<p>It’s a good theory. In my admittedly limited experience, it never quite works out in practice. When I was a TA, a very long time ago, I was thrown into discussion groups with no training whatsoever, little in the way of an outline, and almost nothing in the way of expectations. I was expected to grade papers and exams, but had no experience doing so. Still, in this case, the professor really taught all the new material, had office hours that were real, etc. (The reality, though, was that I could often give a better lecture than the prof. - I was more up-to-date on research and critical theory, and my jokes were less stale.)</p>
<p>With my d., currently, it is a little different. She is expected to present and teach new material that the professor doesn’t cover. She grades all papers and exams, and gives the final grade. (The professor signs off, but since he hasn’t seen any of the students’ stuff, he really doesn’t have a choice, unless there is a rare appeal.) She meets with students rather than the prof. And since she is supposedly the “head TA”, she “supervises” the other TAs, not the prof. So it is a good theory that the students get two instructors, but they aren’t really working with the same material. (The prof does divide up the material between them.) </p>
<p>Now she’s really smart, and really well-informed. But to argue that the BEST undergraduate education in the country comes from her is really, REALLY a stretch.</p>