<p>
</p>
<p>I think this point is easy to miss. You don’t need someone with a PHD to teach an introduction to symbolic logic, or elementary German, or a first course in calculus, although they nearly always do so anyway. Graduate students are probably capable enough, under the supervision of another professor, to teach such courses themselves. I had one class at UCLA that was led by graduate students. I didn’t particularly like their class since they were much more strict than my regular professor, but it’s indisputable that they had the material mastered. They wouldn’t have been admitted to such programs if they didn’t.</p>
<p>Quite a bit of data ha been thrown around in this thread. But where is the data on the supposed pedagogical advantages of having a professor, adjunct or not, leading sections as opposed to a graduate student? And even if there are such advantages, why would you cite it as a defect of research universities? Such virtues are ubiquitous of liberal arts colleges, and perhaps a handful of RUs such as Chicago and Caltech. But these universities are the exceptions. I doubt such a model is even followed at most of the Ivies.</p>