<p>So I'm searching for classes through OPUS and it kind of seems like more people are signing up for McGill's classes than Mulford's...or maybe I'm just being weird and silly haha. But does anyone know if there is any reason for this? </p>
<p>Thanks in advance! :D</p>
<p>I couldn’t stand Mulford. I don’t want to bash someone on an internet forum, but I honestly feel there are better choices.</p>
<p>Couldn’t disagree more…my son is a rising senior from a small rural southern school with poor preparation in chemistry. He took Mulford for Chem 141/142 and loved chemistry and Dr Mulfords class and considered pursuing a PhD in chemistry due to his experience with Dr Mulford (although he is pursuing an MD/PhD in cancer biology). He received an A both semesters and is a chemistry major. He attended SI sessions and frequently attended office hours and enjoyed his general chemistry experience as well as learned his gen chemistry (scored a 13 on PS section of MCAT). He currently is an SI/chementor for Mulford. Mulford is an outstanding teacher and generally, along with Morkin, is known as an outstanding prof for gen chem. Take either of the two but my son preferred Mulford’s teaching style. Neither are easy, but you will learn gen chem (and thus do well on your MCAT if premed), and if you put in the work you will get a good grade.</p>
<p>Emorydeac: I think many students tend to have clashes w/his personality so while that isn’t an issue of teaching quality, it could effect people’s experience negatively. Students in general find Morkin (McGill) warmer in addition to being a good teach. Anyway, neither of the 3 chem teachers are bad (Weaver is pretty good too, just not as great as McGill and Mulford, but getting there and is definitely a pretty cool guy).</p>
<p>I guess…my son likes him as a person although he notes he can become irritated with students who ask questions which simply reflect a lack of preparation rather than a lack of understanding the material. He wrote my son an oustanding letter of recommendation for MD/PhD programs, and I really wouldn’t want students to think he would be a poor choice for a chem professsor. My son heard the same arguments and Mulford was his first choice for gen chem both semesters, and obviously, he has been pleased with his choice. To summarize, Mulford is a great choice for gen chem. He is an oustanding lecturer,and you will learn gen chem.</p>
<p>Bernie,
Who is McGill? Mulford and Morkin have always been the gen chem professors most desired by students.</p>
<p>I agree as well, I guess I can just see where some students are coming from. This is very similar to choosing between Soria and Weinschenk (this upcoming year is the first year in a while that this has happened). Weinschenk will be “nicer” in the traditional way (as in chill w/grades and helping people get a good grade. I would equate him to Morkin). Soria really likes interacting w/students and fostering personal development but is a tougher character in general (doesn’t move much from his standards. Will openly express disappointment if students fall behind or obviously don’t prepare and doesn’t mind putting an unprepared student on the spot as he knows all the names. More traditional teacher in standards, much lesser so in teaching style. Mostly resembles Mulford). But point is, many students tend to choose based upon personality and how “chill” someone is in addition to their ability and how much the prof. cares about the students’ grades (it’s like how corporations look out for the bottom line at the expense of “best practices”. If students expect to be mediocre and then pressure a professor more easily to raise grades through a certain means, while also having good, high level teaching, they will go there. The average people may not learn as much as they are supposed to, but…they are solidly well prepped and get decent grades. Average students are not guaranteed Bs in Mulford or Soria because they don’t curve whereas Morkin and W do. Given this, the former 2 may require more effort for an average student. On the other hands, A students will learn lots in any good prof’s. class). The issue is that Soria and Mulford can care less about you getting an A more so than demonstrating that you learned and enjoyed the material. They usually won’t empathize with students getting a B or C on their exams and in fact will think it’s perfectly fine due to the rigors of their course. They will not console grade grubbers and don’t react well to whining. They will discuss the material and a students’ lapses in understanding it, but not specifically how to get “X” grade. The 2 following questions would go over really badly with either of these professors: “Are you going to curve?” or “Am I guaranteed a B+ if I just do this?” whereas with McGill and W, they are more likely to negotiate or respond to grade based student unrest (W will make deals and McGill will unexpectedly scale). This is the type of information students are using to choose between 2 prized profs. Some students care less about these things and some care a lot.</p>
<p>Emory Deac: Morkin got married so her last name is McGill now.</p>
<p>Mulford. If you actually care and put in a lot of effort you can’t get worse than an A- and you will learn the ins and outs of chemistry.</p>
<p>Some people will care and will make less than an A- because they aren’t the greatest test takers, but I will say that B+ (or close, like a high B) should be more than manageable for those putting in a reasonable amount of effort. Anyway, you think you’ve learned the ins and outs of chemistry and then there was orgo. to tell you that: “You haven’t seen anything yet, nor do you know how it actually works” In addition, I question the efficacy of the gen. chem classes (even at a national level) when Weinschenk does his “draw the lewis structure CH3NO2” charade every year (normally first week) and only 1 of 90 students gets it correct (keep in mind, someone like W or S will have a significant portion of the A students as A students are more likely to be bold enough to take tougher profs. So a significant portion of A students fail that task). Maybe people learn a lot in the moment and forget it over summer. With that said, I don’t blame the professors at all. Weaver (what’s cool about Weaver is that he actually has the boldness to teach rate laws with calculus according to my roommate. But then again, he’s kind of a mathematician), McGill, and Mulford more than do their parts. You’ll learn at a high level in all 3. It’s your job to retain and be able to use the material in later courses (very important that you know structure aspects of gen. chem in organic chem and mathematical aspects of it in classes like NBB 301 and higher level chem. courses).</p>
<p>I’m not disagreeing with anything that was posted. But the question was “Why is McGill filling faster than Mulford’s classes?” And I still feel my answer (that it’s because he’s a bit … arrogant) is the reason.</p>
<p>Edit: I just read my answer again and I must’ve been half asleep when I wrote it because I didn’t say that part… just jumped to “don’t want to bash” from “I can’t stand” instead of saying he was a bit arrogant between the two sentences. My fault.</p>
<p>Yeah, I often hear the same thing about Mulford.</p>
<p>mulford’s classes fill up the quickest. i settled for morkin and did fine.</p>
<p>I took Mulford’s class first semester without a strong background in chemistry, and I didn’t do so well. I attended the SI sessions (chemmentors) and went to office hours to get extra help on concepts I didn’t fully understand; but I still struggled. (perhaps the transition to college learning curve)</p>
<p>I always felt that Prof.Mulford wanted to and enjoyed helping. He can come of as being mean to some students, especially if you never go to office hours and show up the day before the test with questions that indicate a lack of preparation of effort on your part. Also I felt Prof. Mulford is great in that he encourages curiosity in chemistry, rather then just teaching you a bunch of fact/process/etc. Because of this philosophy he has on teaching, he does often seem irritated if student solely focus on a back exams, or solely seem to be preparing for the exam rather then learning general chemistry. For example he will probably get irritated if a student comes to his office as asks if “x concept will be on the test.” BUT If you really want to learn general chemistry take him, I personally was “warned” by many upperclassmen to not take him second semester, however; I enjoyed him first semester (despite the grade) and felt more confident. I decided to take him second semester and, I did much better. Best of all I learn a lot of chemistry.</p>
<p>Glad you noticed that begoodperson: The reality is, a lot of professors probably think the same things about students who ask those types of questions or seem to care only about the exams, but he is more upfront about it. I would argue that Mulford, Morkin, and Weaver really want people to like and become curious about chemistry, but they aren’t tough enough on students to let them know this is the case (their exams are tough and they teach in a way encouraging curiousity, but the way they handle students is a little too soft to promote it actually taking place. Their classes kind of remain a “beat the exam” type mentality because they don’t actively discourage students from having that mindset). They’ll try to put on smiles all of the time probably to avoid students backlashing or complaining. Mulford is a bit more stern, and for good reason. It may negatively effect perceptions of some students who merely want to “beat the class”, but his attitude is kind of a deterrent for that sort of student and I think it’s for the best.</p>
<p>Does McGill (nee Morkin) curve? And how much typically if she does?</p>