How do you differentiate between courses you'd offer to undergrads, and those you'd offer to grad students?Or, more generally, what are you looking for in sample course syllabi, course blurbs, or course proposals when or if you request them of job applicants?
I had thought that they should always try to sound as mysterious and intriguing as possible, but I have no clue if that's what search committees want or if they want a tried and true standard. I do know that I have stumbled on discussing teaching before, unless it's comp. I always have things to say about comp, most of which is unprintable. But you never accuse me of coming off as vague or not having opinions. On the other hand, I often draw a blank in interviews when trying to propose an upper-division course or plan how to structure the survey.
And also reposted, just because it's so damn true:
I don't know if other disciplines will recognize this trend, but in my world, I also note that grad courses often sound way sexier and cooler than undergrad offerings. Look at the catalog, and you'll see undergrad courses like:
Complexification Subfield A
Topics in Complexification Subfield B
Survey of Complexification Subfield C
Flip over to the grad courses, though, and you'll see:
Two Apparently Unconnected Things Juxtaposed to Suggest an Insidious and Fascinating Structural Relationship
Going Beyond All This Subfield Shit
Broadside Critiques of Complexification Studies by Its Own Practitioners
And so on.
So true. And in lit grad courses you might even see a single-word title (Power.), or maybe even a list of them, fragmented with periods (Sex. Deviance. Poetry.), which these same professors would cheerfully commit murder over should they see this as the title of some undergraduate's essay.
Dr. Koshary has further questions to round out the topic of proposing grad and undergrad courses. So, could you go on over there and give the guy some encouragement and advice? And, you could also leave some suggestions for me over here, too, hint hint!