Christopher Stedman Parmenter, The Ohio State University
One of the most bewildering aspects of the transition from graduate student or contingent faculty to the tenure-track is the new, supervisory role one takes over the curriculum. When on the job market, applicants are expected to think creatively. Almost every job advertisement invites applicants to think up new courses that enrich (link), diversify (link), or expand (link) the existing curriculum; many postdoctoral (link) fellowships (link) reward applicants for coming up with course proposals that introduce upper level undergraduates to new and exciting research topics. But once the transition has been made to the tenure track, successful candidates are faced with a new reality. At most institutions, one cannot simply propose and teach a course; there are layers of feedback, review, and administrative approval that can stretch on for months. The goal of this paper is to lead attendees at the SCS Graduate Student Committee’s panel at the annual meeting through the process of proposing, planning, and eventually teaching a new course.
The most daunting aspect of this process comes in a rubric commonly used at state universities: the Expected Learning Outcome (ELO). Since the 2008 Recession, state-run institutions have faced unprecedented pressures to prepare undergraduates for a job market that grows more and more hostile to humanities students every year. The typical administrative response has been to increase the administrative burden on faculty (link) to prove the value of their course offerings as state support has decreased or come attached to new stipulations for workforce development. At many state-run universities (including where I teach), faculty proposing a new course are expected to demonstrate their course meets a variety of ELOs that change depending on the topic. These course applications often prove to be a minefield, as faculty are expected to justify their teaching using specific vocabulary that satisfies state accreditation requirements. At the same time, as many states—including mine—impose draconian new bans on teaching gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or race (link), the burden falls on instructors to defend their right to instruct using language that will not draw scrutiny from anti-CRT hawks in the legislature.
So what is to be done? Using the example of a recent course I had approved on race and ethnicity in ancient Greece and Rome, I will lead attendees through the process of proposing an addition to the curriculum. Beginning with the questions you should ask about the curriculum during the campus visit stage, we will move onto writing a proposal, identifying which ELOs to meet—if you have the luxury of choice—and how to navigate the expectations set by curricular review committees at various levels. Finally, I will discuss how to fit what often constitutes a major demand on your time in the scheme of your first year on the faculty.