Well, let me ask you: Why would we assume TDD would improve code quality or development time? If, at the end of the day, the result is the same volume of test

Well, let me ask you: Why would we assume TDD would improve code quality or development time? If, at the end of the day, the result is the same volume of tests and the same level of overall coverage, the order of activity would seem to make no difference. What would lead you to believe otherwise? The real flaw in both methodologies is that it's the developer checking their own work. I'd make the claim that if you really wanted to do it "right", you'd have a specification, one developer writing tests to the specification, and a different developer writing the code to make the tests pass. Of course, that's probably not workable in practice... make for an interesting experiment, though (and yes, I'm too lazy to search Google, only to discover someone else already came up with the idea).