I was told that Jackson is the worse lecturer but has easier exams. Is this true or is Eichman better in every way (ie lecturing, easier exams, etc)
I can’t speak to Eichman since I didn’t have him (I don’t think anyone has had both and can directly compare), but I liked Jackson a lot. Her tests were hard but I thought she gave really good and well organized lectures.
Honestly, people get so worked up with the comparisons between professors and who is best, and it is all pretty much made up BS that’s basically hearsay. I would say just take the one that lets you take other classes you want.
Biochemistry is a mix of biology and organic chemistry. As long as you have a solid background in organic Chemistry, you shouldn’t have any problem with the professors.
@ThatFluteGuy : At most schools it actually isn’t. I don’t consider “memorizing the structures of organic compounds in metabolic pathways” or “memorize the exact chemical transformation that occurs when this co-factor is in the enzyme” organic chemistry. Real organic chemistry (even a real organic chemistry course) is much more about applying and explaining things not “filling in the blanks” or regurgitating back structures and pathway components. Without that it is merely gen. chem with organic structures as the emphasis. Most schools focus more on biology and memorization oriented biology at that. Can understanding organic potentially help in some classes? Sure, but in memorization intensive ones, it can perhaps hurt. And sadly, what fdgjfg says about professor differences is often right, especially when it comes to biochemistry courses. Seems most teachers teach the exact same way, a content oriented, almost regurgitation based course with some applications stuck into the mix. The only difference will likely be how much they make students memorize for the exam (as in, how nitpicky are they in their questioning, basic facts and understanding or clinical details of every pathway).