New lecturer for Freshman Orgo?

<p>I recall that during a tour of the chem facilities there were mentions of a new lecturer for the freshman organic chem class. I tried checking on OPUS and the only open section of Organic Chem remaining seems to be one taught by a "Fred Menger". (Browsing through past threads, there were mentions of the Freshman Orgo class being taught by Jose Soria.) Does anyone know if Menger is for-sure teaching the class or if I'm using OPUS incorrectly or something? I try to take Ratemyprofessor with a grain of salt but the discrepancy between the reviews for Menger and Soria are a bit off-putting. </p>

<p>Is there someone who has more info on this/knows where to get more info on this?</p>

<p>No, Dr. Davies is teaching frosh orgo. You must have had your settings on “only show open classes”. And yes, Soria is superior to Davies unfortunately. Maybe you may want to ask to overload into Jose’s (Soria, he likes to be called by his first name) sophomore orgo. class or even Dr. Weinschenk. They run their courses completely differently, but both are challenging and excellent choices. Yes, they do allow students w/AP credit to take the non-frosh sections.</p>

<p>Instead of ratemyprofessor, the better source for Emory professors is Class Comments on LearnLink (once you log-in to LL, go to College Advising => Class Comments and pick the subject). This is also where people advertise their used textbooks so you’ll have to search through the posts for a bit to fine the ones commenting on professors and their classes. And also take these with a grain of salt as well; some students may give good reviews simply because a professor grades easy or gives out a lot of As, while others ramble on about a potentially great professor simply because he/she got a less-than-stellar grade in the class.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info! I’ll try to contact Soria to see if I’ll be allowed into one of his classes. (Or Weinschenk’s.) Two quick questions: Who would you recommend more (as I hear they’re both great profs)? Would it be better to stick with Freshman Orgo with the other freshmen?</p>

<p>@collegestu816: The College Advising icon doesn’t show up on my LL desktop. I’ve heard of the Class Comments forum but for now I’ll have to take what ratemyprofessor gives me until they give incoming students access to it–Or am I using LL wrong? o.O (All the available posts seem to be from 2009-10)</p>

<p>It’s a tough choice. Do you like mainly lecture format and a lot of handholding/studyguide type learning or would you prefer more of a discussion-based/seminar type format where there are more in-class activities and less outside of lecture handholding? If the former, Weinschenk, if the latter Soria. Weinschenk is certainly more predictable when it comes to lecture and testing style, but to make up for the lack of predictability, Soria is more likely to teach you the advanced material in class, so that you aren’t blind-sided on the exams. Weinschenk will basically give you good grounding in the fundamentals in class, and some good practice/review material out of class, and you’ll have to extrapolate to get beyond a 65-70 on the exams (the notorious 2nd part of the exam where you have to apply and think critically about the material or else get no higher than a B on the exam). Soria takes it slow and starts off with easy exams and then, eventually all of the exam turns into Weinschenk’s harder problems. The only difference is that you were actually exposed to that intellectual rigor while in the classroom for Jose, so it is expected that everyone in Soria’s class performs decently on harder, more application based questions, whereas only A students in W’s class are actually expected to walk out of the class knowing how to apply. </p>

<p>Also, assess what sort of grading you like. Do you want an “invisible hand” to curve your grade up or would you rather know where you stand by “earning your curve?” Weinschenk is mostly an examination based course and Jose’s is exam intensive, but the in-class activities and participation can actually earn you points back on exams (Jose has a 5 point scale) and make sure you learn the material regardless of your ability to perform on the exam. He gives bonus points through various venues of class participation (volleyball matches, in-class problem solving competitions between say, females and males, bonus point quizzes with more difficult questions than normal quizzes, etc.).
After the observing both over the years, here’s what I have to say about the grading schemes.
Strengths of the curve: Better for the average college student who is more “exam to exam” focused. You don’t have to invest in the class outside of material specifically geared toward exam prep. Your grade just goes up by a certain amount.<br>
Strengths of bonus points: You control your destiny. You can prepare for class and earn points to go toward already solid, or less than stellar exam scores (except the last exam). It helps build a community of scholars unseen in most classes as you must often pair or group up w/classmates to earn them. You get an oppurtunity to show Jose that you know the material through other means than examinations.</p>

<p>Weaknesses of curve: Ceiling effect- If you are above average but not at the top because the class is extremely strong, you may still not get an A grade (for example, if you have an 84, in previous years it may be an A or A-, but in your year it may be only a B+ if 50 people are in the same bracket or higher. However, a person with a 75-79 when the average is 72-74 will end up with a B or maybe the same grade as you :frowning: ). Also, if you are average, it’s possible you might not get much out of the class as, to get a B you only need to know the basics. You enjoy Dr. W but never really learn how to apply the material.
Weaknesses of bonus points: More stressful if you don’t learn to study daily and fail to anticipate surprises. Inflated ego. This latter issue is very important. Students with weaker performances on exams have clouded judgement going into Jose’s final because they have an A or A- going into his quite difficult final. Instead of using the bonus points to buy time or even reviewing the bonus point activities to get better at material, they sit on their behinds thinking they’re in the clear because their peers earned the points for them. When the final comes, they are in shock and become slammed and their grade diminishes either 1 or 2 levels. Basically, bonus points lead to complacency among immature students. One has to use them as an opportunity, and also be honest with themselves.</p>

<p>Basically: Weinschenk is for exam takers (he goes far to prep you for his exams) and Jose is for those that value having the community of scholars and heavy investment in the totality of the course (Jose is old-school, cares about grades a little, but cares more about pushing the limits of what all students can get from the course by time they leave it. He also believes in closer student-teacher interaction than most professors though he seems somewhat intimidating at first). Needless to say, Weinschenk is usually preferred among pre-meds that want a challenge and Jose preferred by potential chem. majors and those legit interested in science (Jose teaches a lot of extra material and techniques that the standard intro. organic lecture would not trust undergrads with. He for example, teaches molecular modeling in class and is one of the few professors to heavily emphasize more complex material involving stereoelectronic effects and hydrogen bonding, etc.). Jose’s class, if taken both semesters prepares you well for graduate level courses (you will, in most cases have seen it before). Weinschenk’s does as well to some degree, but some of the important topics addressed in grad. levels or upperlevels are often lightly brushed over in his class or even watered down (Weinschenk often limits his lecture to basic theory because he runs on more a schedule. Jose just goes where the discussion between he and his students take him, and it sometimes results in interesting questions and revelations, that in another class, go unaddressed or brushed off. Also, Jose shows both theory and how things work in the lab. One of his common mottos is: “It’s just a model or proposal, it may not actually work in lab that well”) So I don’t know, to each his own. Either way, if you are a stereotypical Emory pre-health student, perhaps stay away from Jose (you have to be creative and he will not hold your hand but so much through the process). If not, and you want an intense total science package, go for it.</p>

<p>By the way, if they reject you, Jose still runs the 226/227 lab (highly recommended) and will be using it as a starting point to try to make you guys a community and will take advantage of the time in lab to perhaps teach you some of the cooler material he’ll teach sophomores (and that he has already taught former freshmen). If you want, u can take Davies and sit in on Jose sometimes. Anyway, take advantage of having him as a lab instructor. If you are confused about lecture material, you can ask him right there and he’ll engage you in discussion about it.</p>

<p>Wow! Thank you for such a fantastic, in-depth response! :slight_smile: Jose’s teaching style and mentality seem closer to what I’m looking for. (Though I’m tentatively pre-med, I’d rather get something extra out of my classes than another prereq to check off the list…) If I can’t get into his class, I will definitely sign up for the 226/227 lab and try to sit in on a few lectures!</p>

<p>Thank you so much for all the advice! :)</p>

<p>In no way, shape or form is Weinschenk’s class “another prereq to check off the list”. He is a fantastic professor who teaches way beyond “basic” organic and teaches you to understand the intricacies of reactions rather than simply memorizing reactions. Bernie took Soria and is a bit biased towards him. They are two of the best professors Emory has to offer. If you asked 100 people who to take and limited them to these to choices (many will not like either due to the difficulty of both classes) it would more than likely be 50:50, and not because either are an easier A. Their classes are not for those students whose primary goal is an A. You will be extremely pleased with either professor if learning is your primary focus.</p>

<p>I am biased, and I do agree with you. Neither one is a person to check off a list they are just different. If you go into Weinschenk’s thinking you’ll just check it off a list. Expect to be one of the only Cs, Ds, or Fs in the class.They give about the same amount of As and Bs. I think, in general, Soria is more likely to fail students if they don’t measure up. Weinschenk is much nicer and I don’t think the ratio is 50:50. I believe it is normally like 70:30 or 80:20 in favor of Weinschenk. Jose is much more unorthodox and has a reputation for being a tougher grading. Along with this, Weinschenk is more established because of him teaching 2 sections a year (sections of 90-100 at that. The man is amazing considering the size of those sections) This is why Weinschenk fills up first during enrollment. And Jose only fills up after he and say Gallivan and Liotta fill up. This year for example, people flocked to Jose after the others filled up and they were only left with him and Menger (bad), and many of those people actually want to be in Weinschenk’s class. So as far as I have observed, Weinschenk is certainly more popular for a myriad of reasons, but is not a person to scoff at. They just teach different things in a different way. Weinschenk is, IMHO, the better lecturer, but they are equal at actually teaching because, as we know, lecturing is not the only way to teach. If I were to compare them to two well-known profs. in the biology department, Weinschenk would be Dr. Spell and Soria would be Eisen. The former two make the lectures solid and somewhat entertaining and give lots of out of class review resources and the latter two lecture well, but go in more depth, rely on a heavier workload and leaves the student to do a lot of independent inquiry. Both styles require caution. I remember a friend in W’s thinking all of the out of class resources were almost overwhelming to the point where, if you get behind, you are indeed screwed. In Jose’s class I feel like you never know you’re behind until you start performing poorly in class discussions (as in not even able to make a viable guess at a question) or are unable to contribute to group sessions or various assignments in or out of class. </p>

<p>A key thing to remember in W’s class in particular, is that material is cumulative. Some, difficult problems, W will give you the answer to it by describing what to do. Normally the description involves terminology from another unit or semester. If you actually learn this material and not just learn it on an exam by exam basis, you can begin to do well on Weinschenk’s 2nd portion if you were not before (I had a friend who would run into this problem. He would see the problem, and make no attempt because the description did not ring a bell because it used old terminology). I think you are right Emorydeac. Whether or not you learn a lot versus just some in that class depends on how you approach your learning. The resources and back exams help a lot, but it seems to give people the inclination to just be learning for the exam. I had to snap my friend out of it (he would do well or understand the back exams and then have several problems on the part 2 of actual, screw him badly), and tell him to actually think deeper about the material, instead of trying to memorize the situation in the problem set or back exam (Soria students will try until they realize that problems like though are normally the easy ones on the test, then they have to shape up or flunk the exam. The difference between knowing how to apply is not merely the difference betweens As and Bs, it moreso determines whether or not you get any sort of B). I really hope this friend made an A- in the class, since the beginning of the semester, we’ve worked together to bring him on up the latter.</p>

<p>Sorry, I should probably learn how to phrase my words less ambiguously. The whole “check off a list” thing wasn’t meant in regards to Weinschenk in any way, but more of how I don’t intend to treat my classes like a to-do list. I gathered from the forums and RMP that they’re both fantastic profs, but the seminar/discussion-based style seems to help me more–plus those bonus points will give me a bit more room for error since I’ll have only a vague idea what to expect on my first “college test”. Soria hasn’t gotten back to me yet (but I sent the email fairly recently) but if I can’t get into his class, I’m definitely going to Weinschenk next.</p>

<p>Once again, thanks for all the great advice guys! :)</p>

<p>I think both may tell you to wait (till beginning of the year during add/drop/swap), especially Jose who doesn’t like a large class. He’s hoping that someone will drop his class. If someone does, then he may likely say yes. I think Weinschenk is the one willing to overload if need be because he doesn’t care as much about his class size. Either way, good luck, I think you’ll certainly get into one of them.</p>