I. Expected Student Outcomes: Fill & Download for Free

As a physics professor, I’ve taught students at every level in the university from freshman non-majors through doctoral students.The pedagogical tools are similar at all levels, in that active-learning methods are the most effective for promoting deep understanding and mastery. One should use pure lecture as sparingly as one can and do as much as possible to get the students talking and applying material right in the classroom. However, it is far easier to come up with classroom tabletop demonstrations for elementary courses than for advanced ones (those tend to get rather heavily mathematical), so the particular kinds of active learning one employs shift from the hand-on to the calculational and conceptual as one moves from freshmen through graduate students.In teaching undergraduates who are not majoring in the discipline, one must take care to connect what is being learned to areas that they are intrinsically interested in, whether academically or in real life. If students feel there is long-term value in what they are studying, they are more likely to put in significant effort to understand the concepts rather than merely trying to skate through the course.When teaching undergraduates who are majoring in the field, I expect that they are intrinsically interested in physics, so my job is to help them see how the particular subject matter ties into other areas of physics. Again, one wants them to appreciate the long-term value of the material — but now as it relates to their scientific studies and eventual careers. I expect them to be able to grasp not only the core concepts of the particular class but also the range of validity of the different methods we are using and how that corresponds to the natures of different physical situations one may be analyzing.I expect that graduate students have had a solid undergraduate preparation in the discipline and retain the essentials of the core areas. So in teaching more advanced material, I can draw on principles and results covered in undergraduate courses as a starting point and show how they fit together to yield new insights. I also expect that anyone electing to pursue graduate coursework is strongly interested in understanding the conceptual underpinnings of the field. This means that I feel more free to spend time on key derivations (rather than focusing solely on outcomes) as a way of illustrating methods they will find useful in their future research.At all levels, I expect students to come to class prepared (according to directions given in the syllabus and course website), to speak up in class and work actively on in-class projects, and to bring questions to me after class, via email, or during office hours.

Hack Reactor has a student outcomes team with a fantastic curriculum that I feel was worth the price of admission alone. Without giving away the hard work they've put into it, I'll tell you the following:+ Nobody has a clue what you're worth. Your employers will make an offer based on their own conclusions. If you were to tell me that you're worth $X, how would you justify it?+ If your program has a student outcomes team, you should go to them for advice on negotiations.

It depends entirely on the institution's standards and the advisor's standards. These can also vary across time. For instance, about 3-4 years after I started at Brown, we (computer science department) felt our thesis standards were lower than we would like, and consciously raised them.I expect my undergrads' honors theses to be comparable to a conference paper; less than that is usually not worth the while. They then typically also publish these as papers at regular conferences [NB: in computer science, conferences are the main publication venue, not journals].As others have pointed out, an undergrad could just be reproducing something already known. There is not only nothing wrong with this, it's a very good thing to do. For one thing, this is how true understanding happens. For another, it is often not trivial to do this. For yet another, every now and then, you get a different outcome! So this is heartily worthwhile, and indeed in my classroom teaching I do my best to get students to re-trace the historical arc of development of some ideas. However, I do not consider this sufficient for an undergraduate honors thesis; to me, this would only be a “project” (like an independent study—emphasis on “study”).In short, for me a good outcome is work comparable to a paper. Of course, I don't make it a requirement that it actually be published, but I expect it to be publishable (in my judgment)—or, in instances where the research is not successful, at least a comparable effort (that taught them how to do research). And since failure is uncommon, pretty much always, we do publish it.The other thing is, once a student has done publishable work, I ask them whether they still want to pursue the honors thesis. To me, the honors thesis is like an internal “consolation prize”, whereas publication in prestigious, peer-reviewed venues counts for much more. So the question is how our time is best spent. Most students agree with me and spend their time working on the paper rather than on the thesis. Some, however, would still like the honors designation on their diploma. It's their decision, and I always respect and obey their wishes on this count. But what that means is at least some of my students who would have had honors theses don't because they elected to just publish papers instead.See also Shriram Krishnamurthi's answer to Do professors usually benefit from their undergraduate researchers?.