As most of the replies and QTs here suggest -- no, most programs don't offer classes or even workshops on how to write lectures for undergrad classes.
Which is *deeply* bizarre, given the assumption many have that that's where a lot of our grads will wind up.
I did my doctoral work at Cornell, and while there wasn't any formal instruction on lecturing, I TA'd for a lot of big lecture courses.
And in two of them (taught by the terrific lecturer Glenn Altschuler) I got a chance to give guest lectures each semester.
While the opportunity was invaluable, it was basically a toss into the deep end.
My first one was just *horrible* -- I mean, I felt bad for the students -- but the post-mortem conversation really helped (and fellow TA @JeffreyHyson was a mensch)
The second one was a *lot* better as a result.
(I know this because a student who took both classes came up to me after it to say "Kevin, that was great! Not like the last one. Oof, that was bad!")
I'm glad both experiences happened as a TA, with the stakes relatively low.
So now that I have my own lecture class, I do the same thing, offering grad students who are TAing for the first time a chance to give a lecture.
BUT!
I work with them at every stage -- the planning and prepping, giving a practice run in the lecture hall with notes after, etc.
The grad students do an amazing job with it, avoiding a repeat of my own failure the first time out. Students like the change of pace in the lecture course, and I love getting fresh takes on lectures I would otherwise offer myself. Wins all around.
It's an imperfect approach and one I can only do because I'm an Americanist with a large course and therefore a lot of TA spots.
Other places offer more formal training, which should be the norm.
But I doubt we'll see a move to that anytime soon, as TT jobs are dwindling and more & more PhDs are understandably looking for work outside academia where other training (public, digital, etc.) matter more.
It was the police officers who testified about the assault on the Capitol who linked the atrocities to the Republican Party, @SenJohnKennedy, and you’d know that if you gave a single damn about them.
Sure, Pelosi put Liz Cheney on the committee, and sure she was even going to let one of McCarthy's picks who voted to overturn the election on, but she didn't let *all* of the picks who voted to overturn the election on there, so clearly, *she* is being partisan and political.
If you're a reporter or pundit saying "actually, this was a gift to McCarthy," well, congratulations on picking up the "actually, this was good news ... for John McCain" torch from Mark Halperin.
Greg's whole piece is a must-read, but I thought I'd expand a bit on what I said here:
The Kerner Commission -- launched by LBJ to explore the causes and consequences of the urban riots of the 1960s -- featured some high-profile Republicans, including NYC Mayor John Lindsay, Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, and Representative William McCullough of Ohio.
This bill — which has already passed the Texas Senate — would drastically reduce the coverage of civil rights history in the state’s classrooms. news.bloomberglaw.com/social-justice…
This thread offers some jaw-dropping examples of what’s being left out.
I'm still trying to process how Carlson wrote about wanting to PUNCH A 69-YEAR-OLD MINISTER IN THE FACE because the civil rights leader had the audacity to denounce white supremacy while touring a memorial to the slave trade.
"Let's see your citations" is a pretty good rule of thumb for reporting, it turns out.
What's really remarkable about all this is how many critics of Critical Race Theory believe -- with 100% confidence -- that it was designed specifically and solely to make white kids feel bad.
Which is both insane and a deeply narcissistic & self-centered way to see the world.