<p>I doubt that she thought that TAs were inherently bad, just that a professor was more likely than a TA to have a) more subject matter knowledge based on experience, and b) be a better teacher based on experience. I don’t think that this is an unreasonable assumption. Please note that I used the words “more likely.” I know that there are some great TAs out there just as there are some crappy professors. Her father was a tenured professor at a highly regarded LAC, so coming from a family heavily involved in academia it’s interesting that her expectations about Harvard were so different than the reality she encountered. Or maybe before matriculating she just didn’t think having TAs would be that big a deal for her.</p>
<p>Well, that’s the difference between a LAC and a university. At Wellesley, I took Art 100, a very popular year-long art history survey course. This was by far the largest class I ever took there. There were several lectures per week, given in an auditorium where the prof could show slides. Each prof lectured on their specialty, as we moved from the ancient world on. The sections, which had no more than a dozen students, IIRC, met weekly, and were taught by professors, not TAs or adjuncts.</p>
<p>I had a friend who was a TA at H, back in the day. He was a graduate student in Celtic Lang & Lit, and taught a section of Freshman Comp. I have no idea whether he was a good teacher or not. I read a number of his students’ papers. Some of them would have resulted in the student being sent to remedial writing class at Wellesley, which didn’t have freshman comp. (We all had to take a writing test upon matriculation. I had forgotten all about it until this moment. 
)</p>
<p>@MiddKid86:
A) would be true about certain subject knowledge but might not matter one iota for that particular class (basic physical chem, or the whole calculus sequence, for instance).
I think that B) may be an unreasonable assumption. At many research universities, faculty teaching prowess almost doesn’t matter when it comes to promotion and tenure (though the tenure committee for a prof at my undergrad did ask me to submit a review). However, TAs are assessed and could lose their TAship if they are too terribly bad.</p>
<p>BTW, while the vast majority of classes at the Research U I attended for undergrad were taught by profs, one of the best classes I had there was a seminar taught by a grad student TA (he’s now a prof at SOAS).</p>
<p>@boysx3: </p>
<p>Nah, I don’t think that’s true. Maybe only a third of Harvard rejects are good enough for Harvard (lots of no-hopers apply there as well).</p>
<p>Of course, 25 years ago, a third of Harvard admits probably weren’t good enough for Harvard. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I’m certainly no expert on the current status of American academia, but it seems to me that if on the campuses where using TAs is standard practice the average TA does just as good a job as the average member of the faculty, then it should be pretty easy to find some ways to bring down the cost of attending those schools.</p>
<p>The average TA does as good a job as a member of the faculty AT THE WORK ASSIGNED TO TAs. They are leading discussions or labs, answering freshman-level questions, and grading papers and exams. I have no reason to think they’d be as good at designing the course, lecturing, writing the textbook, running research labs, etc. They don’t do that.</p>
<p>FWIW, some LACs use TAs, too. My Psych 101 course at Bryn Mawr had graduate student TAs leading labs. If you’re wondering if you can tell the difference between the sort of student who’s in the psychology PhD program at Bryn Mawr vs. the ones at Harvard…yes, you can. Readily. We’re talking about highly accomplished people. A number of my Harvard TAs are now tenured faculty at LACs. <a href=“Aviva Briefel | Bowdoin College”>http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/a/abriefel</a> was a great one; she led my section of Marjorie Garber’s Shakespeare course. </p>
<p>@MiddKid86:</p>
<p>Sure, if the primary purpose of American research universities is instructing undergrads in mostly introductory courses.</p>
<p>Strange as it may seem to you, though, almost all American research universities deem research to be one of their main missions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Au contraire, it doesn’t seem at all strange to me. If you’re an undergraduate, however, I would think that you would prefer the emphasis (THE main mission) to be on teaching.</p>
<p>The year I took Shakespeare at Harvard the professor was so bad I stopped going to his lectures. Luckily the TA was great!</p>
<p>I was a TA in grad school. I taught ASL…no one on the faculty was as proficient as I was (at the time). I was supervised by the department chairperson who was actually the instructor of record. I hope my students appreciated my teaching. Not Harvard!</p>
<p>But back to the subject. Every top student has the potential to be “good enough for Harvard”. But only the adcoms will actually recommend admission…and to less than 10% of applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly do not think you are right about this. Leading a discussion drawing on decades of experience, grading papers with experience and judgement - I hope that as a professor I am far better than all but the most remarkable TA.</p>
<p>But back to the subject. I once remember reading an article in some magazine that included an interview with a Princeton admission officer. The officer stated that she could go to some 3 story on campus parking structure and throw off all the applicant files and then go down and the first 3000ish files she picked up randomly probably could be offered admission and would be comparable to each other in what an applicant brought to table in that the file would reveal an excellent well rounded applicant. I’ll guess a Harvard admission officer could say something similar. OP, congrats to D on her accomplishments so far, very impressive. But receiving and reviewing thousands of application from other excellent well rounded impressive students is the norm in the admission offices of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, etc, and almost all applicants at each fail to gain admittance. I’m not trying to diminish your D’s impressive record or her pursuit of her dreams, it’s just reality. And even if offered admission, any posts above referencing whether D would be a good fit at Harvard or wherever raise an issue that is worth giving very serious thought to. Good luck to D.</p>
<p>If you look at the ratio of grant income to tuition at Harvard, its surprising that they bother to teach undergraduates at all. :)</p>
<p>OP, not to beat a topic to death but besides generally trying to seek out a diverse group of superstars who are excellent, impressive and well rounded, Harvard admissions like most schools may give preference to applicants who fill some specific departmental need. Schools can’t be all about smart kids as if that was the case, schools would only need classrooms and libraries. Schools tend to like diversity and besides smart scholarly types, Harvard need athletes, band players, orchestra players, singers, debate members, drama, alumni related, etc. So when it comes down to two equally excellent, impressive, well rounded superstars, one who say is a world class cello player might get the offer of admittance v an applicant who is “merely” an excellent, impressive, well rounded superstar. </p>
<p>@MiddKid86:</p>
<p>My response was a rebuttal to your idea that if TAs are so great, costs can be cut at research universities.</p>
<p>And certainly, you should get more individualized instruction (some would call it coddling) at colleges where teaching undergrads is their primary mission. That’s why LACs have their appeal. Personally, I think highly of many of them. However, the top research universities offer leaders in their fields & breadth as well as depth in many academic offerings & great research resources. For the kid who wants that stuff (or simply a bigger school) & especially if he/she is the type who takes charge of their own education, attending a research university as an undergrad may make more sense. Plus, as @Hanna pointed out, at the top research universities (or any research university that is great in its field), the TAs will be pretty darn bright and top-quality. As she pointed out, many of them will become profs at LACs, in fact. Will they be better at certain aspects of instruction by the time they become profs compared to when they were TAs? Sure. Is the improvement in quality immense? Probably not enough to offset the advantages of a research university to a kid who values those aspects.</p>
<p>@dadx:</p>
<p>Personally, I think that Harvard and certain other research universities take in undergrads mostly so that they can produce alums who will donate back and grow the endowment.</p>
<p>Good to see support of TA’s after post #10’s comment. You choose your school for the type of education you want. </p>
<p>Choose a top research school with grad students and you may get to take grad level courses or do work in grad labs eventually. You get TA’s who are closer in age and memory of taking your level courses. You may get more intelligent mentors (they had to be accepted at top U after all) for discussions.</p>
<p>I have seen posts on CC where a parent stated their undergrad child was acting as a teaching assistant at some LAC- I find that a horrible event, both for the students being taught and the student spending their time teaching instead of taking another top level class. </p>
<p>I have had good and bad professors and TA’s. I don’t think I would enjoy being one of the few professors in a STEM field at many LACs where most students are not that interested in my field. Also- there are some classes a TA is ideal for. Consider the first 4 semesters of a foreign language- a grad student in that language or your HS teacher with a bachelor’s degree, is there any difference? Don’t need a PhD to teach the basics. Remedial classes- anything that is at the HS level doesn’t need a PhD. It is great having world class labs and TA’s monitoring them and discussions.</p>
<p>Purple Titan- disagree totally with your statement about top research U’s. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As the author of post #10, I would like to know: what part of that post do you find objectionable, or that required a response in support of TAs? It was simply an inquiry, with no opinion expressed one way or another.</p>
<p>OP, she should apply if she’d like to enter the lottery, but she should by no means get her heart set on it. Schools like Harvard are not a sure thing for any applicant.</p>
<p>Is she also looking at schools which are slightly less selective? Please note that “less selective” does NOT mean “inferior.”</p>
<p>And – most important – does her list include a safety which she would be happy to attend?</p>
<p>Op,
Your daughter sounds great but her stats are probably the same as many or most of the other applicants to Harvard.</p>