Mfcttrf

(ETA: Assuming you already have funding) is TA-ing worth the opportunity cost of doing more research?
What are the relevant considerations?

I've always heard that focusing on research is a better use of time for boosting one's CV for applying for (ETAx3: competitive, research-focused) faculty positions, and that they really don't care very much about teaching experience. But recently, I've heard a lot of people saying the opposite.

I'm sure it depends on the field somewhat.
I'm in machine learning, some characteristics of the field which seem relevant are:
- It is fast-paced and highly collaborative.
- Professors often act more as project managers and don't do as much research.
- Successful grad students often publish several papers a year.

ETA (x2): I'm specifically curious about how it looks on a CV, not about other benefits (e.g. learning useful skills)

Most people who TA don't have an option as it is what pays the bills and allows them to study. It is less valuable if you can pay your own way.

But it isn't entirely without value. I once held a full fellowship for study (multi year), but it still required that I spend one of those years doing the equivalent of a TA. The feeling was that it is valuable experience for any academic, even at an R1 university. And, FWIW, I actually made more progress after the fellowship ended and I was a "lowly" TA.

But not everyone winds up at an R1 and elsewhere, teaching is more highly valued. And a variety of skills on a CV is, IMO, an advantage, though others may disagree.

Additionally, having something to do other than your research is a useful way to let your mind rest and integrate ideas, which is a key part of learning. And a variety of experiences can be valuable in keeping yourself flexible for the future. And "more" research doesn't necessarily equate to "better" research.

Most doctoral students get along quite well having some duties, such as a TA position, in addition to their research.

But whether it is worth the opportunity cost or not is a completely personal thing. Maybe yes, maybe no. Think about your own needs and resources.

Absolutely yes. If you have teaching experience on your CV, you can claim that you're good at presenting, you know how to mentor juniors, you have worked with people from other cultures, you are able to work in groups towards a common goal (if you didn't teach alone, which you probably don't as a TA), you know how to manage disputes, and so on. Plus you probably get a lot of examples that you can use to illustrate your skills in an interview.

Of course it's possible the job you're going into don't care about these things, but I can practically guarantee that if you ever need to apply for an industrial job, these things will matter.

For these reasons I'd have TA'ed for free even if my department didn't pay me.

Being a TA during a PhD is not beneficial. The downsides are:

• A longer PhD at low pay


• Reduced research output

The advantages are:

• Building teaching experience. However, since almost everyone has it, TA experience is not meaningful on the job market. You need to have experience teaching entire courses to be competitive.


• You will learn to teach better. However, most universities are not bothering to properly train their TAs. Investigate what training opportunities your university has.


• You might enjoy it.

My overall advice would be to seek out opportunities to teach an entire course instead of being TA.

Now, if you have the opportunity to be a TA before you get your PhD, that might help you get into a better PhD program. This could be a much better deal.