<p>Hey so I plan on talking Chem 141 in the fall. I want to be a NBB (pre-med) major. Which professor prepares you the best for orgo? Is it manageable to get an A in the course?</p>
<p>Also, when is it best to take the lab? On the same day as a lecture or a separate day?</p>
<p>Thanks so much in advance!</p>
<p>Morkin, even though gen. chem is by and large unrelated to orgo (some could take orgo. w/no gen. chem.) I say Morkin because she generally emphasizes Lewis Structures in more depth and introduces simple mechanisms/arrow-formalisms, which are really important in orgo. Plus she’s a better lecture. And it’s just gen. chem, so getting an A is very manageable.</p>
<p>If you ask Morkin chem students they will answer Morkin. If you ask Mulford chem students they will answer Mulford. Orgo is really minimally related to gen chem. To provide a counterpoint to bernie, Mulford is extremely accessible to students (even beyond office hours) and most students would tell you he is “nicer”. Both are outstanding professors, and you will be happy with either professor.</p>
<p>They’re both good. I thought both were accessible. Generally both participate in the chemory meetings. And you have the extra perk of possibly running into Morkin at Clairmont (or in general), because she lives there. And when you run into her and you wanna talk, she actually stops. I was just saying that many find her to be a more consistent lecturer (people have switched from one to another, seems that people switching from Mulford or Weaver to Morkin generally like it a little more even though it’s a little bit harder. However, some who may find Morkin too hard may like Weaver and Mulford better. But when people like you despite the fact you are difficult, you know you’re good), though they are both pretty good. Most of the gen. chem. profs. are pretty good. I still kind of stand by what I said about prep. for orgo. as minimal as it maybe. Morkin seems to emphasize (or at least test) a lot more of the qualitative concepts which are somewhat difficult to understand, whereas a person like Weaver is quantitative, and Mulford falls in between (and seems to give the most straight-forward exams IMO, this isn’t bad though, I guess). If you can really learn those quantitative subjects that Morkin learned, many would be okay in Orgo. for about 1 exam’s worth of material (maybe w/exception of Weinschenk’s class, even then, they don’t have an edge). I think one problem though, is that students forget this info. for w/e reason and barely know how to treat lewis structures once they get to orgo. Given that teaching it in gen. chem seems more or less a waste of time in that context. Gen. chem isn’t really but conducive to legit learning, and even if so, it tends to be the more quantitative material that sticks for a lot of people, which may be why so many people struggle in orgo (they can’t remember some formula, and pull out a calculator, they normally have to think kind of deeply about why things work even in a moderate-easy orgo. prof’s. class).</p>
<p>I meant qualitative w/Morkin, sorry. “If you could learn the more qualitative material taught by Morkin…” is what I meant to put. And with Weinschenk, I mean “do” have an edge if they learn it)</p>
<p>im not that good at chemistry but im not that bad either. im like a 3 if the scale was 1 to 5. i dont like the calculations/math but i do ok with logic. acid and base was not a good chapter in ap chem. which one do you think will be better for me? also, should i take bio with chem, and how many courses do most people take first semester?</p>
<p>They generally take 4. Morkin is probably better for you then. You can if you are okay w/bio. Most people do fine while taking both.</p>
<p>If you want to REALLY know organic chemistry, I heartily recommend Dr. Weinschenk for CHEM221 and CHEM222. If you want an easy A, I probably would go with Dr. Gallivan</p>
<p>imperviousOne: No one is talking about 221/222 lol. The OP is taking gen. chem (as in chem 141/142) and is asking about who will be best for 141/142 in the context of prepping for orgo. Also, yes, while I think Gallivan’s class was relatively easy compared to Weinschenk’s. It probably ended up being harder than Blakey or McDonald last year (The test were much shorter, w/only a few high stakes questions). Also, it was easy for those who really wanted to understand it. Gallivan had the lowest test averages. He had to implement a much larger curve than the one done in Weinschenk’s class to come out w/the same average, so I would not advise taking Gallivan for an easy A. You’re honestly better off going to Weinschenk if you want at least a B+. They clearly learn more and do better on the exams. Part of the problem w/Gallivan’s class is that there was a “Well at least it’s not Weinschenk’s class” mentality that caused people to be surprised when the exams were a little harder than expected. Despite a poor first exam, they still didn’t want to do the work. Basically, it was great for students intending on doing the work to get the A because a majority of the students did little to no work at all resulting in a curve that automatically shot those in or around an 80 close to an A. Weinschenk is the best bet for your grade and learning. Admittedly, the competition at the top of Weinschenk’s class is generally much more stiff because more people are performing better in W’s class than Gallivan’s. Either way, both Gallivan and Weinschenk are good lecturers, but Gallivan is probably too busy to cover material in as much depth as W. (so busy w/research and speaking engagements that he cannot dedicate the extra time to help students grasp more difficult material like teachers such as W. and Soria).</p>