TA Handbook
A guide for STRAT 325 Teaching Assistants
Introduction
Thank you for contributing your time and effort to STRAT 325. This course is designed as a high-touch experience where students receive sustained, individualized support as they develop consulting skills and navigate the recruiting process.
You will be assigned to one pod of 7-8 students who become your primary responsibility throughout the semester. Your role is to mentor these students as they build mastery of The Consultant’s OS and prepare for management consulting recruiting.
Your Role
Unlike traditional TA roles focused primarily on grading, this position emphasizes mentorship. You will:
- Develop deeper relationships with students in your pod
- Provide individualized guidance, feedback, and accountability
- Support students through group-based projects
- Help teams structure their thinking, diagnose weaknesses, and improve execution
Success Metrics
Your barometer for success: by semester’s end, your students have demonstrated mastery of The Consultant’s OS and have had repeated, meaningful opportunities to practice each skill across both recruiting preparation and applied consulting work.
Pod Structure
Approximately 48 students are registered, with eight teaching assistants/case coaches. Each TA mentors approximately 6 students organized into a pod.
Pod Purpose
Each pod serves three functions:
- Support system: People rooting for students’ success and checking in on progress
- Practice interview partners: 5 peers to practice behavioral and case interviews with
- Peer feedback: Resume reviews, story refinement, and honest input
TA Touchpoints
| Touchpoint | Timing | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Goals Worksheet + Chat | Week 2 | Establish recruiting goals and development focus |
| TA Mentoring Session 1 | Weeks 4-5 | Baseline practice interview, identify focus areas |
| TA Mentoring Session 2 | Weeks 9-10 | Progress check practice interview, calibrated feedback |
| TA Mentoring Session 3 | Week 14 | Final practice interview evaluation with full context |
Note: TA Mentoring Sessions replace the previous 4 feedback sessions. Each session is a full practice interview (behavioral + case) that allows you to track student growth over time.
Individual Mentoring
Most assignments in this course are completed individually. Your role is to assess progress against The Consultant’s OS toolkit, helping students build both external competence in core skills and internal confidence in applying those skills under ambiguity and pressure.
Goals Worksheet + Chat
What it is: Students complete a Goals Worksheet before meeting with you for a 20-minute conversation. This worksheet becomes a living document you’ll reference throughout the semester in TA Mentoring Sessions.
Goals Worksheet Sections:
- Career Direction: Ideal first 2-4 years, summer 2026/2027 plans
- Target Firms: Top 3 firms with rationale
- Self-Assessment: Rate 1-4 on each practice interview rubric dimension
- Development Focus: 2-3 priority skills + action plan
- Definition of Success: What “winning” looks like by May
- TA Notes: Your observations, commitments made, flags to monitor
During the chat, explore:
- What does an ideal first 2-4 years of your career look like, and why?
- What does “success” look like at the end of this recruiting season?
- What are your plans for summer 2026 and summer 2027?
- Which firms are at the top of your list? What differentiates them in your mind?
- Which practice interview dimensions (behavioral or case) are your biggest opportunities for development?
- How should I push you to success? What’s your preferred learning style?
Grading the Goals Worksheet:
Students should clearly articulate:
- Summer 2026 and 2027 plans: Concrete strategy for securing an internship, or if already secured, how they’ll maximize learning
- Development plans: Honest self-assessment on the 6 rubric dimensions, with targeted actions for improvement
- Underlying motivation: A genuine “why” connecting personal goals, career objectives, and effort required—not generic rationale
Using the Worksheet Throughout the Semester:
Reference the Goals Worksheet in each TA Mentoring Session:
- Session 1: “You said quantitative rigor was weak—let’s focus on that in today’s case”
- Session 2: “Your self-assessment said Structure was a 2. Looking at your feedback data, you’re now averaging 3.2. Great progress.”
- Session 3: “Did you achieve what you defined as success in Week 2?”
TA Mentoring Sessions
You will conduct 3 practice interviews with each student over the semester. These sessions serve as both skill development and assessment opportunities.
Practice Interview Format:
Each session combines behavioral and case components, mirroring the actual MBB interview format:
| Component | Time |
|---|---|
| Behavioral (1-2 questions) | 15-20 min |
| Case | 30-35 min |
| Feedback | 5-10 min |
| Total | ~60 min |
Session Focus:
| Session | Timing | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Session 1 | Weeks 4-5 | Baseline assessment—identify strengths and focus areas |
| Session 2 | Weeks 9-10 | Progress check—compare to baseline, calibrate feedback |
| Session 3 | Week 14 | Final evaluation—assess growth, prepare for real interviews |
Key Guidelines:
- Use a different behavioral story and different case each session
- Reference the Goals Worksheet: “You said X was weak—let’s see how you’ve improved”
- Complete the feedback form after each session so students can track their data
- Same TA for all 3 sessions allows you to observe growth arc and provide contextual feedback
Approach:
- High support + high expectations: Feedback should be timely, candid, and growth-oriented
- Build, don’t discourage: At least 80% of the conversation should focus on what the student is doing well
- Specific and actionable: “Your frameworks are getting more MECE. Next, focus on stating your hypothesis before diving into branches”
Your Load: 3 sessions × 6 students = 18 sessions over the semester (~1.2 hrs/week)
Resume Reviews
After class instruction on resumes, students produce a consulting-ready resume built around quantified scope and impact.
Your responsibilities:
- Resume v1 review: Provide detailed feedback on bullet quality, formatting, experience selection, and clarity
- Identify gaps: Note which sections need development (Education, Experience, Leadership, Skills)
- Resume v2 review: Grade based on polish, responsiveness to feedback, and quality of development plan
What to look for:
- Each bullet communicates scale, responsibility, and results
- Quantified scope (team size, budget, users) and quantified impact (% improvement, revenue, outcomes)
- Strong action verbs and leadership demonstration
- Error-free, professionally formatted
Networking Tracker
Students create a spreadsheet to track recruiting and networking progress.
Required components:
- Target firms list
- Networking activity log (who, what discussed, next steps)
- Planned outreach
Your responsibility:
- Confirm the tracker is effective and actively used
- Reference during feedback sessions to assess progress and identify next steps
- Grade initial submission on completeness; subsequent check-ins on completion basis
Practice Interview Support
A significant portion of student development comes from repeated practice interviews. Each practice interview includes both behavioral and case components, mirroring the actual MBB interview format. Students complete 8 practice interviews: 5 with pod peers and 3 with you.
Practice Interview Format
| Component | Time |
|---|---|
| Behavioral (1-2 questions) | 15-20 min |
| Case | 30-35 min |
| Feedback | 5-10 min |
| Total | ~60 min |
Running a Great Interview
Great interviewers create conditions where candidates perform at their best while still providing realistic practice. This section distills best practices from MBB, Big 4, and boutique firms.
Interviewer Mindset
| Do | Don’t |
|---|---|
| Create realistic interview conditions | Make it artificially easy or hard |
| Stay engaged and present throughout | Check your phone or appear distracted |
| Let silence work—candidates need thinking time | Fill every pause with hints |
| Remain neutral; your job is to evaluate, not coach mid-interview | React visibly to good or bad answers |
| Treat every candidate like they could be your future colleague | Condescend or intimidate |
Behavioral Section Checklist
Setup (1-2 minutes)
During the Response
Probing Questions
Use follow-ups to test depth and authenticity:
- “What was your specific role in that outcome?”
- “What would you do differently if you faced this again?”
- “How did that experience change how you approach similar situations?”
- “What was the hardest part for you personally?”
Red Flags to Note
- Can’t explain their personal contribution when pressed
- Story lacks specific details (names, numbers, timelines)
- Takes credit for team outcomes without acknowledging others
- Gets defensive when probed
Case Section Checklist
Prompt Delivery
Pacing the Case
| Phase | Your Role |
|---|---|
| Structure | Listen without interrupting; let them complete their framework |
| Exploration | Guide them through 2-3 branches; reveal data when asked |
| Analysis | Provide data clearly; give time for calculations |
| Synthesis | Push for a recommendation: “Based on what you’ve learned, what should the client do?” |
Data Reveals
- Release data in response to good questions, not hints
- Say “What would you want to know?” rather than “Here’s some data”
- If stuck, give one gentle redirect: “What else might drive profitability?”
- Don’t volunteer data they didn’t ask for
Pushing for Synthesis
With 5 minutes remaining, prompt for a recommendation:
- “We have a few minutes left. If you had to advise the CEO today, what would you recommend?”
- “Let’s say the client calls you tomorrow—what’s your answer?”
Red Flags to Note
- Generic framework not tailored to the problem
- Can’t do math or interpret what numbers mean
- Avoids taking a point of view (“it depends”)
- Doesn’t adapt structure as new information emerges
Feedback Delivery Framework
Structure (use this every time):
- Ask first: “How do you think that went? What felt strong? What felt harder?”
- Validate: Acknowledge their self-assessment before sharing yours
- Strengths (2-3 specific): “Your structure was MECE and tailored—that’s exactly right”
- Development areas (1-2 specific): “The one thing to work on: interpreting the numbers—you got the math right but didn’t say what it meant for the decision”
- One action: Give them exactly one thing to focus on for their next practice
Delivering Difficult Feedback
| Instead of… | Try… |
|---|---|
| “That was pretty weak” | “There’s room to develop here—let me show you what I mean” |
| “You need to do X” | “Strong candidates typically do X—here’s why it matters” |
| “That’s wrong” | “I’d push back on that assumption—what’s your evidence?” |
Calibration Mistakes to Avoid
- Halo effect: One strong moment doesn’t make everything strong
- Recency bias: Don’t over-weight the recommendation at the expense of the whole case
- Comparison drift: Score against the rubric, not against the last candidate
- Niceness inflation: A 3 means “solid”—reserve 4s for truly standout performance
Practice Interview Rubric
After each practice interview, the interviewer completes a feedback form. This creates a data trail students can use to track their improvement.
Behavioral Dimensions (3):
| Dimension | What to Evaluate |
|---|---|
| Impact & Ownership | Leadership shown, personal actions (“I” not “we”), quantified results |
| Teamwork & Collaboration | Working with others, influence, navigating conflict |
| Presence & Fit | Concise (~2 min), confident, authentic, likable |
Case Dimensions (3):
| Dimension | What to Evaluate |
|---|---|
| Structure & Approach | MECE framework, tailored to problem, prioritized |
| Analytical Rigor | Math setup, accuracy, “so what” interpretation |
| Hypothesis-Driven Recommendation | Clear POV, insight-led synthesis, practical and actionable |
Scoring Scale (4-point):
| Score | Label | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Not Yet | Significant gaps; needs foundational work |
| 2 | Developing | Shows potential but inconsistent; clear areas to improve |
| 3 | Solid | Meets expectations; ready for most interviews |
| 4 | Strong | Exceeds expectations; would stand out in an interview |
Behavioral Scoring Anchors
Impact & Ownership
- 1: Vague story, no clear results, says “we” throughout, can’t articulate personal contribution
- 2: Has a story but results aren’t quantified, unclear what they personally drove
- 3: Clear personal actions, quantified results, demonstrates leadership or initiative
- 4: Compelling ownership, impressive results with context/scale, clearly drove meaningful outcomes
Teamwork & Collaboration
- 1: Story doesn’t involve others, or throws teammates under the bus, no evidence of collaboration
- 2: Others mentioned but unclear how they worked together, surface-level teamwork
- 3: Clear collaboration, navigated different perspectives, elevated the team’s work
- 4: Sophisticated influence, resolved real conflict, made others better, shows inclusive leadership
Presence & Fit
- 1: Rambling (3+ min), nervous/robotic, hard to follow, wouldn’t want to staff on a team
- 2: Understandable but too long or too short, filler words, comes across as rehearsed
- 3: Concise (~2 min), confident, natural delivery, likable
- 4: Crisp, engaging, authentic, memorable—would want this person on my team
Case Scoring Anchors
Structure & Approach
- 1: No framework or completely generic, no prioritization
- 2: Has a framework but not tailored, missing MECE
- 3: Tailored MECE structure, logical prioritization
- 4: Insightful structure that unlocks the case, adapts as new info emerges
Analytical Rigor
- 1: Can’t set up the math, significant errors, no interpretation of results
- 2: Gets to an answer but messy setup, minor errors, or no “so what”
- 3: Clean setup, accurate math, interprets what the numbers mean for the decision
- 4: Efficient approach, creative shortcuts, surfaces insights others would miss
Hypothesis-Driven Recommendation
- 1: No recommendation, or wishy-washy “it depends,” no point of view
- 2: Has a recommendation but just summarizes analysis, no real insight
- 3: Clear POV with structured reasoning, acknowledges risks, actionable next steps
- 4: Sharp insight that reframes the problem, creative yet grounded, CEO would act on this
PARADE Framework for Behavioral Stories
Students use the PARADE framework to structure their behavioral stories:
| Element | Question | What “Good” Looks Like |
|---|---|---|
| Problem | What was the situation? | Specific context, stakes clear, sets up tension |
| Action | What did YOU do? | “I” not “we,” concrete actions, shows initiative |
| Result | What was the outcome? | Quantified impact, clear resolution, meaningful scale |
| Application | How does it relate to consulting? | Connects to skills firms value |
| Differentiation | What made your approach unique? | Shows judgment, creativity, values |
| Evidence | What proves this is true? | Specific details, numbers, names |
Session Preparation
Before each practice interview:
- Check how many practice interviews the student has completed
- Reference their Goals Worksheet—what are they focusing on?
- Establish a specific goal for this session
- Select a case and behavioral question that align with their development needs
- After the session, complete the feedback form so the data goes to their record
Firm Differences Disclaimer
While interview styles differ across firms, avoid over-indexing firm-specific nuances during the course. The goal is building a strong generalist foundation that transfers across MBB firms.
- McKinsey: More hypothesis-driven, expects a POV early
- BCG: More insight-focused, values creativity
- Bain: More practical/results-oriented
Use a broadly generalist style as the baseline. Firm-specific customization comes after mastery of fundamentals.
Group Project Support
Students complete four progressive consulting projects that build on each other.
| Project | Due | Scope | Team | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company Diagnostic | Week 8 | Outside-in analysis | Individual | 1-page analysis |
| Competitive Benchmark | Week 10 | Industry comparison | Individual | 3 slides |
| Value-Add Hypothesis | Week 12 | Opportunity identification | Pairs | 5 slides |
| Capstone Proposal | Week 14 | Full strategic proposal | Teams of 3 | 15-20 slides + presentation |
Your Role in Projects
For individual projects (P1, P2):
- Provide feedback on structure and analysis quality
- Help students identify gaps in their outside-in research
- Coach on slide design and executive communication
For team projects (P3, Capstone):
- Help teams structure their thinking and divide work effectively
- Facilitate healthy team dynamics and conflict resolution
- Coach on storyline development and presentation delivery
- Observe team coordination during capstone presentations
Project Coaching Tips
| Project | Focus Areas |
|---|---|
| Diagnostic | Problem definition, fact base quality, “so what” insights |
| Benchmark | Metric selection, visual presentation, strategic implications |
| Value-Add | Hypothesis clarity, MECE approach, quantified impact |
| Capstone | Storyline flow, executive summary, recommendation specificity, team coordination |
MCA Coordination
The course is designed to complement the Management Consulting Association. Students attend required MCA events to reinforce skill development and community engagement.
Your responsibility:
- Update student scores in Learning Suite based on event attendance submissions
- For students with extenuating circumstances (athletic conflicts, etc.), coordinate makeup assignments as needed
Summer Planning
Near the end of the semester, students submit a two-part summer plan.
Part 1: Recruiting Portfolio
- Resume, networking tracker, case logs, behavioral stories, reflections
- All recruiting materials developed during the semester
Part 2: Summer Action Plan
- Specific actions with defined timelines and expected outcomes
- Concrete casing strategy (number of cases, partners, schedule)
- Clear goals for the recruiting season
Your responsibility:
- Review the summer plan during final feedback session
- Pressure-test the plan, identify gaps, suggest refinements
- Grade final submission on organization, detail, and responsiveness to feedback
- Encourage students to establish an accountability mechanism (mentor check-ins, peer accountability partner)
Best Practices Summary
Do
- Maintain high support paired with high expectations
- Deliver feedback that is timely, specific, and actionable
- Focus 80% on what students are doing well
- Help students set clear goals before each case or assignment
- Reference The Consultant’s OS framework consistently
- Build confidence alongside competence
Don’t
- Over-index on firm-specific nuances early in the semester
- Pile on negative feedback when a student already knows they struggled
- Let feedback sessions become grading discussions
- Skip the goal-setting conversation before cases
- Assume students know what they need to work on
Resources
- Detailed grading rubrics: Available in Learning Suite
- Case library: Shared TA folder
- Framework templates: Course website Resources section
- Escalation: Contact Professor Murff for students who appear to be struggling significantly