book
17–21 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: They were very good selections particularly for providing a broad overview of medical history. 2: Very useful, especially the history of medicine text, Duffin. 4: I found it helpful and I selected to read the Jaclyn Duffin book which was quite useful. 5: The readings gave a very good overview for someone new to the field. 6: The pre-course readings were excellent books 7: They were not particularly useful to me. 10: Very helpful. 12: I read all the materials; they were basic background. 13: The pre-course reading was very helpful.
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: I didn’t need to refer to them during the course, and most of them are available to me at my institution. 2: I think they would have been more useful if they had been required reading. 4: Yes, I will be using the information distributed for this course. 5: I believe SG’s BibKit will be helpful to me in the future. 6: No. 7: Perhaps in the future as a reference. 8: I think so. 10: Very helpful. 12: These materials will be of limited use to me. 13: Not sure—I haven’t thoroughly looked through them yet.
3) Have you taken one or more RBS courses before? If so, how did this course compare with your previous coursework?
1-2: N/A. 3: Took one course at California RBS with Susan Allen that was terrific. This course was TERRIBLE. He is woefully uninformed about the history and not that knowledgeable about the book side of things. And if one tried to suggest something, he got defensive and/or dismissive. 4-5: N/A. 6: No. This is my first RBS course. Frankly, it was extremely disappointing. I would not recommend it in its current incarnation to anyone. 7-9: N/A. 10: Yes. This course was equally excellent. 12: No, first course. 13: This is my first course.
4) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes?
1: The review of illustrative techniques was quite helpful. I also appreciated the discussion of PubMed search strategies. 2: The history of medicine and key medical texts. 4: Discussing the history, the types of printing, engraving, paper, &c. and seeing and touching the many examples. 5: This was a good course for a beginner—I appreciated the overview of the printing and illustration processes as well as the “Aristotle to AIDS” introduction to the history of medicine. 6: The discussion of illustration processes would have been helpful, but it was too vague and disjointed to add much to the knowledge I had gained through the pre-readings. 7: Everything dealing with the Vesalius. 8: The first day when we did a book history crash course and the last day when some classmates shared their research projects. 10: The opportunity to carefully examine some iconic books in the history of medicine. 12: Visit to SC. 13: I was interested in learning more about the history of medicine for my job.
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?
4: For my purposes the course met my needs. 5: I was afraid coming into the class that it would be above my level, but in actuality it really helped me to get some of the basic knowledge that I will need to organize and interpret the small history of medicine collection at my institution. 6: No. The intellectual level was not appropriate. Often vague and disjointed, with many factual errors. We never talked about what actually made medical books different from other books, which I believed to be the focus of the course. No real discussion of off-prints, journals, &c. in his history, despite the course description. 7: No, I was disappointed with the course overall. I thought I would learn more about specific, select, rare medical books instead of a gloss-over of so many of them. 10: The instructor used a variety of sources and media to gather and disseminate the information. Intellectual level appropriate for the audience. 11: No. 12: No. No. 13: No. No.
6) What did you like best about the course?
1: The visit to National Library of Medicine and seeing their materials was definitely wonderful, as was meeting the other course students. 2: The tour of the NLM and seeing their collections. 4: The visits to the Health Sciences Special Collection and NLM. 5: I enjoyed the hands-on time with the NLM materials. Also I met some fabulous people working and researching in the field. 6: N/A. 7: SG explained the different types of illustrations better and more clearly than anyone ever has. 8: My classmates were great—such a good blend of people with different interests and backgrounds. 10: Rare books! (RBS, UVA, and NLM collections). 12: The students. 13: I loved meeting my classmates, learning about their work, and sharing ideas. I also enjoyed having so many opportunities for hands-on experience with rare books.
7) How could the course have been improved?
1: More emphasis on the connection between book and medical history—instead of one day on each one, relate the history of the book as seen in medical publishing. 3: In every way: 1. More focus. 2. A knowledgeable professor. 3. More rigor. 4: I would like a bit more on the production of the books and perhaps a little more discussion of the history. 5: Perhaps more focus on later (c19 and c20) important works. Less history of the NLM. 6: It needs to be completely reconceived. The instructor needs to devote more time to preparation and less time to promoting his institution in class. 7: Focus on 10 – 15 medical text and talk only about those for the week. 10: More time with the books—less videos (these could be viewed independently).
8) Did you learn what the course description/advertisement indicated you would learn? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1: Yes? Not quite. I fell into a weird zone where I knew a fair amount of the basic medical history we covered and less about the book aspects. 2: Yes. 3: No. 4: Yes. 5: Yes, overall. The description noted how “medical books were the same and different” as other books. Not sure we really addressed this—but that is fine with me. 6-7: No. 9-10: Yes. 12: No.
9) Did you learn what you wanted in the course? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1: No. Once again, not quite. I would have liked more emphasis on medical books and how they were affected by printing techniques. 2: Yes/No. 3: No. 4: Yes. I did not have any specific expectations, only to learn as much as possible. 5: Yes. The course gave me some good foundation information. 6-7: No. 8. No. 9-10: Yes. 11-12: No. 13: No.
10) How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?
1: It gave me ideas on how I might present our materials to others, particularly in the context of book production and how illustrative techniques changed. 2: I plan to use them for collection development, reference, and exhibition research. 3: I leave with nothing new. I try to always find something to take away, but aside from the great Esther Scrolls talk, this was a bust. And it’s $3k out of my pocket. L 4: This information will be useful in assessing my collection and in helping patrons at my library. I feel more knowledgeable about how the books were produced and the significance of certain works. 5: I manage a small history of medicine collection that needs much work—organization, preservation, interpretation, and I think the overview in this class will help me to engage with the materials with more understanding. 6: N/A. 7: In my work. 10: The information will help me to evaluate and understand the historical significance of books I hope to encounter in the future. 12: N/A.
11) If your course left its classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?
1: NLM was well worth the trip. 2: Yes—both trips were very interesting. 3: No. 4: For my purposes, yes. 5: Yes, I enjoyed the time at the NLM. 7: Yes, but I would have preferred the course just be at NLM the whole week rather than at UVA. 8: Yes—the trip was long but good. 9: Yes. 10: Trips to UVA Health Sciences Library and NLM were high points. 12: Somewhat.
12) If you attended the evening events (e.g., RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers’ Night) were they worth attending?
1: The lectures were great. 2: Very much so. Learned a great deal. 3: Esther Scrolls talk—GREAT. 4: Yes. 5: Yes—very much enjoyed Sharon Mintz’s talk. 6: RBS lectures were well worth attending! We missed the Booksellers’ Night because we were on the field trip. 8-9: Yes. 10: Lectures were superb. 12: Lecture was interesting. 13: N/A.
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: Seeing the illustrative techniques up close was VERY USEFUL. Everyone was careful with the objects. 3: All good. 6: I don’t have any suggestions. We and they seemed well cared for! 10: Ample attention is paid to proper care of the materials. 13: Perhaps provide some quick and basic instructions for handling books?
14) Did you (or your institution) get your money’s worth? Would you recommend this course to others?
2: Yes, and I hope to go back. 3: Not at all. No. 4: I would for anyone who is relatively new to the history of medicine and rare books. 5: Yes, and yes. 6: No, and no. 7: Only if they had no prior knowledge of medical rare books. If you use them every day, this course was not useful. 8: 9: Yes, maybe. 10: Yes, and yes. 11: No, but other RBS courses. 12–13: No. No.
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: This class as is mainly for those with no knowledge of medical history or books. Integrating the two aspects could make it more appropriate for those with a bit more knowledge. 6: Don’t take it unless it has been revised dramatically. 10: A rare opportunity to study the rare medical book in both academic and major library settings.
Aggregate Statistics
Number of respondents: 13
Leave
Institution gave me leave: 10 (77%)
I took vacation time: 1 (8%)
N/A: self-employed, retired, or had summers off: 2 (15%)
Tuition
Institution paid tuition: 9 (70%)
I paid tuition myself: 2 (15%)
N/A: self-employed, retired, or scholarship: 2 (15%)
Housing
Institution paid housing: 7 (54%)
I paid for my own housing: 3 (23%)
N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home: 3 (23%)
Travel
Institution paid travel: 4 (31%)
I paid my own travel: 7 (54%)
N/A: lived nearby: 2 (15%)
Which one category most closely defines what you do for a living, or why you are at RBS? (Please check only one category)
Archivist: 1 (8%)
Book Collector: 1 (8%)
Ph.D. (humanities): 2 (15%)
Librarian with some rare book duties: 4 (30%)
Rare Book Librarian: 2 (15%)
University, assistant professor: 1 (8%)
University, full or associate professor: 1 (8%)
No response: 1 (8%)
How did you hear about this course?
RBS website: 11 (84%)
Advertisement: 1 (8%)
Word of mouth: 1 (8%)