<p>This is interesting... Some of the complaints many of my friends had about the U of C's Chem program 10 years ago still seem to exist today:</p>
<p>Badchemistry</a> - The Chicago Maroon</p>
<p>Any thoughts from current U of C students? Is this undergrad writer just ranting?</p>
<p>Consistent with what I have heard from my kid, who entered college a Chemistry fan, and who no longer is.</p>
<p>This is a little scary, considering the writer wrote well and seems to be diligent. Could we get a second opinion from a chemistry student and a non-chemistry student?</p>
<p>When I was at U of C, Chemistry was pretty much the sole reason undergrads hated the pre-med requirements… I hope things have changed, but this article is a little worrying.</p>
<p>Cue7, am curious. What was your prospective major when you entered UChicago and what area did you really major in? Thanks.</p>
<p>I stayed the course pretty much - wanted to do something in humanities or social sciences, graduated with Poli Sci and a bunch of history courses under my belt. Absolutely loved it too - most of the disciplines (with chemistry perhaps as the exception) are outstanding for learning.</p>
<p>Thanks Cue7. My D (just entering, class of 2013) is interested in both political science and biological sciences. I am glad to hear that you enjoyed the Poli Sci.</p>
<p>Meh. I enjoyed O-Chem. Didn’t really care for Gen Chem. I’m a Bio major.</p>
<p>They have put some programs in place in the last year or two to help out those who are really struggling in those classes, but the only problem for me is that the professors are just kinda dull overall. <em>shrugs</em></p>
<p>An alumnus friend has been arguing with the chemistry department about its gen chem courses for over 30 years. From what I understand there is some serious discussion underway about finally making some changes.</p>
<p>After getting accepted at the U of C, I went and stayed with a friend the following weekend. We went to a Gen Chem class, and I am in AP Chem so they were covering the same material I was going over. And the specific topic they were going over I happened to have a test on the week before so I could actually follow along.
The professor explained it (galvanic cells) with great profficieny, he answered all questions, and except for a slight accent because he was from Russia, was a very good teacher. There is always a possibility that there will be bad teachers, but I certainly don’t believe that is the rule.</p>
<p>I’m also wondering if disillusionment about chemistry might be a general trend. I have a friend who is an extremely successful sciences major at an extremely prestigious, non-University of Chicago school, who got turned off by chemistry after also being a fan of it. Just the way the AP Calc whiz is not necessarily a good candidate for a math major (application versus theory), I wonder if the high school chemistry fan is not necessarily a good candidate for the chem major?</p>
<p>My State Flagship college experience is antediluvian, but even then Chemistry was considered a “filter” and by the time you started 2nd year OChem the original 450 premeds were down to about 100 (lost 150 every quarter, and 50 over the summer). Since Chicago’s reputation is not as a pre-professional powerhouse, could it be their philosophy of teaching Chemistry is different? Can’t tell from S because he doesn’t plan on taking any. His friend, high school Chemistry fan but not a premed or Chemistry major, has breezed thru 2 classes and thought they were OK, not taking any more, though.</p>
<p>If you go to the Maroon on-line, the posted article has elicited a number of comments, some agreeing but several disagreeing. Here is a sample of one of those comments that disagreed:</p>
<p>“I graduated just a few years ago and my experience was entirely different from the one given above. Personally, I found my chemistry classes to be very enjoyable; I looked forward to them each quarter. Moreover, my chemistry major friends did too. The thing about it is that we all took advantage of the opportunity to do research as undergraduate students. For this reason, it struck me that Andrew calls “raiding Searle” the best experience he had as a chemistry major. For undergraduates already involved in research, raiding Searle might not have been such a windfall.
A great strength of Chicago’s program is that undergraduates are invited to participate in real research. Nowhere else have I seen faculty members so strongly impassioned to provide research opportunities to undergraduates. Having a base of highly enthusiastic undergrads motivated the formation of Benzene when I was a third year.
One more thought… while two faculty members are singled-out for excellent teaching, I would like to add that I can still list my chemistry professors in the order I took their classes: Yu, Rawal, Mrksich (2 quarters), Hillhouse, Jordan, Mazziotti, Butler, Lee, Rice (optional graduate courses: Kozmin, Hopkins, Bosnich (2 quarters) and Jordan). These professors were all willing to meet with me during office hours (or after class) and treat my questions seriously. Naturally, these were best teachers I had as an undergraduate: How can one ask for more? And, I found no other department gave more. Therefore, I side with Mr. Bungum: learning chemistry must be an active pursuit. Likewise, learning at Chicago ought to be characterized by the active pursuit of knowledge. (Note the University’s motto.)”</p>
<p>My daughter is talking honors gen chem this year, and her experience generally confirms this comment about teachers being very open to questions and helping even first year students really learn and understand material.</p>