US dataswitch to UK
Teaching Assistants, Postsecondary
teaching undergraduate-level courses, preparing or proctoring examinations and completing laboratory projects prior to assigning them to students so that any needed modifications can be made. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: evaluating and grading examinations, assignments or papers and recording grades. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, teaching undergraduate-level courses, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Assist faculty or other instructional staff in postsecondary institutions by performing instructional support activities, such as developing teaching materials, leading discussion groups, preparing and giving examinations, and grading examinations or papers. The job title says “teaching assistants” or “postsecondary”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: teaching undergraduate-level courses. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But teaching assistants, postsecondary is not one task. It is 20 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is teaching undergraduate-level courses, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 32%
- changing shape
- 4%
- staying human
- 64%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 36 out of 100 (30–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 20 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for teaching assistants, postsecondary is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
5 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Evaluating and grading examinations, assignments or papers and recording grades
This is reading one thing and writing another: examinations, assignments or papers and recording grades in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Evaluate and grade examinations, assignments, or papers, and record grades.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Marking exams and papers against a rubric and recording grades is exactly the kind of work AI now does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing teaching materials, such as syllabi, visual aids, answer keys, supplementary notes or course Web sites
This is reading one thing and writing another: materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop teaching materials, such as syllabi, visual aids, answer keys, supplementary notes, or course Web sites.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Syllabi, answer keys, slides and course websites are documents AI drafts to a standard most instructors would accept.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Returning assignments to students in accordance with established deadlines
This is reading one thing and writing another: assignments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Return assignments to students in accordance with established deadlines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Returning marked work is now mostly a click in a course system, so it is easy to automate.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Informing students of the procedures for completing and submitting class work
This is reading one thing and writing another: students of the procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inform students of the procedures for completing and submitting class work, such as lab reports.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Explaining how to submit coursework is standard written guidance that software can produce and deliver.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Notifying instructors of errors or problems with assignments
This is reading one thing and writing another: instructors of errors in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Notify instructors of errors or problems with assignments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Flagging errors or problems in assignments is a short written message, easy for software to draft.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
1 taskTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Ordering or obtaining materials needed for classes
The software now makes the first pass at materials, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Order or obtain materials needed for classes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Ordering and chasing class materials is straightforward administrative work software handles.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
14 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Teaching undergraduate-level courses
This work happens in the physical world: undergraduate-level courses, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Teach undergraduate-level courses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: AI can prepare and even deliver course content, but undergraduate teaching still mostly happens live in a room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Tutoring or mentoring students who need additional instruction
The value here is that a specific person handles students who need additional instruction and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Tutor or mentor students who need additional instruction.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: AI tutoring is genuinely capable, though struggling students often keep going because a real person is expecting them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Meeting with supervisors to discuss students' grades or to complete required grade-related paperwork
The ratings behind this row put supervisors well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Meet with supervisors to discuss students' grades or to complete required grade-related paperwork.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Grade paperwork is routine, but the meeting itself is a conversation with a supervisor about specific students.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Copying and distributing classroom materials
This work happens in the physical world: classroom materials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Copy and distribute classroom materials.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Copying and handing out materials is physical, though more of it moves online every year.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 10 tasks
Preparing or proctoring examinations
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: examinations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare or proctor examinations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Writing exams is document work AI helps with, but invigilating a room means being there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Arranging for supervisors to conduct teaching observations and provide feedback about teaching performance
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles supervisors and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Arrange for supervisors to conduct teaching observations and provide feedback about teaching performance.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Arranging observations is simple scheduling, but the feedback itself comes from someone watching you teach.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Attending lectures given by the supervising instructor
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: lectures given, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Attend lectures given by the supervising instructor.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: The value of sitting in on the lecture is being present to see how the instructor teaches it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Demonstrating use of laboratory equipment and enforcing laboratory rules
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: use of laboratory equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Demonstrate use of laboratory equipment and enforce laboratory rules.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Showing students how to use lab equipment and keeping them safe means being in the lab with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Leading discussion sections, tutorials or laboratory sections
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: discussion sections, tutorials or laboratory sections, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Lead discussion sections, tutorials, or laboratory sections.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running a discussion section or lab depends on reading the room and responding to students in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Scheduling and maintaining regular office hours to meet with students
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: regular office hours, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Schedule and maintain regular office hours to meet with students.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Office hours exist so students can turn up and talk to a person, which is the point of them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assisting faculty members or staff with student conferences
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: faculty members, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Assist faculty members or staff with student conferences.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supporting student conferences depends on being present with faculty and students as they talk.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing instructors with assistance in the use of audiovisual equipment
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: instructors, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Provide instructors with assistance in the use of audiovisual equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Helping an instructor with audiovisual kit means being in the room with the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Completing laboratory projects prior to assigning them to students so that any needed modifications can be made
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: laboratory projects prior, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Complete laboratory projects prior to assigning them to students so that any needed modifications can be made.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Working through a lab project before assigning it means actually doing the experiment at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing assistance to faculty members or staff with laboratory or field research
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: assistance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Provide assistance to faculty members or staff with laboratory or field research.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Helping with laboratory or field research is hands-on assistance where the work is happening.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $42,910a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 164,090in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: examinations, assignments or papers and recording grades in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: evaluating and grading examinations, assignments or papers and recording grades and developing teaching materials, such as syllabi. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where undergraduate-level courses get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Evaluating and grading examinations, assignments or papers and recording grades is going; teaching undergraduate-level courses is not.
So, given all that: 32% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 4% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 64% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 20 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (teaching undergraduate-level courses) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles teaching undergraduate-level courses, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to teaching assistants, postsecondary (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was chemistry teachers, postsecondary: only about 7% of its durable work is work you already do, the 2.2× pay gap is the market pricing a barrier and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 36/100 here, with only 32% of the task list in the top band, and “teach undergraduate-level courses” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Chemistry Teachers, Postsecondary
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already evaluate and grade examinations, assignments, or papers, and record grades, and their equivalent is to evaluate and grade students' class work, laboratory performance, assignments, and papers. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $93,250 against your $42,910 is 2.17× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 7% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route. And it is a narrow door: about 19,980 of those jobs against 164,090 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 12% as many seats.
Physics Teachers, Postsecondary
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already demonstrate use of laboratory equipment and enforce laboratory rules, and their equivalent is to maintain and repair laboratory equipment. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $100,310 against your $42,910 is 2.34× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 6% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route. And it is a narrow door: about 13,090 of those jobs against 164,090 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 8% as many seats.
Sociology Teachers, Postsecondary
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide assistance to faculty members or staff with laboratory or field research, and their equivalent is to supervise students' laboratory and field work. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 11,850 of those jobs against 164,090 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 7% as many seats.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 32% of its task weight, across 20 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Higher education teaching professionals is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Higher education teaching professionals. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for teaching assistants / postsecondary, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 32% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for teaching assistants / postsecondary. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for teaching assistants / postsecondary launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Teaching Assistants, Postsecondary?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 20 official task statements scored for Teaching Assistants, Postsecondary (United States, SOC 25-9044), 32% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 36 out of 100 (range 30–42, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Teaching Assistants, Postsecondary” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Evaluate and grade examinations, assignments, or papers, and record grades” (75/100, high); “Develop teaching materials, such as syllabi, visual aids, answer keys, supplementary notes, or course Web sites” (75/100, high); “Return assignments to students in accordance with established deadlines” (64/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Teaching Assistants, Postsecondary” stay human?
- About 64% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Provide assistance to faculty members or staff with laboratory or field research” (7/100, minimal); “Complete laboratory projects prior to assigning them to students so that any needed modifications can be made” (8/100, minimal); “Provide instructors with assistance in the use of audiovisual equipment” (9/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Teaching Assistants, Postsecondary” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 32% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 64% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Teaching Assistants, Postsecondary calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 20 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.