<p>The truth about class like Org. Chem is that it needs a lot of work. It is not that hard, but some kids do not realise that time commitment is crucial. You cannot blame teacher and help is usually available. The average class score for D's last Org Chem exam was 63%. The failing grade is 50%. D got good grade because she devoted more than 30 hours of study for this test, her classmates obviously did not spend near as much. You can have good / bad teacher. It is more up to individual to study and seek help if it is needed.</p>
<p>How about graduate TA's at Harvard as opposed to also using undergraduate TA's?</p>
<p>I don't think there are enough graduate TAs for all the sciences/math classes. Many of them are admitted with funding from NSF or from their advising prof's grant and these sources require that the grad student spend his/her time doing research, not teaching. Graduate programs in math/science actually require that applicants apply to NSF. Some also ask about teaching experience (obviously expecting that experience to have been acquired as undergraduates).</p>
<p>My S has taken tutorials with graduate students; it's part of their training as future profs. But they are not TAs. They teach real courses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not a problem for a graduate student TA but this isn't approriate for an undergraduate who just took the course last year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As long as my TA knows the material well, I don't care whether they're a grad or an undergrad (I also don't care if they are a native English speaker, as long as I can <em>understand</em> them - I've had many non-native-English-speaker TAs who were excellent, and a couple where I simply had no idea what they were saying). Undergrad TAs are usually pretty well-vetted - my only qualm about them would be if some grad student was getting denied funding because an undergrad took their TAship, but in my experience undergrads don't get hired unless the grads are all funded. And as I said before, if a university sends many students to grad programs, the opportunity to TA is advantageous for the undergrads, and part of their educational experience.</p>
<p>It's not a big deal to me either way, as long as we're talking about quantitative courses. I haven't found status as an undergrad/grad/assistant prof/tenured prof to be a good predictor of teaching skills.</p>
<p>Undergraduate teaching assistants from an instructor's point of view:</p>
<p>The</a> Effective Use of Undergraduates to Staff Large Introductory CS Courses describes Prof. Stuart Reges' experience with undergraduate TAs at Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Summary
The quality of education in our introductory CS courses has increased tremendously in the past five years. Without spending any more money than we used to, we have been able to bring about the following changes. </p>
<p>Old system [Grad student TAs]: basic staffing unit was a ten-hour-per-week graduate student who:
- graded for thirty students
- often never even met the students he was grading
- knew little about Stanford computers
- knew little about Stanford intro courses
- was too far removed from intro students to understand their problems </p>
<p>New system [Undergrad TAs]: basic staffing unit is a ten-hour-per-week undergraduate student who:
- grades for ten to twelve students
- meets weekly with his students in a discussion section
- meets individually with students in weekly grading sessions
- knows about Stanford computers
- knows about Stanford intro courses
- is close enough to intro students to understand their problems
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Using</a> Undergraduates as Teaching Assistants At a State University describes Prof. Reges' experience implementing the same program at the University of Arizona: </p>
<p>
[quote]
Benefits for a State School
The section leader program has several benefits:
[...]
• Improved quality of instruction: Each graduate TA is replaced with 4 section leaders, which is a great increase in available manpower. [...] They also tend to be more familiar with the lab and with the particular teaching style we use.
[...]</p>
<p>We have mostly anecdotal evidence to support the observations above, but there are some facts worth mentioning.
[...]
• The department underwent an external review about halfway through this period and the committee made excellent comments about the section leader program. They said that many of the students they interviewed commented on the program and how its high quality underscored a problem in the quality of graduate Teaching Assistants.
[...]
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And for completeness, here's an additional paper about the Stanford program:</p>
<p>But the greatest benefits of an Undergraduate TA program are for the TAs themselves:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The students who benefit the most from the program are the section leaders themselves. Industry says that they want students with interpersonal skills, who can give presentations and who can work in groups. We develop many of those skills in our section leaders while paying them and allowing them to have fun along the way. A surprising aspect of the program both at Stanford and at the University of Arizona is high turnover. The students that we hire are so talented that they get offers for other kinds of work. The section leader program, then, serves as a launching ground for many undergraduates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the last two years, approximately ten former section leaders stayed for our graduate program, about half of them in the PhD program. This is a significant change for the department.
At least half of the undergraduates offered student research opportunities in the department are former section leaders. In fact, some of the CS faculty have expressed a concern that the section leader program is "too attractive" to talented young people who should be doing research instead.
[/quote]
</p>