<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 
). 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>
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>