next »

[marigolds]

I've TAed a couple of large lecture classes in which the professors had the TAs create and give one of the lectures.  I have seen some people put that under "invited talks," but that seems maybe a little BS-ey.  What do you think, wise fora?  If that's the norm, I'll do it, but I don't want to pad.

(Also, I have some expertise in a particular kind of pedagogy, and was hired by the Group of People Who Love That Pedagogy on my campus to co-write, with another instructor with expertise in that are, materials for faculty training them in this pedagogy. It's up on that group's website now.  What header would that fall under?)

Shall we just call this "marigolds' job materials thread"?

[anorak]

I'm still applying to positions so my advice is not the most expert, but I list a couple of guest lectures in my teaching experience section.  I only do this for the couple of lectures I've given for courses in which I was not the assigned TA (or instructor).  For the classes where I was the TA and I gave occasional lectures, I describe my experience with the course in my cover letter but don't list the lectures anywhere separately on my CV.

Regarding the materials for faculty training that you created, maybe you can put them under service?

[dalekk]

It doesn't matter at all.  Include it or not as you prefer.  I assure you that you're not going to get an interview based upon a "guest lecture" in a class for which you were a TA.  I can also assure you they are not going to decide not to interview you based upon that.  If I were you, I would not include it just b/c it makes you look bush league and grad studentish.

[zyzzx]

In my teaching experience section I list the courses that I've TAed, and for each course I have a line about my responsibilities (i.e. taught labs, wrote and graded homework and exams, held office hours, gave substitute lectures), since this can vary widely in my field. The lecture-giving would go in there. For a class in which I was not the official TA, I wouldn't bother.
For the pedagogy creation, I'd put in under teaching experience.

[anisogamy]

I would skip listing the TA lectures at all on your CV.  Actually, I've done similar TA lectures and have never listed mine on my CV (but I also don't specify what my TA duties were on my CV).  If the position would include teaching large lecture classes, and if that were your only experience teaching large lectures, and if you feel that it is absolutely prudent to do so, you could briefly note it in your teaching paragraph of your cover letter.  You can also ask one of your letter writers to speak to it in their letter on your behalf.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

It is no more appropriate for a TA to list the title of a single teaching lecture than it is for a professor to do so. You list the job. If there is something specific you want to say about what you did through that job, that goes in the letter (as noted above).

[pink_]

I can see including a mention of this in the  teaching section since lecturing to a large class is rather different from leading a discussion section or teaching a small class for which you are instructor of record, but to my mind that is not an invited talk.

[marigolds]

Thanks--we are all on the same page then.

[seniorscholar]

"Invited Talks" is one of the most generally laughable sections of the c.v. for most new PhD applications. I've seen them with 12 individually titled talks at the "MUGSS" (translatable to "My University Graduate Student Seminar," since we also have one of those at which doctoral students present their current chapter or their current version of a chapter transformed to an article for submission); and innumerable ones of the Guest Lecture at one of the large courses for which said person has served as TA (as can be seen under the teaching section).

These Do Not Count. An "Invited Talk" or "Guest Lecture" is something which you have been invited -- by a letter or e-mail, with arrangements specified -- to present at another university or by an academic conference or, at the very least, by a significant organization at your university or (as sometimes happens) by a local library, museum, high school, etc.

As others have said, however, the fact that you have lectured in a large class for which you were TA is worth mentioning in your teaching paragraph if you're applying for a post in which large lectures are a common teaching assignment. And since I'm one of the people who always "invites" (i.e., forces) my TAs for the big lecture to do this, I mention it in my letter of reference which -- whether I'm dissertation supervisor or not -- grad students almost always ask me to write, since they want someone to have mentioned how brilliant their lecture to 125 students was.

[prof_smartypants]

Agree with the TA lecture stuff, but I definitely think you should include the teaching materials somewhere. Maybe under publications? I have mine divided up into "edited books", "peer-reviewed journal articles", "book chapters" and "other publications" - the latter is where I put things I published in student journals, and I think this is where I'd put your pedagogy training materials.

[marigolds]

Thanks, smarty--I sure wasn't going to put it under normal publications because it's not peer-reviewed, but if I subdivide that category that wouldn't feel dishonest or as though I were padding by including it. 

[prof_smartypants]

Thanks, smarty--I sure wasn't going to put it under normal publications because it's not peer-reviewed, but if I subdivide that category that wouldn't feel dishonest or as though I were padding by including it. 

indeed. It's also where I put book reviews.

Is this common - where others include things like book reviews, non-peer reviewed papers (i.e. conference proceedings), and the like?

[marigolds]

Thanks, smarty--I sure wasn't going to put it under normal publications because it's not peer-reviewed, but if I subdivide that category that wouldn't feel dishonest or as though I were padding by including it. 

indeed. It's also where I put book reviews.

Is this common - where others include things like book reviews, non-peer reviewed papers (i.e. conference proceedings), and the like?

I hope not!  Not in my field--it seems (from the models I'm using from my department, at least) like people have a conferences category, a book reviews category (if they've done a lot), and a peer-reviewed pubs category.  This just doesn't obviously fit into any of those, but if I generalize and abstract-ify the categories some (non-peer-reviewed) it should be fine.

I just don't want to look like a wackaloon.

[glowdart]

Thanks, smarty--I sure wasn't going to put it under normal publications because it's not peer-reviewed, but if I subdivide that category that wouldn't feel dishonest or as though I were padding by including it. 

indeed. It's also where I put book reviews.

Is this common - where others include things like book reviews, non-peer reviewed papers (i.e. conference proceedings), and the like?

I hope not!  Not in my field--it seems (from the models I'm using from my department, at least) like people have a conferences category, a book reviews category (if they've done a lot), and a peer-reviewed pubs category.  This just doesn't obviously fit into any of those, but if I generalize and abstract-ify the categories some (non-peer-reviewed) it should be fine.

I just don't want to look like a wackaloon.

I might put it under service, myself, but the rest of my pubs are regular pubs.  I'm also no longer a grad student, and my "service" categories are many and varied enough to accommodate something like that with ease.  For you, I'd try to find it a logical home, which might be service or might be under a sub-heading of teaching or publishing. 

Having seen people claim that a packet of course readings printed through one of those custom book publishers as a publication, I am increasingly wary of anything strange-looking that is housed under publications.  (Your example is much closer than compiling a reader.)

Do you have any other editing or digital humanities experience?  This might be housed in that kind of a sub-heading.  Have you created any other teaching materials like this for other purposes or groups?  It could also be a "Related Teaching Whatevers" category.  Think, too, about how you want or need to sell yourself to certain jobs.  Would a category of this kind of material make sense to highlight these experiences (if there are multiples) or does it make more sense to fold it into an established category as a side-note? 

[prof_smartypants]

Thanks, smarty--I sure wasn't going to put it under normal publications because it's not peer-reviewed, but if I subdivide that category that wouldn't feel dishonest or as though I were padding by including it. 

indeed. It's also where I put book reviews.

Is this common - where others include things like book reviews, non-peer reviewed papers (i.e. conference proceedings), and the like?

I hope not!  Not in my field--it seems (from the models I'm using from my department, at least) like people have a conferences category, a book reviews category (if they've done a lot), and a peer-reviewed pubs category.  This just doesn't obviously fit into any of those, but if I generalize and abstract-ify the categories some (non-peer-reviewed) it should be fine.

I just don't want to look like a wackaloon.

Yes, and what Glowdart said.

I think you and I are at the point where having a heading for everything with one thing listed looks ridiculous, so to condense into related categories makes more sense.