<p>I don't think that the issue is of faculty teaching or of endowment. For example, there is only one Michael Sandel in the whole world, but 800+ undergrads want to take his course. S was very happy to be allowed into a course that was estimated to enroll only 30+ students but has nearly 300 students; he was afraid he might be lotteried out. Fortunately, the prof succeeded in lining up enough grad students to serve as TFs. The TF do not teach: they lead discussion sections. </p>
<p>The point the Stanford graduate was making is that many undergrads would actually prefer to be entirely taught by TFs. He claimed that the courses he took from the graduate students were some of the best there. The graduate student instructors were knowledgeable about their subjects (having just taken their generals) enthusiastic, fresh. And probably less intimidating than the profs. Part of the distance between undergrads and faculty at Harvard is precisely that undergrads feel more comfortable approaching their TFs than their profs. They go to Harvard because of the big name profs, but they are also easily intimidated. </p>
<p>One cannot always evaluate one's own performance accurately, especially when one knows how much work went into preparing, the difficulties finding examples, illustrations, etc... So I am not sure how to judge Stanford post-doc's own self-evaluation. He may be right that his students got a poor deal--though if he was not good at teaching as a graduate student, the mere fact of becoming a prof won't improve it. Becoming a prof has to do with getting a Ph.D.--which involves writing a dissertation, not acquiring teaching skills. Or he may be wrong, and his students were happy with his performance.</p>