<p>Ok, so basically..I took 14a fall with lavelle and am takin 14b this winter with lavelle..here are my future plans for chem</p>
<p>this spring: chem 14c
fall 2010: chem 14bl
winter 2010: chem 14d<br>
spring 2010: chem 14cl</p>
<p>is this a good plan?? I don't want to take pang for 14bl next quarter i heard he is terrible..Also would taking chem 14d, 2 quarters after taking chem 14c be bad?Should I take Chem 14BL (with Russell) and Chem14D in the same quarter (fall) next year,or is that to difficult?? Please help.. I don't know what to do!!!</p>
<p>I like Pang… so far. People that say that he is terrible probably did bad on the midterm and didn’t really study for it properly… probably. Just don’t copy labs and think for yourself.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, Pang goes really fast (according to friends), while Skibo goes really slow (she never finishes on time, which is rather annoying when you have lab that same day -_-). </p>
<p>Maybe someday if I could actually wake up on a Thursday, I’ll show up to his lecture just to see how he is. So far though, I think Skibo’s lecture aren’t really useful. I think the only time I was actually interested was when she was talking about STPP.</p>
<p>The thing about the midterm is that it was more mathematically / calculation based than actual “explaining” concepts, despite what the study guide handout said, so I wouldn’t be too surprise people messed up the midterm. I was a little lucky that I saw a previous exam of Pang incidentally the day before…</p>
<p>I bumped into a friend who’s taking Pang and it seems like his lectures are more informative, but his tests suck. Skibo’s lectures suck, but her tests are easier.</p>
<p>Solution: enroll in Skibo’s class, go to Pang’s lecture. ;D</p>
<p>It’s what I’m doing. Or rather, I’m going to both lectures. From my perspective, it seems that Skibo’s lecture isn’t all that great. We print her lecture outlines for that week, and just fill in the blank. This isn’t really conducive to listening and paying attention to the lectures, because you’re busy jotting down all the things that are missing from her printout. </p>
<p>Pang’s lecture, while he talks really fast, is better because you can actually pay attention to what he’s saying. There’s seldom stuff you have to write down, but not on the level of Skibo’s. I can’t really comment and compare the midterms, as I haven’t seen Pang’s midterms, although I would really like to. Apparently there are old exams of his somewhere to look at?</p>
<p>To sum it up, I think I learn more about the lab going to Pang’s lectures than Skibo’s. I’m also not sure what people hate about him, since he seems like a pretty cool guy. But, I think as long as you do the labs you’ll do fine in either class. There’s really not that much to fear from Pang, unless his midterms really are on steroids or something.</p>
<p>Last year my friend said that Pang’s 20L tests were all conceptual with absolutely no math involved. I saw his 2007 midterm and it was 90% math. He is probably trying to make his tests as unpredictable as possible so don’t relay on his “study guide” unless if you have the other professor. I took 20L in W09 with a different professor and her midterm was all math, while her final was pretty balanced between math and conceptual questions.</p>
<p>Damn test bank doesn’t have any past 20L midterms for Pang. Ah well, this time it was pure calculation plus a set of questions about Beer’s Law.</p>
<p>Stare at graph, stare at wavelength spectrum. Figure which line belongs to which wavelength. Approximations can be a bit arbitrary, I was off by 5 nm and got 0 points for a few questions. Not my fault my brain pops 640 nm instead of 635 nm, hell, I drew a vertical line straight down from the graph.</p>