<p>I'm taking these classes this fall. The required textbooks/materials listed in the course atlas are:</p>
<p>BIO 141/142
Biological Science-Customized Emory University Edition, 2nd Edition (2011)
Essentials of Genetics-Customized Emory University Edition, 2nd Edition (2011)
FreemanScott Mastering Biology Student Access Kit for Biological Science (CD-ROM)</p>
<p>CHEM 141/142
Zumdahl/Zumdahl - Chemistry - An Atoms First Approach</p>
<p>I have 3 editions of Biology by Neil A. Campbell and a copy of Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter and Change by Martin Silberberg from when my siblings went to Emory a few years back, and they used these books for these two classes. Is having the specific textbook necessary to do well in these courses? My brother suggested I use these books instead of what is required. It's a tempting idea because I used the Silberberg book for AP Chem this past year instead of the textbook the school gave to me to learn the material, and I did really well. The biggest problem I foresee right now is possible problem sets from the required textbooks. Thoughts? I'm just trying to cut down costs on books as much as possible, but will pay up if needed.</p>
<p>You need the chemistry book because, yes, the p-sets (Aleks) and suggested problems will be based upon that Zumdahl textbook (I mean, maybe you can borrow someone elses or challenge yourself and go to the library and see if it’s on reserve, check it out for the 2-3hrs, and sit their and complete suggested problems as you can’t take a book on reserve out of the library). Biology. You need the bio book package I think, because the old biology course did not incorporate the more advanced molecular genetics material, and the Klugg book in the bio book package does. Campbell, just as most intro. bio text books, is not going to cover bacterial genetics and linkage (double-cross overs and interference) in high detail. Not even Freeman does (which is why the Klugg accompanies the package). Also, please don’t tell me that you plan to retake chem 141 and you make like a 4 or 5 on the AP. Don’t waste your time and risk your grade (yes, it is possible and even likely, that even with a 4 or 5, you may not get an A grade). If you don’t want to do orgo. just skip it and do 142 and take chem 260 w/lab or something.</p>
<p>Alright, thank you for your input. A little unrelated, but can you tell me about how hard it is to get the class sections you want during freshman registration? My main priority is to schedule Passalaqua, who is only teaching one section of Bio 141 this fall and Mulford, who is teaching two sections of Chem 141. I do have several backup plans, but it would be nice to get my preferred schedule. I’m not an Emory scholar, so I don’t have first dibs on classes, but I will be have the maximum allowed AP credit. Does this affect what time I get to sign up for classes?</p>
<p>It’s not like Emory scholars make up a huge chunk of the incoming class. They don’t really have as much of an impact on the enrollment as you think. It affords an advantage if you have it, but they usually use it for GERs and upperlevel courses. If they are interested in science, they usually are not competing directly with all other science majors at the intro level as many of them use their AP credit to take like frosh orgo, or just skip bio 141 and do other things until 142 rolls around. Many will also be trying to compete with sophomores for physics 151 or advanced math courses. Also, many are social science majors anyway because Emory doesn’t want most of its scholars to be pre-med or anything so tries to select in a more balanced fashion. Basically, Emory Scholars are usually not high profile, but most are not your typical Emory student that takes standard level courses. Anyway, I would mainly bank on your AP credit which may afford an advantage (on one night at least). Passalauqua does fill up quickly, but if you are unfortunate, she can maybe put you on the waitlist and overload some people. If you don’t want to do all of that, just take Spell or Gilson. All 3 of these people have won Crystal Apple awards for teaching at some point (Spell has won it several times, Gilson won last year, Passalauqua won the year before). Mulford has 2 sections and is generally easy to get into (except the later one) as some may want to avoid him because they hear he is difficult (not really viewed as significantly more difficult than McGill, but certainly different). Also, if you don’t get Mulford at first, don’t lose hope. Chemistry has a tendency to underestimate its enrollment levels first semester and usually increases the number of seats at the last minute and usually people get who they want. Also, there is certainly nothing wrong with landing in McGill’s class…They are both excellent. Weaver is solid, but not as good as these two. Avoid whatever noob they’ll have teach the one currently labelled “staff”. They usually end up being researchers that blow at teaching it. They are often someone who ends up being thrown in at the last minute so really have no time to plan their class out. The latter on top of a lack of interest in teaching it often results in disaster. Other than choosing a noob, you can’t go wrong with chem. 4/5 of bio teachers are decent (avoid Escobar. Easy and a nice guy, but sucks).</p>
<p>So Passalaqua and Mulford are the best teachers to have for chem and bio? I just want a teacher who will actually teach me.</p>
<p>I’m not sure, they are both just really good. However, so are Gilson and Spell for bio and McGill and Weaver for chemistry. I mean you’ll learn from any of these people. Also I never knew what “who will actually teach me” means. After watching students go through some of the more rigorous courses, It seems to mean a variety of things from “A teacher that makes sure that I learn the material in depth and somewhat challenges me so that I know the material even after I leave the class” to “A professor that purely lectures/spoonfeeds me the content really well so that I can just take notes, review them, do as the prof. says, and do very well on the exam”. For example, a person meaning the latter would not want Passalaucqua because she does case based learning in class which requires effort on the students’ part to understand, interpret the case, and answer accompanying questions within their team. Students meaning the latter often don’t like any sort of active learning methods (even getting called to address something in class). People like this tend to claim things like this person “doesn’t teach” because they are having to complete exercises in class to learn or check understanding of material instead of simply sitting and listening and trying (more like pretending) to absorb (they would only find clickers as acceptable active learning methods). </p>
<p>I mean, which do you think you are? Are you open to different methods or teaching or do you prefer pure lecture (Passalaucqua usually does a lecture 1 day and a case on the other)? I think you’ll a lot from the way Passalaucqua does it, but doing case studies sometimes scares students because it isn’t the way they are used to learning biology (and it also holds you directly accountable for the readings and what you were supposed to be studying in front of your peers, so it isn’t the best if you just plan to start cramming right before the test or quizzes). If you want pure lecture, maybe Spell or Gilson is up your alley. They’ll try different methods sometimes, but often they make you do them out of class (like if either does a case, at least part of it, if not most will be completed outside of class). </p>
<p>As for Chem, Mulford is for if you want learn stuff mathematically (as in he stresses more concepts that often can be elucidated through a math based process) and McGill who I think is equally good, is more conceptually focused. She’ll try to make you apply the knowledge to some different situations and ask you to explain certain trends in the context of a larger problem and she prepares you to do so because she interacts more with students in class to ensure that they actually understand what she is talking about at a conceptual level. In Mulford’s, he mainly just lectures at you in a high quality fashion (he’ll do demos and stuff, in fact the big 3 all do them: Big 3 being Mulford, Weaver, and McGill). Since he isn’t testing concepts in a more nuanced way, you just have to work hard to keep up and work lots of problems. It seems his class is more about recognizing and knowing the problem types and being able to do them kind of fast as, even though he gives evening tests, they are still quite long. One class requires more of an “algorhythmic” approach (Mulford) and one requires an deeper conceptual understanding. Theoretically, McGill’s class would be more friendly to those expecting a little prep for organic chemistry (she probably teaches the way she does because she actually has a Ph.D in organic chemistry), especially if one wants to take high quality options like Weinschenk. However, Mulford is also good and rigorous enough to build the work ethic required for you to succeed in a higher level chem. course. It all depends on what abilities you would like to enhance. If you are already decent at math and algorhythmic approaches to learning science so far, then I would honestly try to get the best professor using a more conceptual approach to build an ability to really “think” about the material (Passalaucqua does this for biology and McGill for chemistry). You’ll have to do it on the MCAT or any science entrance exam for grad. school anyway.</p>