Moral issues aside, TF can make or break a student's experience in a course. Currently, undergraduates can choose courses based on the professor. In introductory language courses, where the professor is often absent, or in larger Core classes and intro courses, a student deserves to know who might be grading his or her work, and who will be answering questions.

In larger courses, sections and the TFs that go with them exist as a check on classroom overcrowding. While a student might not ever be able to pick that favorite TF, as sectioning is often randomized, listing the TFs for these courses would at least give students an idea of a course's personnel structure. Presently, the course listing for Social Analysis 10, the largest course at Harvard with dozens of TFs, is indistinguishable, content aside, from a course on Livy's history of Rome, where ten undergraduates meet with a full professor and no TF at all. If we are to believe the administration that both these approaches to teaching are valid--and I do--then there is no harm in letting the students choose the approach that suits them in a given area of study.

Course syllabi already list TFs for students who visit a class on the first day, but it is unlikely that a student will be able to visit every course he or she considers taking. So list TFs before the first day of class. Put the information up on the Web as it becomes available. Correct it as necessary. Print the names of TFs along with the corrections and new information in the course supplement. People who enable group learning among Harvard's students should be recognized, whether they are the professors or their teaching fellows.

Right now, the course listings are erroneous. At best, they omit TF involvement. At worst, they list professors where there are only TFs. When the book that lists our courses cannot be considered a sound body of knowledge, what are we to make of the courses that it contains?

John M. DeStefano '01 is a Classics concentrator in Pforzheimer House.