I heard that the gen chem is a new class for incoming freshmen. where can they find syllabi, should they know basic chem before taking the course, and which teachers (Tracy McGill, Leah Williams, Morgan Vaughn, Eilaf Egap, Michael Heaven, Jose Soria, and Vincent Conticello) are the best out of the ones teaching the course. Advice is appreciated!
Bump
@colga09 @potato133 : Yes, know some basic chemistry before taking as it helps (I imagine most instructors will continue the Aleks assessment/learning thing) for 150. The new second semester courses will be new to all but those who have learned or taken some sort of organic chemistry course in HS(however, not the same ochem content as the new course. They will just be more familiar with structural chemistry which gives an advantage). Since it is the first time either 150 or 202 is being taught, there are no syllabi. 150 will be close to 141 with some additional things such as mass spec. and some ochem and related content (stereochemistry and conformational analysis) towards the end. Most students will be unfamiliar with those portions, but that is what the teachers are for. And of course some instructors will be more rigorous than others but that will not be obvious even if provided a syllabus. Also, you want McGill, Vaughn, Williams (Vaughn and Williams may be helped by McGill who I think is great!) or Soria (but Soria will certainly be on the more rigorous side though he is a great teacher. Take if you want a very different more engaged experienced, or have an AP credit, want to take 150, but don’t want a course that will completely bore you. It seems that bored students with AP credit in classes or sections below them underperform). I think Conticello is being switched to regular ochem and Egap is meh, and Heaven is really easy and sounds good, but unfortunately I worry that he will not teach the new curriculum. I believe that out of convenience, he will teach the old 141 curriculum (Heaven is a physical chemist and will thus exclude the necessary ochem concepts that you need to see before 202) which will leave students very unprepared for 202. Basically, just take the lecturers even though they tend to teach more rigorously. You can get your training and then fish for an easier 202 instructor if you don’t like being challenged. It ensures that you are at positioned to have a shot at doing well.
@bernie12 How is the transition to Chem 150/202 being handled at Oxford?
@BiffBrown : Apparently…it is happening. Were there not some fairly recent hires (like 2-3 years old) in chemistry? I think they were made to handle that. Apparently Oxford saw the changes in political science and chemistry coming. Now whether they will get a 203 or 204 remains to be seen. in addition, let us be honest in recognizing that not even main will have an easy time doing this.
Thank you so much for the help. Just a couple more questions:
- Could you explain the Aleks Assessment thing just a little bit more?
- If I want to learn some of the basic chem before classes, what topics should I be familiar with, in your opinion?
- Out of McGill, Vaughn, and Williams, what are the pros and cons of each and could you rank them in terms of grading difficulty?
@colga09 :
- Do not know if it will continue to exist but all it is an assessment testing basic things in chem like stoichiometry, balancing, and things like that. Most will not get a 100 upon the first time taking so will have to use the Aleks system to re-learn (or learn) the topics they missed by doing problems and then retake the assessment until they get 100.
- Topics are on the website: http://chemistry.emory.edu/home/undergraduate/overview/ecp.html
Basically you just need to become okay with the ones for the assessment and even those are retaught, just at a more conceptual level.
- I am not going to rank them in grading difficulty, because you need to just do the work. It is gen. chem. No instructor is extreme or overly difficult in comparison to another (Emory instructors seem a little more challenging than some at peers, but this more so comes from the exam items they write. And scaling or curving adjusts for teachers writing tougher exams). Some may write easier exams yielding higher averages, but then usually those sections are told to increase cut-offs to ensure grades are similar to other sections. Or sometimes those instructors will write a difficult final to sort of crash grades at the end. Best to choose on experience and quality. They all have standard grading practices for the sciences at an elite/selective institution. They will somehow make their averages B-/B(usually more like a B -). You do the Aleks problems and take the exams which can at times have challenge to them. What you get on those is what you get and the way they mark exams is usually pretty fair and generous in the case of challenging questions (as in no instructor is overly nitpicky or sets unreasonable expectations for answers. If anything I have noticed that folks can get a generous amount of partial credit even on not too great responses to higher level questions). if averages are lower than they want (like 75), then they scale up. But again, gen. chem is under tight control for the overall average being a B-/B in each section.
McGill is the ideal section because she is actually experienced. The others are noobs or helpers and it is their first time teaching a class at Emory so I would not trust them. I am betting that McGill will essentially write their exams (one is part of the new curriculum development post-doc fellows and likely worked directly with McGill to develop the new course so I know McGill will have influence), so I would just take McGill if you do not have an AP credit. Otherwise, consider Soria (class will be more intellectually rigorous but grades will come out the same through his bonus point system). What you put into the course is what you get out, honestly. It is just gen. chem
I am basically classifying all 3 of those instructors as “McGill and Company”. They will likely have a much more structural and conceptual slant than most gen. chem courses which are mere plug and chug (other sections at Emory also have more structural and conceptual problems than normal, but they don’t do it as rigorously or as deliberately). This is a good thing if you want to learn and maybe plan to take ochem or biology in the future, but bad if you are mostly a plug and chug type of person that has trouble applying concepts. There will be a learning curve for sure (do not worry as you are among most students at even elite schools if this is the case. It is a very common problem in physics and chemistry courses because of how we were trained in HS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=863iYozllxE). But better then than in…say ochem when it will be a bit late. Work problems and learn the problem types as well as you can as she will put some plug and chug on her test. However, she chooses easier plug and chug problems than some others (like when Mulford is teaching or even Llewellyn), but her more structural and conceptual questions are more numerous and more challenging than others so strive for a deeper understanding or concepts that seem tough at first.
With some organic chemistry principles being taught in the new intro Chemistry 150 and 202, does this mean that the new organic chemistry sequence will include some concepts currently taught in biochemistry?
@BiffBrown : There isn’t really a new “organic sequence” though. 202 and 203 comprise ochem topics. And they will contain typical topics included in say 221/222. Whether or not there are bio applications depends on the instructor. 204 is the supposed class on macromolecules. But regardless you should not equate any of the new courses to old ones except maybe 150 which is most aligned with 141 I guess.