<p>Hello:</p>
<p>I was wondering if someone with direct experience with the Freshman Bio courses at UR can comment on the actual (practical) difference between Bio110 and Bio112. It looks like the basic course material is the same but that Bio112 goes into more depth on research related topics including reading/evaluating original journal articles. My experience is that the value of such added material can vary tremendously depending on the organization of the course and the instructor and can be either extremely interesting and worthwhile or just a lot of extra work. I would be very interested and grateful to know what people think about their relative difficulty and if they feel that the added material in Bio112 is "worth it". This is particularly relevant right now with the pre-registration deadline coming up in a week.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>I have the same question but I am leaning more towards Bio 112 for a few reasons. Bio112 is taught by Professor Platt who is highly rated and liked a lot by students on RMP and on the schools own course evaluation website. Bio110 is taught by Professor Olek who seems to be disliked by students due to his lack of organization and teaching methods. From what I gathered people have said that Bio112 is actually easier because of this. Although I am not 100% certain of this and would love some feedback from people on which class to take. I am currently enrolled in both classes atm until I make the same decision.</p>
<p>D2 had Dr. Platt for Bio 112. She enjoyed the class, and is looking forward to having Dr. Platt again for Biochem (which is his research field).</p>
<p>Also, though D2 liked Platt, he did tend tend to go off onto tangents during lectures. So you end up not always getting the readings covered during lecture. Exams were hard with questions taken from assigned readings not discussed in class as well as lecture material. Can’t remember now if the curve was generous or not. </p>
<p>As for extra work in 112–there definitely is more expected. IIRC, there were additional class readings and one (possibly two) critical book (yes, book–not article) analysis type papers, in addition to the three midterms + final. </p>
<p>And one thing you should know. Platt always schedules a midterm the Wednesday before Thanksgiving so don’t plan on leaving campus early for the holiday.</p>
<p>One of the reasons why some people say Bio 112 easier is because nearly everyone in the class has had AP Bio.</p>
<p>As for it being “worth it”–it depends on why you’re taking the class and what you hope to get out of it.</p>
<p>redsoxfan4: I am very disturbed by this, however, I have read many similar comments, including, he is just there to weed out pre-meds, so I think your opinion/comments are probably accurate.
It is hard to believe that the department and administration are not aware of this. What is being done about it? This is not why we pay $55,000/yr. </p>
<p>McConklin, could you please look into this for us and respond?</p>
<p>^^^ That statement reeks of entitlement.</p>
<p>All schools have “weeder” classes–esp for pre-meds. Intro Bio and Gen Chem serve this function at nearly all schools. (So does Orgo…) </p>
<p>Modern Physics is a near universal weeder for physics and engineering students everywhere.</p>
<p>I don’t why you’re so surprised by the idea. Do you really think that just because you’re going to a private (and expensive) school that you’re entitled to easy A’s? Perfect teachers? </p>
<p>Remember, UR is a research university–which means that professors (esp. science and engineering profs) are hired and promoted and tenured for their ability to bringing in the grants, not just for their teaching. For many research focused profs, teaching may be secondary to the lab. In fact, it’s a pretty common attitude. </p>
<p>At all schools, there is a winnowing process that all pre-meds (or engineers, or physicists, or chemists, or economists) undergo. </p>
<p>At many schools, freshmen identifying themselves as pre-meds constitute between 30-50% of the entering class. (At UR, it’s more than 1/3 of all entering freshmen.) Way fewer than that ever end up applying to medical school (at UR, it’s under 100/year) and even fewer are accepted into medical schools.</p>
<p>If you are serious about medical school or graduate school–get used to the idea of winnowing. It’s a fact of life.</p>
<p>^^^couldn’t have said it better myself. except i just want to add that RMP is obviously attractive more to ****ed off students than those who did well in the class. there are good reviews for him too, so that class isn’t super hard or anything.</p>
<p>My perspective is somewhat different. </p>
<p>First, it’s not that some classes or professors intend to “weed” out students but that the demands of the class are different from the students’ expectations, abilities and levels of preparation. Kids come to college from high schools all over and it isn’t until college that one can see how well one is prepared versus others. Add in that many kids may, for example, want to be a doctor but aren’t naturally strong at some of the sciences. </p>
<p>Second, teachers not only vary in teaching ability but the material varies in how easily it can be taught. Both these factors are more important than the teacher’s interest in teaching. The impact is, IMHO, magnified in the sciences because those classes - particularly the intro levels - are populated by kids with a wide variance in ability and preparation. A professor in sciences speaks with a mind that has deeply internalized an entire language and a system of relations that are unfamiliar to most students. These are hard to convey in plain English, even for a gifted teacher and not all teachers are gifted at teaching. Some of us have experienced a humanities teacher who thinks in jargon. That’s hard to understand and that might be about something easy to access, like a 19th century novel. Now try to teach biology or chemistry at an introductory level when your mind is years past that and you can’t think like a kid who doesn’t have more than a clue about what this all means.</p>
<p>Consider for example that physics can be very hard because it not only involves math but requires translating words into a recognizable physic situation and then into the correct equations and some people - most people by far - aren’t good at some of those steps. In many countries, physics problems are taught by rote but in the US physics students are expected to figure out what the problem actually says and that gets very difficult very fast. That approach is not easy to teach. (I sometimes feel we should incorporate more rote because those students learn the math very well.)</p>
<p>WayOutWestMom: “That statement reeks of entitlement” … Definitely not intended!</p>
<p>I appreciate your comments, esp. since past posts show that you have a wealth of knowledge on this site, and for the most part, I agree. I never expected my classes to be easy, but that is not what I am looking for anyway. </p>
<p>“For many research focused profs, teaching may be secondary to the lab. In fact, it’s a pretty common attitude.”<br>
I am surprised at this comment. I guess I expected more. I thought I would be be taking classes from teachers who loved to teach …what a crazy concept, but then again I have a lot to learn since this will be my first college experience at age 18.</p>
<p>I am also trying to avoid teachers with a lot of negative comments, such as “students dislike this teacher because of lack of organization and teaching methods” and the other neg. comments that I have read, if possible, wouldn’t anyone? I would also expect if there was a real problem with a teacher, that it would be addressed.
I am glad to hear from Sharath192: “there are good reviews for him too”
I guess I’ll see for myself …</p>
<p>I’m married (or was–DH passed away a few years ago) to a science professor at a research uni. I have many friends and acquaintances who are professors at any number of research oriented universities in the US.</p>
<p>No, research professors are professors because they love to do research and they want the academic freedom that working at a university affords them. They’re not there because they love to teach.</p>
<p>(If you want to be a teacher, you take a position at a LAC where teaching is primary and research is secondary.)</p>
<p>Many research oriented profs look at teaching as just another part of the job description–although many do take great pride in being a good lecturer. But it’s publication, funding and your lab’s productivity that get you tenure, not your teaching ability. </p>
<p>RMP is a terrible measure of a teacher’s skill. Everybody and their sock puppet can post to it. Students who do well tend not to post there at all.</p>
<p>And teaching methods vary alot. As do learning styles. What seems like chaos to one person may be ‘organic’ to another.</p>
<p>And in Into Bio, there is a disparity in preparation between the students in 110 and 112–with 112 students generally having a stronger, deeper background in the subject before coming into the class.</p>
<p>Lergnom–</p>
<p>LOL! About the physics student example. D1 b*tched endlessly about the the advantages that foreign students have in the physics GREs. Basically, in most foreign countries, the students spend 4 years doing but nothing plug-in problem after plug-in problem, kinda like an intense prep for the GRE. While D1 said she was expected to derive from first principles how to solve the problem–even if she didn’t get the math or solution right. </p>
<p>(But, hey, she can derive almost anything from first principles now. Made p-chem way easy. She never had to used a cheat sheet during exams. And quantum mechanical modeling of cognition…you can’t do that with rote skills.)</p>
<p>Some professors go to LAC’s because they want to teach but many end up there because they couldn’t get tenure at a university. It’s never easy to get tenure and the competition at the university level requires more publication, more research and more of a future path that can generate more publication, more research grants, etc. </p>
<p>Another truth is that many professors don’t really enjoy teaching big survey courses. In any field. I don’t know how UR assigns that or whether these particular Bio and Chem profs want that obligation or not. And my experience as an Ivy undergrad way back when is that the senior professors who chose to teach varied unbelievably in teaching ability. I sometimes think they taught the intro courses because those required the least preparation, the least mental work and had the most TA’s to do the grading. I still have nightmares about my second semester, mandatory intro chem teacher. He would write in one spot and then erase as he went before people could see what he wrote - because he stood in front of it in his motorcycle leathers - despite there being the 3 boards that rise up. </p>
<p>One good thing about UR is that for a university they have a fairly lenient process and lengthy time period for checking out courses. It doesn’t take long to figure which ones are dogs (to you, if not to others) and you have time to get out.</p>
<p>I was trying to be polite in not mentioning that profs end up at LACs and non-graduate degree granting programs because they can’t manage the ‘publish or perish’ imperative at research unis. There are proffies that do go to LACs because they want to teach. I know a couple, including one who has retired from active research to write textbooks. (BTW, she doesn’t rake in the $$$ doing that, despite the cost of the texts themselves.)</p>
<p>Actually, most of the research profs I know prefer to teach grad courses because it’s closer to what they actually do for living. Very few like to teach intro and survey courses–even with a grader-- because those require alot of prep, the enrollments are big and the students not terribly interesting, and the topics themselves aren’t terribly interesting. At some unis, being assigned to teach intro and/or survey courses can be a form of punishment. Or so I’ve heard. (Not saying this is the case at UR…)</p>
<p>Besides, once a prof is tenured, there is very little the administration can do to force any professor to improve his/her teaching. </p>
<p>As for who teaches what–that is a subject fraught with all sorts of intra-departmental politics.</p>
<p>And seriously, teaching well take alot time, effort and skill. No one starts out being a good teacher. (Been there, done that. I was awful my first 2-3 years in the classroom until I started to figure out classroom management skills. Class management has everything to do with teaching and nothing at all to do with your knowledge of your subject.) It takes dedication and practice and time and a willingness to try all sorts of new and different things. And science and engineering PhDs are at a disadvantage–they RA in grad school and often have zero teaching experience when they are hired by a uni. </p>
<p>There are tons of simply brilliant individuals who are simply miserable teachers no matter what.</p>
<p>I haven’t taken Bio 112, but I had Bio 110, and I absolutely hated it. I’m sure Olek is a nice man and everything, but his teaching methods were just awful. He was disorganized, and my TA basically had to reteach everything to us during each recitation. I didn’t feel like I learned anything to be honest. During one of the lectures, he was telling us how exercise is bad for us because of “oxygen toxicity.” I couldn’t tell if it was a joke or not, but anyway, the point is: Take Bio 112, instead. You’ll be glad you did.</p>
<p>Thank you so much ahoang2! I was on the fence but direct testimony from a recent student is enough to convince me to take bio112.</p>
<p>Oxygen toxicity is very real. Oxygen is a very powerful oxidizing agent and a poison, and is toxic to cells. Too much O2 in the bloodstream can cause blindness, CNS damage and pulmonary collapse.</p>
<p>Does Bio112 require a workshop? If you register for 112 then try to choose a workshop you get the message that you need to register for a 110 lecture course.
Thanks</p>
<p>If anyone says “oxygen toxicity,” think scuba diving. You can get poisoned by too much nitrogen or too much oxygen while diving.</p>
<p>Or very high altitude flying. </p>
<p>Or the early Mercury and Gemini missions. (Which used a 100% pressurized oxygen environment inside the space capsules.)</p>
<p>Or partial pressure oxygen therapy for premies.</p>
<p>Or burn patients who spend time in hyperbaric pressure chambers.</p>
<p>I work at a research lab which specializes in pulmonary research and where the first high altitude pressure suits/masks for pilots were developed. We have lots and lots in the library about oxygen toxicity.</p>
<p>Although oxygen toxicity is real, I don’t think Professor Olek should have even proposed that exercise is bad for you. That was just an odd move on his part, but I understand the dangers of oxygen toxicity.</p>
<p>Interesting conversation.</p>
<p>To those dismissing a resource as valuable as RMP - you cannot be serious…
It does NOT take a genius to glance over ratings on RMP and separate the losers who failed, the students who actually care, and the professors who are rated #1 due to the hotness factor. To be quite frank and blunt, if you cannot make said distinctions - you are seriously lacking in the common sense department. Students who can discern the good from the bad are able to match their interests and learning styles to professors who will cater to their educational aspirations. RMP is the only true and free global system of its kind. Your dismissal of the system and presumed incompetence of those who use it is flat out insulting.</p>
<p>On a side note, those oxygen masks are pretty fun 
I used to breathe in 100% O2 quite often before HA jumps and the feeling of pure oxygen in your lungs is invigorating.</p>